User talk:Jtir

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, Jtir, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is one of the world's fastest growing internet sites. We aim to build the biggest and most comprehensive encyclopaedia in the world! To date we have over four million articles in a host of languages. The English language Wikipedia alone has 1,387,477 articles! But we still need more! Please feel free to contribute your knowledge and expertise to our site.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Also, don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! It might be a good idea to read this to see how you can avoid making common mistakes, though.

Just to give you a really basic overview so you don't make any mistakes early:

  1. Wikipedia keeps a neutral point of view policy, meaning that all contributions must not be biased one way or the other. Even if both biases are presented, it is still not allowed on Wikipedia.
  2. Only public domain resources can be copied directly to Wikipedia without permission — this does not include most web pages.
  3. Be bold! In my opinion, this may be Wikipedia's most important policy. Go ahead and edit a page! Don't worry about "ruining" other's work, this is a wiki! (Of course, major changes should probably be proposed on talk pages to achieve consensus, but don't be scared!)

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please always sign your name on talk pages (but not articles!) using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the time and date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —Mets501 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you jitterbug?

jitterbug was a common dance in the WWII era, just about the time that radio electronics was advancing into the avionic era. Think of a person with legs, arms, knees, and elbows gyrating. Now think of an engineer of that era attempting to sync up a signal. My electronic co-workers used jitter in the exact sense of the article, like other jargon terms, kluge, flip-flop, buss, scope etc. But if you are asking for an academic source, you will have to find a professor who knows an old-time communications engineer and who has written an article about engineering jargon. I frankly do not wish for an argument and welcome you to revert if this bothers you. But you may find that there is an academic term which does not reflect actual usage, such as atmospheric propagation turbulence which completely obscures the topic and makes it incomprehensible.

On a related note, are you aware that Microsoft has patented a method for conjugating verbs? --Ancheta Wis 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the references for me. It's been a busy few days for me so I didn't have time to read the new references section on the talk page, but I'll keep it in mind from now on. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 12:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Styles in the mathematics article

I don't think the MOS commands anything actually, but the guide was created for many good reasons. I think the image blocks are a different matter to lone images scattered throughout the article. Regardless, I'm not particularly fond of those image blocks anyway, but in the absence of a decent alternative (of which multiple thumb images bunched together is not), I can't really complain. Finally, the image block exception shouldn't really be used as a reason to avoid using the standard template. The lone images should, as Fredrik pointed out, use the image syntax, and any disagreement with the template is out of the scope of this article and should be taken up on the templates talk page I guess.

By all means bring it up on the talk page. If people agree this should be done then I certainly won't revert it again. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 16:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: footers

Don't worry about your comments - I perfectly understand your frustration at not being able to navigate in a properly hierachichal (sp) manner. That was part of the reason why I created the nav boxes in the first place. :-) Tompw 21:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on them. --Jtir 18:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage to Faremido

Dear Jtir,

The original title of Voyage to Faremido: Karinthy Frigyes: Utazás Faremidóba. It was published in 1916, in Hungarian language.

Right now, I have found a whole online version of it (in Esperanto). I do not know yet, if there is a complete English online translation.

Have much succes to language and mathematics! I like mathematical logic (I write Quine in pure Combinatory logic etc.). I also lernt Russian (now I learn Eskimo, and Lojban, a mathematics-inspired language capable of everything a human language)

Best wishes

Physis 13:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will add that to the article. --Jtir 13:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jtir,

Thank You for Your message. Now, I think I have added everything what I could in this step. For more additions, I have to read the books again thoroughly, so for a while I will not add things, thus, no edit conflicts will emerge.

Best wishes

Physis 15:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

… and also thank You for the novel category guidelines. I did not know about such details till now. Thank You also for Your remark with section Relatedness of Voyage to Faremido and Capillaria. I have done the movings You suggested. But I could “save” the section from deletion, because I needed a place for explaining Kazohinia's relatedness to Voyage to Faremido, and this section was just the right place for that. Of course, I renamed the headline accordingly: Voyage to Faremido#Related works.

I saw You mentioned Capillaria in the Kazohinia#See also section. I think now, that these two novels are rather different, both in genre and topic. Maybe after a thorogh rereading both novels I shall see more similarities, but now I don't have such feeling.

Best wishes and many thanks,

Physis 02:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, let it be without headings! :)

I use the ones at WP:CITET, but I just copied the ones I use most to a text file (which has grown quite large with various templates and text) and paste in the info, copying it back to WP. I haven't used Wikiref or Wikicite.

