User talk:Arjayay/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The problem is that Pairs and doubles are different things, a pair is two people using one oar each a double is to people using two oar's each, as from the pictures is the case for these, the use of pair is incorrect else where as on their site they refer to the doubles division[1]. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. The same boat can often be rigged as a double or a pair. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am more familiar with inland water rather than ocean rowing, but understood that the terminology was the same (in Britain) for both. I think using the same terminology as the site makes sense, but I do confess to being confused as to what's happening, especially as the boats appear to only have one individual rowing in the photos I've looked through. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 17:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good to see your editing of

Alajero

- thanks!

I'm there now and planning a guide-book to La Gomera. You clearly know the island well - would you like to participate in the guide?

Johnbibby (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We first visited Gomera in Sept 94, then 95, 96, 2000, 03, 04, 05, 06 & 07. Adding these visits together we have spent about 15 weeks in La Gomera. We are often in La Gomera at this time of year, it is quite quiet before Christmas, so enjoy

We have visited all 7 Canary Islands, and were back in La Palma again this year, but Gomera is our favourite. We intend to be there for the lead up to, and start of, the Atlantic Rowing Race 2009 [2] The race is due to start on 6 Dec 2009 – although starts have been delayed e.g. in 2005

Tim Hart’s “La Gomera: A guide to the unspoiled Canary island” (2004) is the only guidebook I know of written in English, which is why, as he explains in the forward, it was suggested that he write the book. Tim has lived on the island since 1988, and is an excellent photographer, as well as a writer and musician.

As I am sure you know, there are lots of walking guides and 2 or 3 driving guides to the island, some written in English, and some translated from German. Small sections on Gomera also appear in several books on Tenerife, (usually only 10-20 pages) or in books also covering Tenerife, La Palma & Hierro (5-10 pages). Several of these are for sale at 1p via Amazon Marketplace, which may reflect their content (?)

Not sure what sort of guide you are thinking of ? Nor how I could help ? Look forward to hearing from you.

Arjayay (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I visited the school website and went to the section on Senior School - a video by Griff Rhys Jones autoplated and quoted 2007 as being the anniversary year - the reference to how many years ago I took to be a non-updated reference and since the G R J was part of an official DVD issued by the school I have taken view it is probably correct. FWIW I visit the school 4 times a week (I happen to work with a trampoline club in the sports centre there) and can probably get an authoritative view if you want one.

) 22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your update - it would be useful to get a view from the school but I may have found the answer elsewhere - in the book "Brentwood - A History" by Jennifer Ward () 08:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious

.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Arjayay, sorry to hear about your troubles with RefToolbar. I would love to help you troubleshoot this problem as it is likely that if you are experiencing it, others are as well. First off, I would like for you to temporarily turn off all your user scripts in your skin JS page. Next disable all of your gadgets. Then turn on "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" and "Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more" under editing preferences. Go to edit an article and do a hard refresh (shift-refresh on most browsers). Record whether or not refToolbar shows up or not (it should add a "Cite" dropdown in the toolbar). Next turn off "Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more". Repeat the shift-refresh on the edit page and record if refToolbar shows up or not. Next turn off "Enable enhanced editing toolbar". Repeat the shift-refresh on the edit page and record if refToolbar shows up or not (it should appear as a square "Cite" button in the toolbar). Then post the results here, and I'll follow-up with you. Kaldari (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi - sorry for the delay. I am on UTC and was busy in real life yesterday. Taking your instructions in turn.
I didn't even have a JS page for vector, so it wasn't that.(I had a disused JS page for monobook, so cleared that as well).
Turned off all my gadgets in "My preferences".
"Enable enhanced editing toolbar" and "Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more" were already selected, so I cleared tham, saved, then reselected them.
Carried out edit. Ref toolbar as before with <cite-section-label> at RH end of top line. If this is selected it gives <cite-template-list> at top of drop-down box LH end of second line.
Deselected "Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more"
Toolbar includes {{subst:Xsign| which, when selected, gives correct tabs along top.
Deselected "Enable enhanced editing toolbar"
Cite button turned up second from RH end, then on preview, moved to first on LH end.
This seemed to be a solution, but I then discovered that with "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" selected and "Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more" deselected, the other toolbar options (no-Wiki, Newline etc) do not work.
Await firther instructions Arjayay (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like RefTools is loading for you, but you're running into the last problem mentioed at

Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar 2.0#Troubleshooting, which I still need to fix. I would suggest turning both "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" and "Enable dialogs" on and then after you get the <cite-section-label>, just refresh the page normally (without clearing cache). That may fix it, at least until your cache is cleared again. Hopefully I can work out a real fix in the next day or two. Kaldari (talk

) 18:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest, but unfortunately refreshing the page as suggested doesn't work. I'll go back to using the basic version for now.
Arjayay (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (

). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of

) 21:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops...I reverted your edit by accident. Sorry! :)

