July 31

Having searched for "acig" in the search box came up with 357 page hits. However www.acig.org is a

Completely unfamiliar with this subject matter but it appears that the resource is questionable in that it is mostly just a forum. If this was me on a subject matter I was well versed in I would alert the Wikiprojects to this reference being used multiple times on their respective discussion or talk pages (not the article talk pages but the wikiprojects talk pages, the ones listed on the article talk pages that "cover" those articles). That was editors who are well versed and experienced with the topics and the resources available will be made aware if and how this is or is not a reliable source and in what limited areas it may be used as one. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at topics on acig.org that I am very familiar with and found it to contain numerous serious errors, so my (subjective) assessment is that it is not a Reliable Source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just wonder... is it possible/legal to publish SRD of DnD 3.5 and other OGL games at Wikisource? I am not talking about making your own RPG that would be based on SRD, just publishing it as it is. --Kaworu1992 (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell from

OGL if it meets the requirements or not. You should at at Wikisource. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium. RudolfRed (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Jillbdc/Peter_W._Cookson,_Jr.

Thanks! Jillbdc (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jill. Your references are utterly opaque. A good citation allows anyone to

original research containing things you happen to know but which cannot be verified in published reliable sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Fuhghettaboutit is correct, reliable sources in major media or books is an absolute must. What also may assist you is the

Wikipedia:About the Sandbox and Wikipedia:Subpages at which point you may get the feedback of other editors at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Hope this assists you and Welcome to Wikipedia! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The word "respected" needs to be cut from the lead for

WP:PEACOCK. Also, why is he notable? What makes him more special than anybody else who has a job? Because he manages a "think tank"? Because he writes stuff? If he is so respected, surely there is plenty of info in the ether to detail him and his contributions. (While seemingly harsh in tone, these are the types of questions that should be answered in the article.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

For Bob Dylan's "Another Side of Bob Dylan" page (Another Side of Bob Dylan), the review "box" shows what is supposed to Rolling Stone magazine's rating but the source (footnote 15) is really a link to a RateYourMusic site (http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/RollingStoneAlbumGuide/strm_a/bob+dylan/1) that then leads to purchasing options and is no way related to Rolling Stone magazine. How do we correct this?

Thanks,

Larry 04:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archhill581 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Larry. First please try to always "sign" your discussions with ~~~~ so we know what editor ID we are speaking to/of, small but important point. To answer your query it appears that all is right with the source web link in that the website it goes to has at the very top of the table on its 2^nd column the item "Rating" and proceeds to list each items rating in number of stars. Although the perfect source would actually say "Album X is rated Y" there is nothing wrong with a source such as is listed on the current version of the wikiarticle. As I try to lend a hand to many editors here from time to time a quick fix I usually use is the CNTRL and F key which takes me right to any and every instance of a word or combination of words on any website. To be honest I may have also missed the "rating" on that website as well if not for immediately using the "find/CNTRL F" function. Long story short the "Rating" is indeed listed on that source, and thanks for raising the concern with us. :-) ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't the rating but the rater. The ratings table in the article links to the Rolling Stone magazine. Larry claims the source http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/RollingStoneAlbumGuide/strm_a/bob+dylan/1 is no way related to Rolling Stone magazine. I disagree. It appears RateYourMusic is hosting an online version of The Rolling Stone Album Guide, a book which is a sister publication of Rolling Stone magazine. The article doesn't use RateYourMusic's own user-based rating at [1]. I don't edit music and don't know whether "Rolling Stone" is considered an acceptable link for ratings in The Rolling Stone Album Guide. Another complication is that different editions of the album guide apparently have different ratings.[2] The 4.5 stars is in the most recent edition. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting PrimeHunter, as a fellow non-editor of music and in light of your findings my recommendation would to have OP go to the wikiproject covering that and ask there. Though this is a valid and important question the "complication"(s) inherit in "rankings" of something as subjective as music is why I never spent much time getting to know more about it. Editors who have would most likely be found in the wikiproject talk page. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An issue I have with some BLP's is the specific "Personal Life" vs. the generalized "Life and Career" sections. Bio articles such as

If you click on the Talk (or "Discuss") tab on the articles you have mentioned there will be various Wikiproject bars at the very top that when expanded will have a blue wikilink for "discussions" or "talk" most likely. Discussing this topic on a wikiproject's talk page of say "music artists" or "pop stars" etc. (I am unsure of the specific ones but you'd want to choose a wikiproject that covers all the BLP's you seek policy clarity on) and engaging those editors on your perspective would probably be the best route. Any unknown policies they will make you aware of and you will have an opportunity to build consensus for a possible change to how those type of BLPs are structured and written. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "correct" Project to discuss this is WP:WikiProject Biography. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Roger Dodger67. Small caveat, OP's listing of "biographies" are more the type to show up on TMZ, rather than C-SPAN or write a Wall Street Journal editorial. "Personal life" sections thou treated the same at wikipedia tend to have far more and different coverage for those listed above. Editors who are up to date with a Kanye West probably would have a different perspective for consensus than those editing political leaders or Nobel winners so engaging those in consensus may be useful for the OP even if it isn't the exact Wikiproject. That said, you're suggestion Roger Dodger67 is correct & the one most relevant. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well... Mr.

thewolfchild 02:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the appreciation, trust me I have tons of empathy for you, I am currently in the middle of about 6 different projects that are multi-faceted with about 20 different aspects from reliable source verification and searching to coding and styling.

If you are frustrated with the results of the wikiproject talk pages there is a

WP:BOLD ethos where you can with the understanding that other editors will jump in and discuss or seek a compromised resolution. My suggestion and one that I have used to some success before is to basically leave notations on 'ALL possibly connected wikiprojects and "flagship" articles with neutral RfCs

.