I didn't look at the review refs at We (novel) before inserting the 1988 USSR ref, my bad. I searched for the ref because of a cite needed template on List of banned books and didn't see an inline ref there, so added it in both places. Thank you for integrating it into the style of that article. TransUtopian 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I hadn't thought of doing the copy/paste on my computer. After looking at your contribs, I realized it was the List of banned books you were really sourcing. I added a second source to yours — it now has two! :-) IMO, the Brown translation is more credible, although the Glenn review is more accessible. Best of all — they agree. :-) --Jtir 18:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All true. :) I looked at the copy of We I have at hand first, because I remember reading that fact somewhere, but it's a Zilboorg from 59, so it wouldn't be in there. What are some of the differences in English translations? I haven't read two of them back to back. TransUtopian 18:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC) (and thanks for adding the ref to the other article)[reply]
A notable difference is how "One State" is translated. Ginsburg gives extended quotes from Zamyatin's essays in her intro and relates how Zamyatin "threw himself with tremendous energy into the great cultural and artistic upsurge that followed the revolution." Brown finds errors in Zilboorg and invents the term "unif" "yuny". In her intro, Randall says that she was "intensely aware of Zamyatin's sounds" and that she "chose lingual and labial permutations that matched Zamyatin's" where she could. She says further: "The syntatical pacing and pulsing in both the Russian and this translation may seem strange at first, until you surrender to Zamyatin's 'language of thought.'"
Randall's translation differs in a minor, but puzzling, way from the other two translations that I have. In Record Five her translation reads "True, only 0.2 percent of the population of the earthly sphere survived." She uses the word "percent" here, and in the following sentence, where the other two translations do not. Since she expresses gratitude to her mathematician father in her intro, I can only assume he reviewed her translation.
--Jtir 19:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zilboorg uses unif, or do you mean that Brown does not? And does One State replace United State? I've never compared two translatione before, but it sounds fascinating. I'll have to see if my library has them. TransUtopian 21:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Brown uses "yuny" (pl. "yunies") and justifies his choice in his intro. I was typing from memory, not from the source. My bad.:-) Brown also says the Russian text reads, in Cyrillic characters, u-n-i-f. The first occurrence is in Record 4, where the Russian text uses "юниф".[1] Randall sticks with "unif". --Jtir 15:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know I haven't read yuny. Brown's translation sounds interesting. And is there any indication of the world population except the 0.2 surviving? In today's population, that would be 1.2 billion or 12 million surviving according to Randall and her father. TransUtopian 18:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What does "Huxley's Brave New World was published in E. Zamiatin and O. Khaksli, My, O divnyi mir (Moscow, 1989)" mean? I see We=My as Z's name, but is My, O divnyi mir the name for a collection of stories, including Brave New World?

And why is his name sometimes spelled "Evgenii Zamiatin", as in "Evgenii Zamiatin in Newcastle"? I've seen that spelling before. Eastern European spelling? TransUtopian 15:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A collection would be my interpretation too — I am still working through the Zamyatin entries in the card catalog at the The National Library of Russia looking for it. As for the variations in his name — Romanization of Russian is not standardized. I keep stumbling against this problem. I was searching one library for "zamyatin" and finding nothing. Later I found by another means that the library uses "zamjatin". Urk! --Jtir 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found the original Russian here: "Олдос Хаксли. О дивный новый мир".
BabelFish translates this as: "Aldous Huxley. On the marvellous new peace".
("Khaksli" is the Romanization of "Хаксли" and "Хаксли" is the Cyrillization of "Huxley". Urk2!)
This multilingual site was my Rosetta stone. :-)
To summarize: We and a Russian translation of Brave New World were published together in one volume in Moscow in 1989. --Jtir 17:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Rosetta stone. :) The title "We" superficially reminds me of Anthem by Ayn Rand, where the concept and words "I"/"me" were lost. The JStor page says that that's when Brave New World was first published though, not necessarily We. If I could read Russian, I'd love to have that volume though. I love both books, and that publication is a slice of history. Do you have access to JStor, or just what's avilable via Google?
Yeah, I think I've seen Zamjatin too. TransUtopian 18:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can order a copy here. The lowest price seems to be 80 rubles. :-) (I was searching for bibrecs when I found this page.) --Jtir 13:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Замятин Е. Мы Хаксли О. О дивный новый мир М. Худ.лит-ра 1989г. 352 с. мягкий переплет, обычный формат.
(Продавец: BS - Andrey, Московская область.) Цена 80 руб. Заказать
Cостояние: очень хорошее
  • Zamyatin Of e. my Huxley O. against the marvellous new peace M. of Xud.lit- Ra 1989g. 352 s. soft binding, usual size.
(salesman: BS - Andrey, Moscow region.) Price of 80 rub. To order
Costo4nie: Condition: very good

Yes, I have removed the gallery because the images on commons are about to be deleted with the SovietPD made invalid. Here I have to classify them as the {{art}} images that is a Fair Use category. Wikipedia has a policy that does not allow fair use images in the galleries and limits the number of such images in the text. Four is already a large number, more and the Fair Use police would remove them anyway. It was me who originally put the images on Commons (and started the article). I found all these quite ironic bearing in mind that the heirs of Serebryakova donated most of her paintings to museums in Russia just to popularize her art. I am sure they would not mind a free license on the images, but I do not know how to contact them Alex Bakharev 21:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some comments and questions re Image:—CARTE D ELECTEUR basse def.jpg