) 17:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries - I often miss-click too. Arjayay (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi; I was Born in America, however since my parents move to Poland at my early age, my English are require a lots of correction. Since this is your hobby, I got the idea that you may be in help for me. I'm working on "Von Roggenhausen" family article and I can translate to English but as you did correct me on St. Benet Fink article, the English require much more then I'm able to deliver. So please be so kind at let me know, if you can be in help.Finkpal (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have only just found your request.
I am quite happy to help correct your English, but know nothing about Polish Royal families.
Having looked at the article there seem to be three problems as well as the English:-

1. Lead section - There is no introduction to explain what the article is about - see
   WP:LEAD
2. References - There are no references to identify the reliable sources on which the information in the article is based. Without such references, the article will be deleted - see
   WP:REF
3. Notability - Have the
   WP:N

I will look at the article in more detail later
Arjayay (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello again,

I forgot to add that I may have found the problem that flagged up that mysterious alert at the top of your page.

It looks like it is the bouncy Wiki icon that is playing up.

Click on the icon to display a page that logs all the issues associated with it:

00:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)WikAndPen — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikAndPen (talk • contribs)

WikAndPen 20:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WikAndPen 20:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikAndPen (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your question It's simply a matter of stuff taking time, that's all. There's no more complicated answer than that. Over time, it will get done. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy There are two ways that you might know that a category shouldn't be used and its subcategories should instead. The first--more obscure--method is simply to to take a look at it and decide yourself that it can or should be (

Catdiffuse}} tagged on it. Category:Debut albums now has this template in use. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As you say, "Category:Debut albums now has this template" - but it didn't when I asked the question.
Arjayay (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reporting. Should be fixed now! Cheers, --rainman (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note regarding the references on [[The Front (band)}The Front]]. It is 1 of 3 new pages I started, and I am learning how to do the citations properly. I have them complete on Michael Moon at this time and plan to get the other 2 done within a couple of days. I'll be removing the new article heading as soon as they are in place. Thank you for your helpful tips. --TheIslandGirl (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month! 66.87.2.119 (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm - Thanks - but as the edit counter has been broken for 11 days - how do you know? Arjayay (talk)

(Later discovered IP editor hand been sending these out like confetti)

You're invited to be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Belgrade, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the University of Belgrade. To accept this invitation, click here! Articles related to other universities in Belgrade, Serbia and Southeast Europe may be discussed as well. This helps share information and foster knowledge about higher education in the region.

Hello, user. What pictures do you prefer?

Option C/E)

Option B)

Option D)

--Belibaste (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter - there are more useful things to do on Wikipedia than worry about this.
Arjayay (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You have a part of reason, but paying attention to small details is a important labor. Well, thanks for responding.--Belibaste (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay, you recently made an edit on the article called Transcendental Meditation technique. Recently I've done a lot of work there adding new text and sources, plus reorganizing sections and re-doing the lead. Anyway, it would be great to have an experienced editor like yourself take a look at it, (especially the lead) and give any comments, suggestions etc. or make edits as you see fit. Thanking you in advance. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have only ever made one extremely minor edit to the Transcendental Meditation technique article, correcting the spelling of Religous > Religious. It is not a subject I know much about, although I knew a practitioner back in the mid 1970's. I have, however, just read the article, as you requested.

My initial reaction was

WP:TLDR

– at 10,000 words it is as long as some university dissertations - but I persevered to the end. I found parts of the article too promotional, with criticism mentioned in passing, almost dismissively, rather than being addressed, or explained, whereas talk about the benefits and the fees being charged, almost reads like an advertisement.
Personally, I feel there are far too many quotations, which makes it appear well referenced, but these are mostly subjective – from participants, rather than objective - comparing the technique with other forms of meditation – in fact I don’t remember reading any “compare and contrast” at all.

Having looked at the article history, I note you have just removed the neutrality tag. As the editor who has essentially re-written the entire article, I do not believe you (or anyone else, including myself) are detached enough to be able to assess the neutrality of what you have written.

Having looked at the talk page I note that you have stated “At present I do not see an neutrality issues, so I am removing the tag. If anyone disagrees they should feel free to replace the tag and giving a list of reasons here so that we can address them.” As stated above, I do not think it is neutral, and I am also worried by the phrase “so we can address them”, I do not know who “we” are, but this could be seen as an attempt to

WP:OWN

the article. I know almost nothing about TM, so I cannot criticise specific points, but remain concerned about the overall tone and lack of criticism.

You specifically asked for comment on the lede which at 400 words may be slightly too long. In particular, the third paragraph – the New Jersey Schools event seems rather specific for a lede, was this a big deal in the US? (I’m in the UK) but it was 35 years ago – does it merit 12% of the lede?

Having looked at your recent edits, I note that (when I looked) I am the only editor you have asked for an opinion from, although having done an editor check, over 20 editors have edited the article more than the once that I have. I suggest you canvass a wider opinion

Only 3 spelling mistakes that I can see – I will correct those when I have finished this. Sorry to be slightly negative – but you did ask. - Arjayay (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay, Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article and make detailed comments. This is very helpful and I take your comments seriously. I invited you because the article has been controversial in the past and I wanted a fresh pair of eyes from an uninvolved user. Regarding your points I'd like to respond one by one and have your feedback.