If you've taken the time to check my userpage or contributions it becomes very apparent that I know less than nothing about the subject matter of these articles. I wouldn't feel qualified to really engage in & defend discussion views on this let alone defend edits to them. A statement that I thought articles such as these were basically unencyclopedic I really wouldn't disagree with. So although I appreciate the opportunity to share some knowledge at the help desk most of the topics of help desk queries are things that I might check out to learn a little about but would never trust myself with an edit of. October 5 1956 in Latrobe, Pennsylvania I'm kind of all over thou with hours of research, stylizing, cite checks and coding. It takes all kinds as they say. Happy editing! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must also plead inexperience - I tend to avoid editing popular music/musician articles, except for the occasional "maintenance" edit, as it isn't within my range of interests. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, guys. I just wanna be clear on something here... I don't particularly have any vested interest in most of the people these bio's are about, nor am I interested in the overall content of those pages. I just simply came across a problem that I would like to fix. It seems there was a standard lay-out, but now a handful of people want to re-do these pages their way. It's only seems to be on a few pages, but it is growing - despite the fact there are multiple complaints on every page about these changes. I would like to 'nip this in the bud', so to speak. And with that... I guess we'll see what happens. -

thewolfchild 06:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• btw - the WP:BLP post is here - wolf

Please fix up my edit for James Kitson, 1st Baron Airedale Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I meant please fix up the edit for "Albert Kitson, 2nd Baron Airedale". Thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the error message with this edit. Click that link to see what I did, and check out Help:Referencing for beginners for next time! -- John of Reading (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does one do this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolealade (talk • contribs) 11:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Changing username‎. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP only has one edit (the question here) so it's easier just to abandon the current account and create a new one.--ukexpat (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the advice in the 4th bullet at Wikipedia:Changing username‎#Please consider the following alternatives to a rename:. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir Madam.

Yesterday I created a new page :Antonio testa and it was deleted. :( I did use few sentences from the musician page since I have the permission from the musician to do it but still it was deleted.

Second thing is that at the head of the page it's written: Antonio testa - testa need to be in Capital letter. how we can change that. to Testa ? I didn't mange to do so. Thanks! Mira — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mira Amad (talk • contribs)

You can't just say you have copyright clearance; if the subject grants you permission, they must inform the Wikipedia administration of that fact, and do so in a manner that is verifiable. This is quite a arduous process, and it is usually easier for you to generate your own content. Also, the surname would need to be capitalised. I can't comment on this specific case, but you'd also need to ensure that your subject is

notable.  drewmunn  talk  12:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Welcome to Wikipedia! First please remember to add ~~~~ to the end of your post so we may see your "signature" and link to your talk page/user page, small but important point. I agree with drewmunn, however what may assist you is the

Wikipedia:About the Sandbox and Wikipedia:Subpages at which point you may get the feedback of other editors at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Hope this assists you. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm trying to use Template:Hidden but I'm experiencing some issues. Namely, it seems to break when I have one template inside another. Is this a known issue with templates? Is there another template I can use to collapse a chunk of text / templates?

Namely, I'm trying to collapse some content on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia/Template guidelines. I want to collapse the "Template for multiple-recordings" and "Template for recordings about another page" sections (including text and templates) so they're hidden by default. Is Template:Hidden the best way to do this, and how can I get it to work? As it stands, when I try it breaks and some of the text just disappears when I encapsulate it within the Hidden template.

I would greatly appreciate any help. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look now, Collapse works. - X201 (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's something odd happening with the headers, it's appearing two lines above where it should. :-/ - X201 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same thing... very weird... CaseyPenk (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem definitely seems related to the template included within the collapse bounds. Namely, the template causing the problem is

{{Spoken Wikipedia-2|2005-04-18|Robert Oppenheimer intro.ogg|Robert Oppenheimer.ogg}}

CaseyPenk (talk)

Anyone have an idea what's wrong with

Template:Spoken Wikipedia-2? CaseyPenk (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure which problem you refer to. Try to explain it better and state your browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the problem at

Template:Spoken Wikipedia-2 the content gets broken up - some is collapsed but some is not. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a template issue, not a browser issue. Problem replicated across Firefox and Chrome. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. [3] fixed it, hopefully without causing other problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! I didn't think it would be a boilerplate problem since the boilerplate is used on multiple templates. Thanks so much for your help on this -- and if it broke something I'm not aware of it. :) CaseyPenk (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it did break something. {{Spoken Wikipedia boilerplate}} is used by 5 Spoken Wikipedia templates. 2 of them assumed it would have balanced div tags while the other 3 assumed it would have an unpaired </div>. I have made a new fix where all 5 assume the unpaired div. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I represent Scott Gerson, MD, PhD (Ayurveda)who is one of the senior Ayurvedic physicians in the U.S. He trained in India and currently holds faculty positions at both Tilak Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya and New York Medical College.

Our website is www.ayurveda.md

Please include us in the list which appears under "Ayurveda"

Sincerely, Rakesh Sharma administrator, Ayurveda.MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.230.103 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 31 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't currently see how the person in question satisfies our criteria for inclusion; he doesn't seem

the criteria, then further action may be taken by other editors. At this time, however, I do not foresee his inclusion on Wikipedia. Thanks.  drewmunn  talk  16:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Jason kirk is also a correspondence chess candidate master — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.7 (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to a Wikipedia article? Jason Kirk is about a fictional character. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP might be referring to this person and maybe tries to point out that we do have an article about the fictional character, but not about the chess player. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I created a new account and a new article but cannot figure out if it is pending publication on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkundanis (talk • contribs) 18:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is at

WP:Referencing for beginners.--ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]