Hi, I have put some comments and questions on User talk:Cboncenne re the image she uploaded. Could you reply there?--Jtir 17:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

have done so, let me know if it doesn't make sense! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirnyy photo

Thanks a lot! Alex Bakharev 11:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your extensive edits to We (novel)...

keep up the good work

...I give you a well-deserved wikicookie. keep up the good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acebrock (talk • contribs) 07:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie and for restoring this link. You beat me to it. :-) --Jtir 22:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serebriakova's talk page

Hi, Jtir

The talk page should not be on your watchlist, the main article should. The talk pages always come with the main articles Alex Bakharev 23:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks like the watchlist page does not show edits made before the page move. That is what confused me. I am now seeing both the renamed article and the renamed talk page on my watchlist page. --Jtir 17:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serebriakova's signature

Sorry, youdit change the note about the changes of signatures of Zinaida Serebriakova. It is not true. Her signature depends not of the country where she was living, but in fact of the people for whom she was making the portrait or the painting. Until the end of her life, She signed with both cyrillic and latin caracters. In the Inventary of the atelier, I have equaliy both signatures. She also signed only with monogram Z.S.. No rules. Could you pleas change the note in that way.Catherine Boncenne 02:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

We/Anthem

I've added a ref to the article. I could find more with a little time. In any case, the relationship should be fairly transparent to anyone who has read both, and especially to one who understands the Great “Really Should” of Ayn Rand's writing. The Night of January the 16th is about the debate that she felt really should have been had about Ivar Kreuger; Anthem is the novella that she felt Zamyatin really should have written; The Fountainhead is about a “really should” Wright; Love Letters manages to be both a “really should” Pity My Simplicity and a “really should” Cyrano de Bergerac; and Atlas Shrugged is about a “really should” strike (and includes a “really should” Robin Hood, in the form of Ragnar Dannesjköld). And she liked the (awful) I, the Jury because it was a “really should” Maltese Falcon. During her early years in Hollywood, she wrote a treatment about a “really should” blackmailer. Her short story “The Simplest Thing in the World” is about a writer who proceeds very much along such lines. —SlamDiego 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm planning on re-sourcing and mildly overhauling the section of Rand's Anthem pertaining to its similarities to We, and I'd like your input on the new source before I continue. I saw your comments on the talk page were pretty old but well-informed, so I figured I'd drop a line here first... --Cssprain (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"maths rating" tagging

Please don't tag articles unless you intend to fill out the template. If you plan on tagging a large number of articles, it'd be best to discuss it with the math wikiproject first at WT:WPM. See, for instance, the discussion here. Thanks, Lunch 22:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. My "plan" was to tag all articles on my watchlist and that is done. There doesn't seem to be any consistent naming convention for these tags. Couldn't the math tag be named {{WPMathematics}}?
I don't regard the ratings as particularly helpful, but the link to the project page that the tag provides is very helpful, especially for new editors.
Why was Talk:basis function the only page from which you removed a tag?
--Jtir 12:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The maths rating tag is really meant to impart information about the importance of the article to the project. It is meant to aid in identifying core articles that need improvement, and articles that should be included in things like WP 1.0. (For more on the history and purpose, please read the previous discussions here and here.)
If you want a tag that simply links to the math wikiproject, then go ahead and create one. But before placing the tag on lots of pages, please bring it up before the community to allow for some discussion.
(The basis function article is in the intersection of our watchlists.:) Lunch 14:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply User talk:85.160.4.177

[copied from User_Talk:King Lopez --Jtir 10:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Hi, I think User talk:85.160.4.177 was reverting his own contribution to Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21, so the {{subst:blank}} may not be appropriate. He did not provide an edit summary, however. --Jtir 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looked very well like it was a blank by looking at the recent changes. Sorry for the mistake. Should I erase the warning from the User talk:85.160.4.177 King Lopez Contribs 09:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I was using the wonderful, if quirky, WP:POPUPS nav tool to skim the edit history and diffs and observed that the editor added a block of text, removed it, and then added it again in a different place. Perhaps you saw only the second of his three edits.
I also looked closer at your reversion. I don't interpret this as vandalism but as a spelling correction, although both spellings produce a red link. In the context of the article, there is a blue link to Gorki, which is a dab, one of whose entries is Nizhny Novgorod.
As it was the same editor in both cases, I would suggest replacing the warning with a note requesting that he provide an edit summary and cite his sources. (Since it's an IP, who knows if he will see it.)
--Jtir 16:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really into those details. I only warn users with warning templates. Sorry for the confustion. I will remove the template from User talk:85.160.4.177 and put something more welcome to the user. If you think it is wrong you are welcome to modify the comment. Lets not make this a big deal. Take care. Happy editing! King Lopez Contribs 06:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serebriakova article

Well, I took up the challenge and cleaned up the article at least to some extent (given my total ignorance of either Serebriakova or Russian). I leave it to others to judge whether to untag it. Awien 22:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4711

Does SB think 4711 is a year?