Yes, it is quite long, I think some sub-sections could be moved into other related articles. Was there any section that seemed tangential or off topic to you?

I agree with you on the quotations (too many) but this has come about because of the contentious nature of the article (Editing on the topic has been the focus of two Arbitrations) often times a quote has been easier to place than talk page disputes about the wording of a summary. Not sure what to do about that right now, but the feed back from you is good.

I am particularly interested in your comment: "I found parts of the article too promotional, with criticism mentioned in passing, almost dismissively, rather than being addressed, or explained, whereas talk about the benefits and the fees being charged, almost reads like an advertisement." Can you mention which "parts" you mean. This concerns me because I want to make the article as balanced and neutral as possible, that is why I have come to you. Can you point out specific sections so I can try to address this issue?

Per your comments I have placed the Neutrality Tag back in the article.

I agree with you about the course fees. I can remove them from the lead. Do you think they should be removed from the body of the article also?

There are some studies that have compared TM to other meditations but they do not conform to WP:MEDRS which requires scientific reviews when discussion health benefits. So not sure what to do there.

Yes, the lead is a bit long because the article is long and I felt every section should have a brief mention, but maybe its not necessary. Any suggestion as to what might be taken out or reduced?

The NJ schools event was a significant event in the propagation of the technique as it disallowed government funding for its programs in schools/prisons etc. because of church and state issues. I don't mind leaving it out but critics of TM feel it is important to mention.

Thank you again for your constructive criticism and participation. It is very valuable.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll have to be brief - I'm due somewhere else in real life.
I admire your reinstatement of the neutrality tag - I didn't do it as I don't know enough about TM - I just had a gut reaction on reading the article.

The article is entitled Transcendental Meditation technique but there is remarkably little on "technique" and a lot on "Courses", "Institutional programmes" and "Marketing". This article is now considerably bigger than the article on Transcendental Meditation itself and I wonder if the two articles (are there more on TM?) need their material re-allocating and/or re-dividing under different headings.
If the NJC event is important enough for the lede, it needs explaining better (but briefly) - I didn't understand its importance - I'm in the UK but although en.wiki can appear US-centric, well over half the readers are not in the US. (I can't find the figure but seem to remember it's about 1/3 US readers and 2/3 non-US)
Loosing the costs from the lede would help, as would a reduction in the main article.
I am off now until at least 14.00 UTC tomorrow - Arjayay (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Arjayay, I've removed the fees from the lead and put a note on the talk page. I'll also open a thread on the talk page and ask for input on reducing the article and suggesting editors consider moving sections about Advanced courses, Institutional programs and Marketing to other related articles. I think that is a good suggestion as they are a bit on the coatrack side of things. Just as background for you: there are about 85 TM related articles, 45 in the TM template at the bottom of the article. So its a big topic. There was a consensus a year or two ago that the word Transcendental Meditation was often used in different way to mean a technique or a movement so the TM page became the 'landing page' for the other main articles on TM ie technique, movement, history etc. I think that a lot of sections you mention (courses, institutional programmes and marketing) are really about the Movement and not the technique and maybe should be moved out. Lastly, when you have time, I'd be interested in hearing from you which areas or sentences or sections do not sound neutral. I want to fix that. I know you are very busy and you have already given a lot of your time to this. But when you have a few minutes if you could scan the article again and point me to some areas that need to be more neutral and balanced. Thank you so much. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks again for your report. I am not quite on top of things any more. The Wikimedia operations people are looking into it, and should be resolved hopefully soon. --rainman (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

See [3] --rainman (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay. Thank you for your editing to Missouri State Penitentiary. Obviously, a user is trying to distort the facts by inserting bias and unsourced claims into the article. This user should be banned from future edits. This is a recurring problem. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.18.193 (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Arjayay :). Just wanted to let you know we've started a discussion on some future changes to how buttons are styled; this also includes moving the edit summary explanation text, in line with your suggestion :). Give it a read and let us know what you think! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your (unsigned) invitation - this is not something I know anything about.

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. - Emma Goldman

Arjayay (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

As a member of the Wiki Project, and author or wikifier of several biographies, one of them eligibel to a B level status, I allowed myself to add a banner "Autobiography" on Florence Devouard. You immediately removed this banner with no explanation.

Having looked at this "biography" more in depth, I came to the conclusion, like dozens of other Wiki users, French and Englsh speaking, that this biography was more than dubious.

I added a banner "Notability". You removed my banner in a very rough way, almost threatening.

Were you threatening me ?

The autobiographical character is obvious if you look at the Talk page in French.

On this French talk page, Anthere gives orders to her "little brothers" and tells them exactly what to add, what to correct, in order for her to get a job !

She insists that her quality of "conseiller municipal" (village counsellor) of a village with 900 inhabitants in the middle of nowhere should be indicated.

