Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The assistance section of the village pump is used to make requests for assistance with Wikipedia.

If you wish to report vandalism, please go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead.

If you have a specific question to ask, you may go to Wikipedia:Ask a question or MediaWiki Help instead.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Replacing a PNG with an SVG

I recently replaced Image:Edible_toxicity_icon.png with Image:Edible_toxicity_icon.svg in Template:Mycomorphbox, but I then saw that it is still the PNG which shows up on Russula caerulea which uses the {{Mycomorphbox}} template. I am somewhat puzzled as to why this should be and would like some help with fully integrating the SVG in the aforementioned template. It Is Me Here (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The image was only changed in the documentation section. It is hard to implement before all types are available as SVG. The relevant code is: image:{{{howEdible}}}_toxicity_icon.png. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 09:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll wait for some more SVGs to be created first, then. It Is Me Here (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason the template couldn't include an optional parameter to specify an explicit complete image name. I suggest that be done for cases like these. Dcoetzee 22:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 08:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing Special:Statistics?

I'd like some internal links to be added to the text in the Special:Statistics page. Namely, I would like:

" This number excludes redirects, discussion pages, image description pages, user profile pages, templates, help pages, portals, articles without links to other articles, and pages for Wikipedia administration. Including these, we have 14,025,995 pages. "

to be replaced with:

" This number excludes redirects, discussion pages, image description pages, user profile pages, templates, help pages, portals, articles without links to other articles, and pages for Wikipedia administration. Including these, we have 14,025,995 pages. "

- except keep the code behind the number, of course. If anyone could do that (and/or explain how it can be done, so that I know for future reference), then that would be very much appreciated. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's controlled by MediaWiki:Sitestatstext (MediaWiki pages can only be edited by admins). You could ask on its talk page, or maybe an admin will respond here...Someguy1221 (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll post a message over there - but was there any way for me to find out what the template was called myself? It Is Me Here (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You can look at Special:AllMessages to find a particular system message. Careful, as it's a large page. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 09:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, just what I was looking for! It Is Me Here (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A small public service

Ever had a discussion with people who acted as if wiki-consensus could overrule the law? Well if you've reached wit's end with that, here's a reality check you're welcome to deploy. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 20:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing Copyright status

I don't know how to change the copyright status of this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kotkapuramap.jpg I'm pretty sure it's safe as I got it from the government website http://faridkot.nic.in/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "safe" - but a lot of governments do not automatically release their documents into the public domain; I'm not sure what India does. (The U.S. federal government, for example, doesn't copyright its documents).

As for changing the copyright status, notice that in this message, on the image page, that "copyright license tag" is a link:

This image or media does not have information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted after Thursday, 7 August 2008. Please remove this template if a copyright license tag has been added.

That link shows you what tags are available. Copy the appropriate one, then - at the image page - just click the "edit this page" tab, and add the tag. And you can then remove the warning template.

If you have further questions, you might try Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How strange?

User:Jiuguang Wang ^contribs is a student in robotics at Georgia Tech. He is originally from Beijing. He came here, according to his bio, in 2000 at age 12. I think that makes him 19 now. He posted a robotics template in the discussion page of an article I started in May of 2007. I made the mistake of clicking on the link in the template and then answering his questions, discussing my work and then providing him with links to my articles on the Wikia without learning more about him. He said that he disagreed with my Wikia articles and without warning posted a nomination for deletion on my Wikipedia article page instead of a reference tag or a not notable tag, or any other tag that might have given me time to deal with the problem. All of the sudden, wham there was the deletion tag. No warning. Next thing I know in the deletion discussion where I was trying to defend myself and the article in great haste, he accused me of a personal attack when in reality he was attacking me through the nomination for deletion. Next, - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} joined the deletion discussion but strangely in the role of "good cop." I recall seeing his user signature on User:Jiuguang Wang ^contribs's talk page. Other users joined the deletion discussion and next thing I know a couple of days later the article was deleted. This morning I finally had some time for a recap and to do a little research.

First thing. User:Jiuguang Wang ^contribs is posting his robotics template to a lot of discussion pages. Someone needs to check this out and see what Wang is up to. I'm sure he will have a good excuse.

{{WikiProject Robotics|nested=no|class=C|importance=mid}}

Second thing. I asked Henrik I Christensen, Director, Robotics and Intelligent Machines at Georgia Tech if he knew why User:Jiuguang Wang ^contribs would be back stabbing me, claiming my article was a hoax and Henrik replied:

"I am sorry that you have been attacked for an article in Wikipedia. I do not have any students named Jiuguang Wang, so this is really not a matter that I can address. - Henrik"

Third thing. I thought, "How strange?", when User:Jiuguang Wang ^contribs is editing the Wikipedia article about Henrik I. Christensen. Anybody have any idea what is going on?