Hi, SB made this edit to We (novel). SB removed the link to 4711, which is an article about the Eau de Cologne number 4711. I have restored the link. What do you recommend to prevent a recurrence? --Jtir 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered my own question. "4711" is a date per WP:DATE.
  • "A page title that is just a positive whole number is always a year."
This guideline seems to be citing 4711 as a counter-example, however.
I'll see about getting the article renamed (and maybe fixing the guideline).
There is already a redirect from 4711 (brand), which would seem to be the preferred name.
--Jtir 07:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone had renamed "4711 (brand)" to "4711", so I reverted that. I also fixed the guideline. I believe this problem is resolved. --Jtir 09:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[The above was copied from User talk:Rich Farmbrough. --Jtir 10:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]

You did the right thing. Rich Farmbrough, 10:19 21 May 2007 (GMT).


Karl Benz

If you'd read my comment, you'd see I was simpling moving the "trivia" section there for article integration. --The_stuart 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your comment. I misunderstood it. --Jtir 22:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Will Hunting

Re: How would you interpret this phrase from the same paragraph?

  • "...he talks about his wife..."

Not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean it shouldn't be his, since it's the wife of his character, not Williams himself? - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chief designer

It is a well-known fact that his name was revealed to public only after his death, so you don't really have to worry to cite this detail right now. Maybe later, when you come across the citation, you may add it. wikipedia:Attribution does not require you to cite each and every statement. `'юзырь:mikka 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Isaak Yaglom

All the biographical information I used is from the Russian Mathematical Surveys v.44 obituary listed in the references. Rgdboer 22:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the Waters of Babylon

(explanation follows if I don't pass out from exhaustion before I finish other chores) --Kizor 20:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Benz article name and spellings in it changed to Carl

I notice that you have changed the article on Karl Benz to Carl Benz and am requesting that you return the article to its former title. This issue was discussed among many editors several years ago and resolved to use Karl as the spelling of the first name. I am providing a good deal of discussion below for you to realize why it was set as Karl and why of all of the many references to him in this encylopedia conform to that spelling.

  1. Benz's last home, at Ladenburg, is used as the headquarters of the Gottlieb Daimler & '''Karl''' Benz Foundation, with many annual events held there.
  2. Karl vs. Carl: Two spellings of Benz's first name can be found in places or institutions named after him. All of the official municipal registries show, Karl, such as on Benz's birth registration, his entry to the Polytechnikum, and his first patent (1879). At the end of the 19th century, however, the French spelling of names came into fashion in Germany and it seems that even Benz began to use, Carl, as seen in his 1882 patent or the Ladenburg company Benz Sons. At least, it was recorded as such—so Benz may have used both forms—or, perhaps the entries were made by others following the vogue. The German Orthographic Reform of 1901 generally replaced use of the French spelling, Carl, with the former German spelling convention, Karl, and DaimlerChrysler has adopted the use of the birth name spelling, using Karl Benz.

Since Karl Benz has been the convention used in Wikipedia for many years based upon the reasons cited above, please revert your change rather than beginning a protracted discussion and process regarding an issue that was settled several years ago. 83d40m 19:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied this comment to Talk:Carl Benz to maintain context. --Jtir 20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Robson

Hello. I'm working on Bobby Robson's article and would like to add what 'Bobby Robson' is in IPA. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Sir-Nobby 17:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all qualified to do IPA transcriptions. User:Krsont, who is an expert, has helped me with them a few times. --Jtir 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks anyway. Sir-Nobby 18:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Straw_Poll

This relates to the text on the placement of footnotes which you helped to work out last month; you may wish to comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roof construction

calling for tenders... can you take a look at the talk page for Roof and the above artivle and make comments/suggestions? Amandajm 16:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated "Thank you"

For your kindness and generosity when I helped with the cleanup of the Serebrikova article. I really appreciated it! Awien 22:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chauvet

Thanks much for your work on the Chauvet article. It's good to have these dating disputes clarified and sourced. I keep hoping I'll have time to work on the general cave painting article and add sources. And to develop a couple of the other cave articles. The Cosquer and Font de Gaume articles could use some development. And it would be nice to create an article on La Marche. TimidGuy (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. As it happens, I only have the books by Clottes and Chauvet from the library, but I will keep your suggestions in mind. --Jtir (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Leonov

Why did I add that Leonov's airlock was inflatable? I was trying to emphasize that the troubles he had getting back into the capsule were likely due to a questionable design. My addition may have been somewhat questionable; I wouldn't be offended if you think the article is better off without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peyre (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"OK. Voskhod 2 goes into fascinating detail on this event. The major problem was that "Leonov’s Berkut suit ballooned". Maybe the airlock contributed, but the article, which is sourced, doesn't say so."
Fair enough. Most likely I've let myself get run away with the thought that an inflatable airlock just plain sounds dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peyre (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your end-section edits