Anthere even gives some technical tricks (subpage written by somebody else, in order not to be traced !)…

This whole process is ridiculous, unprofessional, unethical.

As several people already pointed out, this biography does not meet

requirements.

This autobiography is empty. No notable achievement in the field of agronomy, nor in the field of Wikipedia, nor anywhere else… In my humble opinion it should be removed.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Florence_Devouard#Autobiographie

Long extract from talk page of French article removed

1. Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, ~~~~ like this.
2. The policy you refer to in this heading
   WP:INVOLVED
   relates to Admins - I am not an Admin, and have no wish to be one.
3. In case you think my point 2 is side-stepping the inference of your question, I have no interest in Florence Devouard whatsoever. Looking at he page history, it appears the only previous edit I had made to that page was about a year ago when I removed a flag from the infobox, with the edit summary "Rm flag icon from infobox as Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(flags_and_icons)#Avoid_flag_icons_in_infoboxes"
4. Yes I did remove your Autobiography tag, however, although you state "You immediately removed this banner with no explanation" the edit summary clearly states
   "Rv "Autobiography" tag Page has had 218 contributing editors, none of which has edited more than 11 times"
   This is a fairly detailed and exact explanation, which clearly contradicts your claim that I left "no explanation".
   Unless Florence Devouard has literally hundreds of accounts, this also shows that the page was composed by numerous editors, so is not an autobiography.
5. Your post on the talk page, which you have copied to this page, appears to assume that all the material on the talk page of the French Wikipedia is true. Clearly a talk page is not a
   Reliable source
   as generally understood by Wikipedia.
6. If you believe this article should not be on the English Wikipedia, I suggest you submit it to
   WP:AFD, then the community as a whole can decide. I note, however, that the article has already gone through two AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florence Nibart-Devouard in May 2005 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florence Nibart-Devouard (second nomination)
   in December 2006. It may well be, however, that 6 years on, the community may have changed its mind.

Arjayay (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Back in July, you entered a problem at the Village Pump about your My preferences tabs not working. Did you ever get that resolved? I had the same problem and found that my IE Compatibility Mode had somehow become engaged for "all websites". When I disengaged Compatibility Mode, the My Prefs problem was resolved. Check out T43792 – Paine (Climax!)  02:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest - No it is still not resolved. I understand it was removed from the bugzilla list at some point, but it has now been reinstated. Occasionally, such as 20.00 UTC last night, all the preferences appear on one, very long, page, with no tabs. Usually, however, clicking a tab just jumps to the bottom of the opening "User profile" page.

Several people have suggested Compatability mode, and I have tried adding Wikipedia to the list, and tried ticking "Display all websites in compatability view", and all combinations of on/off, hard refresh and re-boot, but it makes no difference.

There seems to be some confusion about compatibility mode. My understanding is, to quote Wikipedia "A compatibility mode in an operating system is a software mechanism in which a computer's operating system emulates an older processor, operating system, and/or hardware platform" So, you use it to back-date a newer machine, to cope with older programmes etc.

Having tried several WP problems on my friend's W7 IE9 machine, I can reproduce all my problems (and there have been a lot, not just My Preferences) by turning on Compatibility, and so backdating his machine. However, this does not work in reverse. According to the description, Compatibility is not meant to up-date an older machine to cope with newer programmes, so I am not surprised it makes no difference to me.

Thanks again for your interest - Arjayay (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome! In my case, the box had been checked for "Display all websites in Compatibility View". All I did was just to uncheck that box and all my problems went away. In addition to the "My prefs" page being squirrelly, all the Navbars had lost their separators, usually a {{,}} of some type that places a separating dot between entries. All the entries in all the Navbars were butted up against each other, which made them very hard to read. I checked the Navbars in Firefox, and the separators appeared. That was my first clue that something was wrong in the IE browser. My advice is to go back and carefully look at your Compatibility View settings one more time. Make sure "wikipedia.org" has not been added inside the box. If it has been added, click on it to select it, then click the "Remove" button. Also make sure that the "Display all websites in Compatibility View" box is unchecked.

The person who reopened T43792 says that Wikipedia should have tested that aspect of the IE browser. I suppose if they had tested for it, they could have at least put it in the The Signpost to warn everybody, or they might have even fixed it to where the IECV wouldn't affect the page codes. I hope all this helps you! – Paine (Climax!)  16:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Arjayay, I take it from your previous description that you use an older version of Internet Explorer? That would explain the differences you described. You might also check your Active X and turn off all of them you don't actually use. In IE9, they are called "add-ons", and the command to take you there might be something like "Manage add-ons" from the Tools menu. If that doesn't do it, you might play with the View menu, set the Zoom to 100%, the text size to whatever (I don't think it matters - mine is set on Largest because I'm old and decrepit), set Encoding on Unicode (UTF-8) and make sure nothing is checked on the "More" menu, and choose Left-to-right document, and lastly, set the Style to the default style. If none of that works, then you might consider a later IE version. HTH – Paine (Climax!)  23:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm still on XP (backgraded from Vista) which limits me to IE8. I have had to carry on using this, as I regularly use some software that will not run on W7. I also have over 2500 "favorites" in IE8, so cannot easily transfer to Firefox or another browser (but use this to change my settings). I'm waiting to see what problems W8 has before buying either a W7 or W8 machine, and using the two in parallel. Thanks for your further suggestions, which I have tried, to no avail.