Julie Dancer (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - first of all, you were already given a final warning not to make further personal attacks after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimal classification. I believe this thread here constitutes not only a personal attack, but also harassment, and I will report it to WP:ANI. Also, I don't understand why Henrik I. Christensen is involved in this - I have not once claimed any relations with him (other then being at the same school), and knowing him personally is not a prerequisite for starting/editing his article. I have contributed to dozens of biographies on known control theorists and roboticists here on Wikipedia (see User:Jiuguang Wang/Contributions), and I have never meet most of these people. --Jiuguang (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you attacked her instead of the other way around and that now you are harassing her by having one of your administrator buddies to block her so she can not answer back. All of this is being watched from the outside. If you are in fact a Chinese Communist you might want to consider that now would be a great time for you and any of your comrades to leave. Clem 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you are both harassing Jiuguang, and I advise you to leave him alone. We must judge editors on the basis of their contributions, and judge deletion arguments on the basis of their merit, rather than the motives of the person making them. We must make content decisions about articles on the basis of their merits and not the motivations of their proponents. Regardless of whether Jiuguang is actually a robotics student, or a communist, that only matters to the extent that they exploit their qualifications to win edit wars, or push a communist POV, neither of which I believe is occurring. Dcoetzee 17:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He read Julie's Wikia articles and then did the nomination for deletion to harass her. That is what is obvious. Read her articles and the reference to her article she cited and then you will see. She has the right to defend herself which you are not letting her do. He is making a lot of people on the outside of the Wikipedia in the real world upset with him. If you had worked up to deletion by posting a not notable tag or a no original research tag and have warned her and been courteous to her and given her time to repair then what you have said might have been true but treating her the way you did, trying to drive her to suicide like the girl that women set up on My Space. If you people are Communists and this is what is behind what you are doing then I can not stress enough how many people you have made angry. You need to stop. I hope you hear me. Clem 17:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kadiddlehopper ("Clem") has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock puppet of User:Julie Dancer. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop "julie" from recreating her article, and ensuring this time that it is well refereced. That would seem to take less effort than mounting a string of absurd & ridiculous ad hominem attacks which serve only to fatally damage her reputation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be true if you fail to consider that no one so much as posted a suggestion on the discussion page, much less Heaven forbid edited the article themselves. Even a reference tag or a not notable tag would have given her some help or some warning. The only real issue was that the reference she gave was not fully opened and expanded or wikified, which any user could have done. The claim of original research is what was absurd and the deletion amounted to nothing more than an entomologist finding a new bug he had personally never seen and stepping on it for that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.22 (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Now it appears User:Jiuguang Wang ^contribs is fixing up his own user page to cover all of the things (like religion) he has rejected, skipped and dismissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.12.48 (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

|}

For heavens sake, grow up and stop bleating about your deleted article and leave Jiuguang Wang alone. If the article was not OR, it can be recreated. Articles are deleted because there is community consensus to delete, not merely because Wang thought deletion was the right action. Sometimes articles are deleted when they could be saved; or are deleted in error. WP:DELREV is then your friend, or else recreation of a fixed article. HARRASSING AN INDIVIDUAL USER IS NOT EVER ACCEPTABLE. Whingng that "no one so much as posted a suggestion on the discussion page, much less Heaven forbid edited the article themselves" is a) not a reason why the article cannot be recreated and b) wallowing in self-pity. Really. Shit happens. Get over it. Move on. Above all, stop taking it out on another user. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Article about a debate

An editor suggests here that an article be split into two articles. He claims that the article is unencyclopedic, and should be split into articles that don't pass judegement. The article is about a debate and is framed as such. I'm afraid splitting the article would just lead to duplicate content in several articles. I am wondering what your opinions are on the subject? SharkD (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the process for resolving content disputes. This page isn't the right place to ask for editors to comment on such a dispute. (Also note that, in general, no single editor should act unilaterally with respect to a controversy over content, if such action will not help resolve the lack of consensus.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, personally, if there is enough to justify/substantiate two articles, it probably should be split into two. It's possible for them to stand alone without significant overlap, and if it ever came to that point, the articles could be re-merged. My advice would be to try a WP:RFC first. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with this article?

Hi,

I came across The First Fifty-One while doing newpage patrol. I am uncomfortable with its name (not descriptive enough) and its content (but I'm not quite sure why). I tagged it as needing wikification, but I'm not really sure what's wrong with it. What should I have done? --Slashme (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a "list-stub" too. There is probably some information that can be added about the group in general; merely listing the members probably falls under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Who knows something about the region's history? Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan might be able to do something with it. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I did some (very) rudimentary tidying and added their WikiProject tag and stub-tag. Turns out only three of the names have articles, but maybe the others are under another name (or deserve to exist but nobody's done it yet). Oh, and there are fifty-two names in that list, for reasons which escape me. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that none of the 51 (or 52) have articles. The three names with blue links are for other people with similar names, and should be disambiguated. PKT 13:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There - done. PKT 23:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

How did you check which ones have articles? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I only checked which of the names had articles, by the simple expedient of wikilinking them and seeing which ones turned blue! :-D As User:PKT says, it seems those articles are not for the same people. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, guys! I'm still amused that there are fifty-two in the first fifty-one. I never noticed that. Interestingly, this book also refers to 51 voyageurs. Maybe this should simply be moved to "List of Cadillac's first voyageurs"? I'll propose the move on that page. --Slashme (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright question

Policy question - are someone's recent images (eg, photo or website image) "out of copyright" because the thing that was photographed was created by someone who died over 100 years ago?