Copyedit from my talk page:"Hi, I'm all in favor of regularizing end-sections, but your edits[4] [5] don't conform to WP:LAYOUT and introduce a Notes section without any notes. --Jtir (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)." Hi J, thanks for writing. Let me explain my reasoning here- I fully intend to place inline citations and reference sources in the various articles that do not have full sourcing. It's also an incentive for other editors to follow up and continue the work of providing verification. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

At this point, templates are useful for some editors but are entirely buggy and the ones used in the articles in question were for the American Psychiatric Association style guide which while used for some reference sources is not the usual standard for social history works, that being the Modern Language Association style guide which I incorporated in a "scratch" cataloging. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for your note: As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available) for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.
This is the reference guide you may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."
Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the "Reggiane Re.2000" article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.
I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing in citation/reference notes. The "true style" is actually to use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. As to the exact citation in question, it should have been written in the traditional "Author. "Title". Place of publication: Publisher, year." convention but being adapted to an electronic/digital source of information. FWIW, you may have to read this note in the edit mode in order to see what I have done to the citations. Bzuk (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Your contribution to the "Overlinking" Question between RWinn and BZuk

Thanks for your suggestion (13 Jan). I did not know of that WIKI resource, and it was helpful when I did access it. I responded to BZuk (see his TALK page if you are interested). Thanks again Raymondwinn (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metasyntactic variable

Thanks for helping on the cleanup of this article, it was a disaster. I do not believe that the Kernighan example of foo is sufficient to give an example of the use of a metasyntactic variable and a more complete code snippet would be better. That example in fact is about the use of local and global variables. Mabey an example in BASIC would be one better still. Let me know your thoughs. Also why delete relevant and properly cited information, especially on a very short page relating to an advanced concept. A lot of "googling" to find references went into keeping as much relevant info from the "Pre Cleanup Taskforce" page. 

 kf4yfd (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied this to Talk:Metasyntactic variable to maintain context. --Jtir (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graf Spee book

That book seems to have had more titles than most other books. Yes, the first publication (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1956) was just called Graf Spee. The first American edition (New York, Rinehart, 1957) was called Death in the South Atlantic; the last voyage of the Graf Spee. It was another British edition (London : White Lion Publishers, 1976) that was called The Last Voyage of the Graf Spee I think we'd better put them all in or someone else is liable to correct them -- SteveCrook (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's an excellent solution. Great portrait with the article, BTW. --Jtir (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of ISBNs

Hi J, just to clarify a point about bibliographical sourcing in references, the use of ISBN is actually considered secondary and is merely a means of identifying a source for purchase. Most publications do not even list ISBNs in a bibliography due to the confusing variety of ISBNs that can be generated for an individual title when second editions, new publishers and a variety of re-printings requires new ISBNs which is the abbreviation for International Standard Book Number, a convention that was actually created by British publishers in 1966 and is now in its second configuration: ISBN:13 as opposed to the original ISBN:10. The newer format was instituted in 2005 but not as a "clear-cut" replacement for the earlier format so it is often an added notation. I add ISBNs as a matter of course but you will see many editors on Wikipedia that simply discard them or not include them in citations or bibliographies. Since they are not required, (see WP:REF) most editors ignore them. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

"citing sources for references" Copyedit from my talk page:"Your solution looks good.

You wrote: "The use of inline external links is discouraged". In the article body, certainly. However, WP articles must leave the site somewhere and that is at the sources. When a source is a book without an ISBN, a citation provides a way for a reader (or editor) to verify that the source is correctly described. (And it would be silly to provide a Note citing the source of a source.)

For example, I have found several early translations of We (novel) by searching various national libraries. I have documented my source for each by appending an exlink to the library or a permalink to a bibrec at the library (unfortunately, some libraries don't seem to support permalinks). The bibrec at the library is my source for the reference in the article.

As another example, in Malleus Maleficarum the references include a 1520 edition held by the University of Sydney Library. I included that edition because the image used to illustrate the article is from the USL. There is an annotated exlink to the bibrec at the library.

Quoting WP:REF: "Say where you found the material".
IMO, that applies to references too. (I am not overly concerned with citing sources for books that have ISBNs, because the wiki software converts ISBNs to links that lead to the lists at WP:Booksources).

--Jtir (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

All that is fine however, ISBNs are not considered part of the bibliographic record, not even as an option. What we have done at Wikipedia is primarily an "invented" form. The onus on providing a bibliographic record is on the initial submitter and although we have "cobbled up" a kind of reference source in the Boeing 247 article, it certainly wouldn't pass muster as a standard record. ISBNs were created merely as ordering information for dumb librarians such as myself but even then they are an imprecise and complicated "tidbit" of information. As you can see in my notes and revisions, I adapted your edit as I am loathe to actually revert a "good faith" edit. BTW, I really enjoy our exchanges because it does keep me "sharp." IMHO Bzuk (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Your reference to WP:REF: "Say where you found the material" has led to some peculiar reference statements. I recall one author indicated which library he had found the book, another editor noted all the dates and times he read the books and other reference materials in the reference record, and there are other numerous instances of editors taking great care in listing every single edition, reprint, new publisher, ad infinitum. As I discussed earlier, ISBN is strictly optional and is still treated that way by publishers and Wikipedia alike. FWIW, the standard is actually to list the most recent rather than the original edition. Bzuk (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

i see your point with that...however, i think WP:LOW is the reference that deals specifically with lists of works including bibliographies. --emerson7 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Stuff (book) and The Right Stuff (film)