I know MS have just stopped support for XP, but it is still widely used, especially in developing countries, where many second hand machines are sent, and which is where Wikipedia is growing fast. I just wish Wikipedia would stop making changes without fully testing them first - I'm spending more and more time at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and less and less time doing something useful.

Thanks again Arjayay (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you're very welcome, and keep trying. There was a recent change, this one, that was made just 3 days ago, and the devs are still working on the problems. That change fixed a lot of the problems, but it didn't fix my My preferences problem, so it may have not fixed yours, either. I used to use XP until I finally bought a computer with W7, but beware: I was perkin' right along with W7 Professional, when MS got me to pay for an upgrade to W7 "Ultimate". Since that upgrade, I've had nothing but problems, especially with Windows Update. I now have a few dozen updates that won't install. I have to hide them to keep the WU icon from bugging me all the time. And, of course, MS won't get back to me on any kind of fix. No, they won't let me downgrade back to W7 Prof. I guess we all have our computer problems. Sometimes I feel like throwing mine out the window! Although, I don't know what I would have done without it this holiday season. It saved me a lot on fuel! Happy holidays! – Paine (Climax!)  00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've heard similar tales about upgrades - it seems that, if you installed Ultimate from the beginning, it works fine, but upgrading to it has caused others problems, similarly with upgrades from W7 to W8. At the moment, I'm holding back to see how W8 beds in - then I've got to choose 32 or 64 bit - decisions, decisions. Arjayay (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I just tested my IE9, and the problem with the My Preferences tabs in Compatibility View has been fixed. You might want to run a brief test on yours to see if there is any change. If not, then it might be time to open a new bug to address any problem(s) you may still have. – Paine (Climax!)  21:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads-up", yes it works in IE8 as well - It took from July to December, but we got there in the end. Arjayay (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm so glad that it works for you, too, Arjayay! – Paine (Climax!)  05:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that I'm trying to censor you. I remember only that I was once in a wiki-policy (do not remember the name) around pictures of people that you should not put them up if it was (half) naked in the pictures, or if it was taken as part of the example. filming a porn movie. kind regards. --89.249.2.53 (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You are not trying to censor me, but appear to be trying to censor the article. I suspect the policy you are half remembering is about "unreasonable intrusion without consent" but this photograph was posed for, so there was consent, and no intrusion. Jodie Marsh is, or has been, a

Glamour model, so the inclusion of this photo does not seem unreasonable to me.
If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest you raise it at Talk:Jodie Marsh which currently has 14 threads, several of which have been quite controversial, but none of which refer to the photo at all.
Arjayay (talk

) 09:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Colchester Zoo

Hi there Arjayay! I am not part of the zoo as you first thought. I am just a very keen and regular visitor. I merely ment to improve the quality of the zoo's wikipedia page and update some of the information there! I had no intention to advertise, and I feel that I am not advertising. If you beleive that there is advertising on the page, then please do delete the information. I am new to wikipedia, and had no idea of the of all the things you have to do with a article. I am sorry for the hastle i have caused. EL BIRNO 23:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I trust Yahoo! with my life. Also I have other sources I could put in. I think it is very important and should not be reverted. By the way Pure links to my User Page and you can just click my talk from there. Evoogd20 Pure Awesomeness 02:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Who the fuck are you?! He does'nt have to tell you who he is . I know him he was there, in TYP for 4 fucken years; you were'nt there for a day so shut the fuck up. And how the fuck is he supposed to citate his sources if they want to stay annonymous. I know them, they were all there for at least 4 years. Be careful man, it's not smart to fuck with the YMG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.167.211 (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2012‎ (UTC)

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

|Thanks for going way above and beyond your normal contributions in your reviewing and monitoring of a rather long and active article. Your participation (both past and future) is very much appreciated by myself and the encyclopedia. Cheers!!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem - as you say it was "a long and active article", which made following the changes rather difficult; especially when, halfway through re-reading it, it was changed again - but as the changes were heading in the right direction, I was happy to let them run their course. As stated on the talk page, I was impressed by you and your fellow editors' ability to view the article from a NPoV.
Arjayay (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Arjayay. Earlier this week you removed some promotional language from the

, which was added by an IP editor earlier in the week.

I'd actually like to suggest that the section be removed entirely, and I'm asking if you'll do so. It's not supported by any third-party sources, there's no indication that the South Asia office is noteworthy enough to deserve a top-level heading, and per

.