Being mostly a writer/editor rather than a aficionado in the black arts of the WikiWacky world, meaning I really don't know how to do a "dab" page. If you could do it, I will look over your shoulder. Thanks. FWIW I am sending the same message to another editor who also commented on the change in the Right Stuff articles. Bzuk (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I have rewritten a large part of the The Right Stuff (film). Can you take a look at it? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Agree about the refactor. I was just on Wiki for a moment during my lunch break. Please refactor however you feel is best and I'll check back in this evening. (I'm excited to see some other editors doing good work on a Tom Wolfe article. It had been lonely around those parts!) --JayHenry (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

links on dab page

Well, if you don't understand the reason why, please don't do it. We're not automatons blindly following pre-programmed instructions. As a heavy user of the encyclpedia, I can tell you quite definitely that it's better with the links then without, no matter what a manual says.

For instance, sometimes I'm searching for a reference to something, and I can't latch onto it, but I've got an idea about something it's related to, and I go to that article and I find there a reference which puts me on the right track. It makes no sense to denude Wikipedia of what makes it so valuable -- links -- on a page whose entire purpose is to act as a guide to where to go for the confused.

So do me a favor, leave it be. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Stuff disambig page

Hi Jtir. My thought about why the current page isn't exactly right is that all of the disambig pages that I have created or worked with read Subject (disambiguation). I know that this makes the {{otheruses}} tag work better but I could be wrong in thinking that it is required. I posted this here so that it wouldn't get lost in the middle of the rest of the discussion on the talk page that we have already been posting on. Thanks for your time and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 23:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the advice and welcome, Jtir. Appreciate it. (Mountain Goat (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

NP. --Jtir (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Room 101

Hiya Jtir! I've spotted the fact tag you left on the statement about Erich Mielke. I've just added a reference to [2], which includes the text below :

'The people of the GDR lived through their own private Nineteen Eighty-Four every single day. Funder describes Orwell's book as "like a manual for the GDR, right down to the most incredible detail". The party, if not the proles, knew that very well. She remembers that the much-dreaded Stasi chief Erich Mielke even managed to renumber the offices in the secret-service headquarters. "His office was on the second floor, so all the office numbers started with '2'. Orwell was banned in the GDR, but he would have had access to it. Because he so wanted the room number to be 101, he had the entire first floor renamed the mezzanine, and so his office was Room 101."'

Please contact me if you feel this needs further discussion, ok? :) Nanobot recurve (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another little look at google, all the claims I can find of Erich Mielke being an Orwell fan (so far, I've yet to examine all of the german language text via google translate yet) seem based on this blog post [3], interpreting the quote from stasiland. I feel you'd have some issues with its usefulness as a font of academic knowledge. I'll see if I can find anything else over the next few days, but I suspect this is about as far as websearching is going to get on this subject. Oh well, at least there's a little new supporting material there, yes? Nanobot recurve (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using Named Ref Tags

I was aware of that, but decided to leave the information in anyway, people sometimes make mistakes and I thought having the information to hand would be helpful in case someone made a boo-boo when editing an article ( having to restart your edit, or open another copy of the article to find what you erased is a pain in the bum when you slip up ). Sorry if this intepretation is causing problems. Nanobot recurve (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ODITLOID

See ODITLOID link for reply on stalin citation thingy LOTRrules (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again see reply on ODITLOID LOTRrules (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA Status

How about we go for the ultimate rating? The article looks fine and if anybody else is willing we can work together to get this up to featured status. So what do you say? In an actual fact this did win the Nobel Prize... should be easy then. LOTRrules (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref tags and punctuation marks

The move of refs is a WP:AWB "general fix". For the last few months I have had GF's turned of because they were implementing {{Reflist}} which I disagree with. I had turned them on with the latest release of AWB, but they're off again awaiting some bug-fixes. So... all AWB bots with GF turned on will correct those, whether you carry on manually, is up to you. I suppose I could do a run to fix the problem specifically once AWB is re-fixed... Rich Farmbrough, 15:39 5 February 2008 (GMT).

Spaces... again this is an AWB GF feature. Personally I think this is a good spacing regeime, but certainly there are a lot of AWB users out there implementing it. Incidentally statistics were gathered some time ago showing that this is the preferred spacing of editors (by use), although MOS is neutral on the subject. Rich Farmbrough, 16:32 5 February 2008 (GMT).