Relevant background: I worked with PSB's New York office to update this article earlier in the year (

) 15:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Done - Thanks for the request and the explanation - I've also added the page to my watchlist.
Please feel free to remove this section from my talk page if you so wish.
Arjayay (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Much better now. I try to be transparent about asking for help on things like this, so it's fine by me if this stays—but it's your Talk page, so please do as you like. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries - It'll get archived in due course. Arjayay (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

oh right, one thing that would help would be removing all the see alsos that are in the template at the bottom of the article, the see alsos aren't mean to repeat anything else Tom B (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay,

I recently created the page about Hapag Lloyds new ship MS Europa 2. I don't mean to sound rude but I noticed that you changed the date of the maiden voyage from 11th May 2013 to the 11th June 2013. According to the Hapag Lloyd website (link below), the maiden voyage is on the 11/05/13 and lasts until the 25/05/13, which is May, not June.

http://www.hl-cruises.com/finder/eux1300/itineraries/

I just thought I would bring this to your attention.

Cheers, (pleae reply using my talk page) MrDerails (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay,

No worries. I often have that problem too.

I have just changed the launch date as after looking into it it turns out the ship was actually launched last year (as said here), and I think where they put on their website 'Launching' it means when the ship begins with the company. I thought the same as you when I first saw it - 'How are the going to fit that out in 11 days!'.

All the best, MrDerails (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

As you are being so helpful I would like you to just look at the above which I published at the same time as the piece on Ligier Richier. I am sure that you would also classify this as an "essay" which is fair comment.

This was also tagged as an "orphan" and today I have been adding

to many parts of the article.

However this does not seem remedy the absence of a link to the "Maitre de Chaource" and I would really value your help.

Weglinde (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you have been adding outward links to

The works of Ligier Richier, which it certainly needed, but had not added any incoming links. I hoped you had not misunderstood my comment about links, and added one from Ligier Richier

As stated in

WP:ORPHAN

"Although a single, relevant incoming link is sufficient, .... three or more is ideal"

Can you think of other articles that can/should link to "The works of Ligier Richier"? Even if there is no article on the church or museum in which the sculptures are, presumably there are articles on some of the towns in which his work features. Such an article can be altered to say that the church contains a sculpture by Ligier Richier enabling you to add a link.

As for

The_Maitre_de_Chaource

, yes it is another academic essay.

I am increasingly concerned why you are writing in this style - are these essays you wrote as part of a course? If so, even though you wrote them, the copyright probably belongs to the academic institute to which you submitted them. This usually holds true, even if you have translated them - translation does not overcome copyright.

As with Ligier Richier, presumably there are articles on some of the towns in which these works feature, which can be amended to mention the sculpture enabling you to add a link.

Hope this helps - Arjayay (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I shall try to follow your advice on "incoming links".

Concerning the style of writing, the pieces on Ligier Richier and the Maitre de Chaource were not written as part of a course and I have written several articles for Wikipedia which, in the absence of any comment, were I guess in the correct encyclopedic form and I did not set out to write these two pieces in a different form. It just happened.

Not sure if there is another wiki "vehicle" to which the two pieces could be transferred? If not I hope they will be allowed to stand.

Again thanks for your help.

Weglinde (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you still want to do anything with

) 00:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd completely forgotten that I'd even started it.
There was a quite a lot of work in reducing their list to those artists with their own WP page. I seem to remember I didn't move it to article space, as the only sources I had at the time were Primary. A WP search for "BGO Records" has over 200 matches - plus those under "Beat Goes On Records" and some of the entries under "BGO", so it would be far from an orphan.
Not sure from your question if you want to complete it and move it to article space? (please do), or delete it? (please don't) - Arjayay (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC

Thank you for your help. I found out what the problem was. The ads no longer appear on Wikipedia articles.24.209.194.7 (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

(1) The edit you reverted at Graham Bean had BLP issues (the IP was indeed blocked, but that isn't grounds for revert, especially when BLP requires verifiable information) and was reversed by Drmies. (2) Your spelling fixes are too rapid; are you using a BOT or a script to fix it? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

1) When I tried the URL at Graham Bean, it gave an unrecognized URL message. Having tried it again, I must have entered it incorrectly, but I assumed it was a fake summary to make a bad edit look good. Graham Bean has recently had a number of reversions, and the version the (now blocked) IP was massively reducing, was that left by User: Diannaa a sysop with far more experience than me.

2) No, I am most certainly not using a BOT or a script, I hate both of them. I carry out my edits manually, in batches:-

Open the relevant search e.g. common misspellings, enter the word into "find", open 7 or 8 pages in edit mode, on separate sub-tabs, without waiting for each to load

Find, edit, check, paste summary, and save, move to next tab without waiting for last one to save, - repeat for the rest of the batch, then close the saved tabs (leaving those that are still being saved running) and select more from the list.

This avoids the most time wasting part of editing, waiting for pages to load and be saved, and by keeping the search open, it avoids it coming back in a different order, when it is reloaded

Although some are very rude about IE, this seems to work best in IE, as you can open numerous tabs whilst remaining on the search page, do not have to re-load the find term, and can see what stage each tab is at, without opening it.