Guardian Angel

I never knew what it was like until now, to have someone follow my every move, and be there to help and correct me when I need it. I feel so safe! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that this editor has been wreaking havoc with a bunch of dab pages I've worked on. He seems to think that his style of bolding links and putting it lots of whitespace is more preferable than MOS:DAB. Just FYI, since you seem to have some experience dealing with him. 128.208.53.45 (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions. Please consider registering. You can read about the advantages here: Why create an account? --Jtir (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guardian Angel, watch over me! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) —Preceding comment was added at 10:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1984

Please do not revert my legitimate edit. Kuralyov (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there was no edit summary indicating that this was intended to be a sort key and it looked like the kind of typo I see when using WP:AWB. I have fixed it here. --Jtir (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your "shameless self-plug" and gave it a try. I knew about those redirects, but had never bothered to update them. (Actually, I tested it first on Andrew Sullivan, which is a real mess, but decided not to make any changes for lack of knowledge or interest.) I was so impressed that I added a more detailed description here. One quirk I noticed is that the "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons seem to work the first time only. --Jtir (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit on some important issues, we really shouldn't be changing redirects as those might be "permalink" redirect to where ever the content is. However, the HTTP protocol specifies multiple types of redirects, the most used 301 and 302. In the former it is recommend that site update the URL to using the new address. Contrast with the latter in which it is optional and should be reviewed by the operator. Unfortunately, there are users who blindly change it to soft-404 pages. Most of the redirect the program deal with are add or removing the www. part in front. If it were up to me, I would remove it from every URL possible as it introduces DNS resolution problems.
One of the things that overlooked quite often is that the tool handles wayback machine archiveurls. It seems I'll have to write a section in the documentation before anybody notices them. The quirk you had noticed was actually a feature where you could open multiple pages without closing the former window, disabled that now. — Dispenser 04:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the subtle distinctions between the 301 and 302 status codes. I wasn't really aware of them. I may have made a mistake in changing those exlinks, which were returning 302. They were to Bandalore's site and after looking again at the discussion he seems to have the domain myersnorth.co.uk. NP re the "quirk", I was happy to get a familiar WP edit window. --Jtir (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: deletion of stills from Metropolis (film)

Hi, you deleted two images that were stills from Metropolis (film) without any warning on the article's talk page. I believe they could be used by claiming fair use in that article and would have added the required info if I had been warned. BTW, I would prefer that a Bot do image removals, because they leave warning messages automatically.

This is a request to restore these images for use in Metropolis (film) under fair use:

--Jtir (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm gonna have to disagree with you on the bot thing, because I never delete any image that hasn't had some deletion tag on it for at least 7 days, and it doesn't look like a bot gave any warning on the article talk page when someone tagged the two stills. I'll restore them for and update the tags with today's date, but if they don't have the proper info by this time next week I (or some other admin) will delete them again. Melesse (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MiG-21

Yes. This is MiG-21PFM #4106 of Polish Air Force with insignia of 10th Fighter Reg. from Łask, near Łódź (not existing anymore, replaced on 1 Jan 2001 by 10th Tactical Sqn. and 32nd AF Base) currently on display in Museum of Armament (Muzeum Uzbrojenia) in Fort Winiary (better known as Cytedela) in Poznań, Poland. Radomil talk 11:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, and insignia - this is black dragon - emblem of 1st Flight of 10th Fighter Reg. Radomil talk 12:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Each basic unit (currently Squadron, formely Regiment) of PAF has symbol, like those:

  • - 3rd Tactical Sqn. (formerly 3rd Fighter Reg.) - raven
  • - 7th Tactical Sqn. (formerly 7th Bomber-Reconnaissance Reg.) - fox with bomb
  • - 1st Tactical Sqn (formerly 1st Fighter Reg.) - winged marmate
  • - 41st Tactical Sqn. (formerly 41st Fighter Reg.) - knight
  • - 13th Transport Squadron (formerly 13th Transport Reg.) - green dragon in "Cracow hat".

And others..

And this is detailed image of this dragon of 10th Reg., with lightning in one hand and shield in shape of PAF chessboard faced with coat of Arms of Łask: [4].

Radomil talk 22:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring

The wiki policy on WP:ALSO as an editorial and or common sense judgement does not require that the links be sourced. You are edit warring it is disputive and unproductive please desist. Your removal serves no purpose and exceeds policy. If you would and can ask that an administrator look and see if the link topics are so far appart that they are unrelated. As such that is open for discussion not blanket removal and or deletion. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment and referral to the WP:ALSO guideline. In my experience, the "See also" section grows "ad infinitum", because there are no clear guidelines for what should be in the section. So I rely on the WP policies requiring that content be verifiable and not original research. Further, if an entry there can be justified, it would be better to add it to the body of the article, with a full explanation of the relation between the two topics. Talk:We (novel) would be a better place to continue any discussion of specifics. --Jtir (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ODITLOID New Answer

see ODITLOID page for reply LOTRrules (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Motivation Award Wikipedia Motivation Award
Thanks for your contribs to ODITLOID, and also thanks for your thorough in knowledge info on ODITLOID and the all the checking that you did for verification. LOTRrules (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA

Hi, I've nominated the article ODITLOID please leave comments of support (click on the link at the top FA template: "leave comments) because I think the article deserves to be featured. Also if we could blend in the referances on discussion page it might get featured quicker. LOTRrules (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of fifths

That article has come a long way in the last very few days, it seems, thanks to you and a handful of others.