Arjayay (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

On my most recent visit to the article I nominated it for deletion, that's all. I didn't read it and I didn't check the history. I don't have it on my watch-list. So the fact that I did not remove the problematic addition was a mistake on my part. -- Diannaa (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Your "batch" is somewhere between 6~50, it seems (one batch of your edits on September 16 was about 50 edits in 17 minutes). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tried various batch sizes - I started with 4 or 5, then worked up to a maximum of about 12, but then went back to about 6 or 7.
Such a cycle takes about 2-3 minutes, as can be seen from the pattern in my contributions starting at 08.17 on 16 September - the sixes and sevens often bridge 2 or even 3 minutes, but the pattern is pretty clear.
The system only works with very simple edits. e.g. deleting a couple of characters, which is easy to do with the keyboard, leaving the clipboard free for the edit summary.
I am not sure why you are so intrigued by this, but I can type out a fuller explanation if you would like to try it. Arjayay (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Because I occasionally try to do that when I'm posting the same stuff to multiple pages (for example, arbitration case notifications), but either my computer won't run fast enough or IE blows up (or the such...) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I found the hardest part was to train myself not to wait for things to load or save, just get on with the next one. After years of watching the little arrow going round, ignoring it is counter-intuitive but it will work in its own time.
One problem I still occasionally have is the co-ordination required to use control, so pages are loaded into tabs and do not replace the search list, and then release control at the right time.
For the use you want, I assume you have the text you want to paste on the clipboard, so need the edit summary to be the only option to drop down when you enter the first letter of the summary.
I can't get edit summaries to be remembered in secure mode, so have to work in insecure mode when I want to use my 150 or so saved edit summaries
Arjayay (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Usually when I do those x-posts I end up creating new sections, so a good chunk of the time I actually don't get to use manual summaries. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not so easy, although you can open the page using the "new topic" option in the drop-down, ideally you want 2 clipboards - for the section title and the text.
However, do you need to start a new section using the "new section" tab? Can't you include ==New section title== at the top of the pasted text?
This would allow you to open direct in edit mode, hit Control End to get to the bottom, paste, then use a the edit summary to say "ARBCOM notification" or whatever you want it to say.
This also allows you to see the source text above what you are entering, whereas opening direct in "new topic" gives you no idea what else is on the page.
Arjayay (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Opening it in a new section is a lot easier, because it alerts the editor that there's a new section. (Else you need to manipulate the edit summary to include the link to that section.) Most of the time when I do such notifications though, it's not related to what else is on the page (or it's important enough to require its own section). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA: EL OFFICIAL The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

So I can take media files from official site of the subject. The area for which he is notable are his songs (and other songs in his perfomance). I don't want to trouble the administrators, though they didn't prevent me in other resembling article.Анна Волкова (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please put new posts at the bottom of the page, and please provide link the article you are talking about - I assume it is Alexander Barykin?

You seem to have misunderstood

WP:ELOFFICIAL

which is only about what links can be put in an External Links section at the bottom of the page.
Specifically, ELOFFICIAL states:- Official links are still subject to standard formatting requirements, such as ..... not placing links in the text of the article.
The External Links you have added in the text of the article must, therefore, be removed.

Before moving all of these links into an External Links section, you should also read the next paragraph

WP:ELMINOFFICIAL

which states:- Normally, only one official link is included

Adding lots of External Links is contrary to

WP:LINKFARM and these will be removed - Arjayay (talk

) 18:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Citing sorces

When and why to cite sources

By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources…

For an image or other media file, details of its origin and copyright status should appear on its file page.

I cited on video or mp3 files from official cite in discography (tracks from albums). But I cited on three videos in the text of biography, because I must set an examples why “Barykin is considered by many as a father of Russian reggae». “…citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable”. Анна Волкова (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand what is meant by Citing Sources -

WP:CITE

explains that cited sources are given as a footnote, at the bottom of the article.

WP:EL

is also quite clear External links should not be used in the body of an article, but appropriate external links can be in an "External links" section at the end of the article.

Finally, the inclusion of a link to a You-tube video does not show that “Barykin is considered by many as a father of Russian reggae" - it proves absolutely nothing.
There could have been many Russian reggae artists before him, and who are the "many" you claim consider him so?
Only a quotation from a

WP:Reliable Source, not a source related to Barykin in any way, but a reliable independent source, would show that, and the inclusion of that reference in the footnotes is all that is required.
Arjayay (talk

) 12:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Arjaway, you are right. I want to propogandize Russian music but I must obey the rules. Please, help me. Irina Harpy deleted my section in the article Kievan Rus' though I didn't break the rules. You may see it. It's simple to help me if you delete last edition in this article and write that arguments are mistaken. Анна Волкова (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Anna - I am not totally clear, but I think you are asking me to revert Iryna's edit and just reinstate the list of novels into the article.
We try to avoid simply changing things back and forward, which is called

WP:EDITWARRING, and instead we discuss, and try to agree, what should happen.
However, I have some sympathy for you. Although I think that layout was better when arranged under authors, rather than dates, you were improving the article by adding additional books and references.
Also, I think that many of the arguments made are totally irrelevant and have, therefore, added a comment on Talk:Kievan Rus' - Arjayay (talk