If I may suggest, try looking at Image:Circle of fifths deluxe.png with varying degrees of focus, for example, see how it reads as you stand back from it a bit. Squinting, deliberately defocusing the eyes, taking off glasses, standing back, and so forth, are all well-established artist's techniques for checking out an image to make sure it all works together.

This is a response to "the ring becomes choppy dashes" in the talk page there. (Don't worry, my feelings aren't easily hurt, and I value your input tremendously.)

I'll say it again: I'm impressed with the drastic enhancement of that article's quality in recent days. Enhancement in my view, at least. Cheers! __Just plain Bill (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was indeed my first impression of the ring and shortly after, while comparing the two versions, I noticed the 3D (2.5D?) effect. I believe we need more input, so I have invited some eds. from the ET article to take a look.
Thanks for the links. I am sympathetic to your "ink minimization" philosophy and agree with your opposition to chartjunk. I have heard of Tufte. With digital images for an electronic encyclopedia, "ink" can only be a metaphor (for what?) and digital image degradation (by [photo]copying anyway) cannot occur. However, image rendering and resizing certainly do degrade images. I'll comment re the PNG version at talk.
The article has indeed improved, although the issue of certain graphic elements has yet to be resolved.
--Jtir (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tufte turned his attention to Power Point slide shows a while ago, as high information-density paper charts got rarer. If you can get your hands on a copy of any of his books, I bet you'll appreciate them. I doubt I'll live to see any digital screen beat the honest basic USGS 7.5 minute quad for convenience, readability, spreadability, and portability. Ink as a metaphor is still relevant in talking about data:ink ratio. __Just plain Bill (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My library has some Tufte books, and I would be interested in knowing what he has to say about graphics constrained by low-resolution and digitization (e.g. WP thumbnails).
I used to collect those quads in part for their aesthetic qualities. Only problem I had with them is that they have edges. A few times I cut off the margins and glued several together — tedious, but the results were impressive. That is one task digital maps have eliminated. As you suggest, digital maps have introduced several new problems.
Not sure I understand the "ink" analogy yet.
--Jtir (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has to do with the intent and activity of the designer. With a given amount of space on paper or screen, how does one use that to convey what's desired? The default is blankness. Information is carried by the application of (actual or virtual) ink. For the purposes of this discussion, does toner count as real or virtual ink? ;-) __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

I'm so sick of Wikipedia's quicksand style guidelines. Having been quite snarkily told repeatedly over a few years that quotes are always preceded by a comma and followed by an inserted comma, on Wikipedia (like in newspapers, I believe), I went to readd them to Major and minor. Realizing who had removed them I smartly rechecked the manual and discovered the standard had changed to never! Anyways, thanks for all your edits! Hyacinth (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I guess you are referring to this edit.
"who had removed them" — FYI, I didn't look at a guideline, but applied my "rule" that inline quotes are gramatically part of the sentence in which they occur. I'll look closer.
"the standard had changed" — That's happened to me a few times too. It always makes me nervous citing WP:LEAD or WP:LAYOUT, say, without having read them moments before. It's all rather 1984ish. :-)
--Jtir (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two different cases:
  • Lincoln said getting rid of them was like "trying to shovel a bushel of fleas across a barn floor."[5]
  • Lincoln said, "So do I dream of my boy Willie," sobbing and shaking with emotion.[6]
I was once informed that a phrase like "Lincoln said" is journalistic, not encyclopedic, but no guideline was cited. IMO, it is simply an inline attribution.
--Jtir (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Benet duffield play cover 1.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Benet duffield play cover 1.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Solzhenitsyn one day willets cover 1.jpg)

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Solzhenitsyn one day willets cover 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this image to One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, because it documents that the Willetts trans. is the only one authorized by AS himself. See the text in the white ellipse. Per WP:V. The article is long enough that it could use more cover images. --Jtir (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curriculum vitae

I have started a move discussion about CV, Curriculum vitae and Résumé. You have previously participated in this topic, and I would like your input in this discussion if you are still interested. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove my details from this page.

I am requesting the full removal of my personal details as posted by you on wikipedia. A family member who is an attorney has advised me to do so. Prompt response would be appreciated in this matter.

Kind Regards,

Below is the article for your attention.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk:Cellulosic_ethanol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.2.232 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Diletsky

I suggested some changes in the entry, so please have a look at the talk page Coepulonus (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Karinthy cover 1.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Karinthy cover 1.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutions of 1989 online Wikipedia challenge

--Kippelboy (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Benet duffield play cover 1.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Benet duffield play cover 1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of CRM 114 (fictional device)

Notice

The article CRM 114 (fictional device) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]