) 18:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I also have some sympathy for you. Анна Волкова (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering whether you've read my response to you on the Kievan Rus' talk page. I do apologise for being somewhat acerbic as regards your criticisms, but I suspect that you may not realise the Kievan Rus' is not the exclusive history of Russia. It is the history of Belarus, Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania as well. Aside from the subject being peripheral (even if it was exclusively Russian history), to concern ourselves with what is of interest in contemporary Russian fiction is to deny other nation-states its place in their history. Cheers for your time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! Apparently the

) 18:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries - The problem often seems to arise between 17.00 and 20.00 UTC - I suspect it is because it is early evening in Europe, lunch on the US East coast, just when the Wikipedia "techies" in California start work and doing things to the servers which slow them down. Arjayay (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I really didn't intend to pipe [[Upper Crust (restaurant chain)|media]], and your edit was right; there's really no need to link it at all. I appreciate you cleaning up after my mistake. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 17:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem - although it was quite an unusual pipe. Arjayay (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank's for your help. --H₂O^(talk) 10:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay, My understanding was that it's acceptable to include information about the current location of a work of art. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions states "The present location may be added in parentheses: (Louvre)." I can improve my formatting since I see from the guidelines that what I was doing isn't ideal: I hadn't been using the brackets. Presumably using (Chemical Heritage Foundation) would be acceptable under that guideline. Would a linkback be acceptable if it points to information specifically about the image? I didn't have a page about the Paine image specifically, so I had linked the page to the organization's site. (I've see that done elsewhere, so I didn't realize it was an error. Apologies.) Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Mary - Thanks for the reply, sorry for the delay in responding, but I am on

User:SummerPhD

who has 70K edits, so I suspect this is not well known.

However, it is not just the brackets that cause concern, you were using an External Link (i.e. [http://www.chemheritage.org/ Chemical Heritage Foundation] giving Chemical Heritage Foundation) rather than a Wikilink (i.e. [[Chemical Heritage Foundation]] giving

Chemical Heritage Foundation

have ELs rather than Wikilinks...

Another problem is that many/most people reading Wikipedia know that the Louvre is a gallery, so immediately understand/guess what (Louvre) refers to, whereas, (with due respect to your "appointer", or whatever a "Wikipedian in residence" has) (Chemical Heritage Foundation) does not conjure up the image of a gallery, where artwork can be seen. It may be better known in the US than here in the UK, or elsewhere in the world, but it appears a non sequitur when placed after the description of a painting, especially one of a C18th political writer such as Paine, who has no obvious link to Chemical Heritage. Is there a specific "gallery" in the CHF? Would the reason for including the text be clearer with

Chemical Heritage Foundation Gallery

as the description?

Of course, full details of an image are/should be available simply by clicking on that image, so a detailed description is important when uploading an image, however, newcomers to Wikipedia are probably unaware of this.
Arjayay (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As Arjayay suspected, I was not aware of the guideline in question. Living in Philadelphia, I am familiar with the Foundation. My revert was based on the seemingly random nature of the addition (the "Gallery" addition would have helped) and the lack of an edit summary. -

talk

) 13:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I apologize that I hadn't actually noticed the revert, when I looked at the page I just assumed that I'd forgotten to add the location, and put in (again) without realizing it had been taken out. I suspect the guideline will become used more often as GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums) add collections images to Commons.

I realize that not a lot of people will be familiar with the Chemical Heritage Foundation. I can see the problem with the name seeming unrelated. Naming gets tricky because CHF includes a museum, archive, and library, all of which have resources in multiple collections. There's also a research centre for the history of science. "Gallery" doesn't really match up with anything internally. Would "Collections" be informative? That would be more appropriate since some of the images we're releasing are of objects in the collections that aren't on view. (

Chemical Heritage Foundation). It would still enable people to follow the link back and figure out why it's there. But I think either could work. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk

) 15:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "Chemical Heritage Foundation, Collections" is unwieldy - especially under small images, as, depending on the preceding text, it could get split into 3 lines; conversely, as it covers the museum, archive and library, I can see advantages in a single title. However, as

Chemical Heritage Foundation page be acceptable? It is shorter, explains that it is part of a collection, and still links to the Foundation. Arjayay (talk

) 19:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that they're going to let me change the name of the organization, and the Wikipedia guideline is to use the name of the location (which is the organization). (

Chemical Heritage Foundation

Museum) would give people a clue as to the nature of the organization without being inaccurate.

I'm not suggesting you change the name of the organization, but that you pipe the link, so it appears as

Chemical Heritage Foundation Collection they should definitely be piped. Arjayay (talk

) 22:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(

Chemical Heritage Foundation Museum) sounds like the best compromise then. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk

) 00:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

OK - over to you. Arjayay (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In edits such as this and this, you removed entries that did in fact have a legitimate blue link per

19:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - that was not my understanding of the redlink rule, but I stand corrected, I'll review my recent edits. Arjayay (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.