Example 1: Image:SaintNinian.jpg - copied from this external web page - yes, the original creator is long-dead, but this is a copy of someone's photograph, not a copy of the original, and that photograph belongs to the creator of the photograph, and we can't use it without permission. Right?

Example 2: Image:Y Gogledd.jpg - copied from this external web page - yes, the book is over 100 years old, but this isn't a copy from the book; this is a copy of someone's photograph of the book, and that photograph belongs to the creator of the photograph, and we can't use it without permission. Right?

There are a number of similar examples. Thanks in advance. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

These aren't a problem. See Wikipedia:Public domain#Derived works and restorations of works in the public domain. Faithful copies of public domain images are themselves in the public domain. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That answers the question. Thank you. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

trying to make AFD for List of Brazilian football transfers 2008

So I'm trying to make an AFD for the above page, List of Brazilian football transfers 2008 , but I think it's too big for my browser tosave the form with the AFD template, it's 280K. Can anyone see if they can get it moving? Aaronw (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it went through finally... Sorry for the bother. Aaronw (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice on Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo

Hi,

Can someone offer me advice on:

• Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo#Self_Published_Sources_in_Biographies

• Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo#WP:NPF_enforcement__relief

It's time for me to take a break, I've been proceeding as best I can. Your advice would be appreciated.

Thanks, ZuluPapa5 Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to Special:Newpages but a few pages in?

I have recently been on Special:Newpages a lot, partly to add speedy delete templates where necessary, and partly do look for potential WP:DYK candidates. However, I always turn bot and patrolled edits off and have 500 results per page. On top of that, I like to browse Special:Newpages starting at page 2 or 3 so as to try to avoid speedily deleting pages that have just appeared and which might consequently still be under construction. However, when I copy the URL of such a page - for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&offset=20080801212507&limit=500&hidepatrolled=1&hidebots=1 - and paste it again after a while, I can see that it sticks to the same range of results rather than a particular page of results on Special:Newpages; i.e. the range of articles it shows is static and not dynamic, unlike the main Special:Newpages page itself.

My question, then, is this: is it possible to have a URL which takes you straight to page 2, say, or page 3 of Special:Newpages with the filters which I have indicated above applied, and which consequently shows the current second or third page of Special:Newpages and automatically updates itself? If so, please post that URL here!

Thanks in advance.

It Is Me Here (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

something wrong in celine dion.

Resolved

 – Darkspots (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern:

I am a new register from china.I am not so farmiliar with this website.So I always think It's impossible for me to delete some data as a common user .So I do a atempt .I was astonished that I deleted some data in celine dion.not much.But it still missed something.please help.could you restore it once again.thank you so much.I will take a look at the user tutorial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luyan1985 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edits—no harm done. Thanks for letting us know. Darkspots (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

A Wikipedia editor in a long-term, real-world dispute with a university professor:

The editor is a transwoman, activist, and highly experienced editor who edits on Wikipedia in many areas, with special attention to advocating the transactivist POV in articles that relate to this dispute, resulting in frequent on-Wiki disputes.

The professor is a sexologist who studies sexual orientation and femininity among natal males. As far as we know, he does not edit Wikipedia (certainly no evidence of it in articles about himself or his specialty).

Today's problem: The professor self-identifies as heterosexual. The activist insists that the professor is bisexual. See the editor's disparagement of "The self-assertion that Bailey is a "single heterosexual man"" here.

Even if this were True™, it seems to me that outing someone is inappropriate for Wikipedia -- for anywhere, really. What's the most useful response to a remark like this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:V. If the activist can't find a reliable source which "proves" the professor's orientation, it cannot be incorporated into a Wikipedia article. Corvus cornix_talk 20:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If the information is available to the public from reliable sources, then the consensus seems to be that it is okay to display such information on wikipedia. Unsubstantiated slander should be expunged.—RJH (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ordinarily, this kind of information about a college professor would not be included, referring to the WP:NPF section of WP:BLP. This is a more complicated case than that, clearly, but there would still need to be reliable secondary sources to make this assertion in the article. Darkspots (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice on potential dispute

Dear all. I'm asking for advice on a potential dispute, that I do not believe requires intervention yet, but on which I would like advice.

Basically, I've sometimes been frustrated in my contributions to Wikipedia, and what's happened today is probably the clearest example of the kind of problems I have. Note, at this stage I do not consider this a real dispute and am not asking for resolution. What I am asking for is guidance as to whether I am handling this situation properly.

The general problem I've had is reverts to my contributions, when I believe that those contributions are valid for the topic. My current example is in editing the page Open water swimming. This term refers, in my knowledge, to both competitive and non-competitive swimming in outdoor locations (lakes, rivers, sea). I noticed that the previous page on Open Water Swimming was solely (apart from a very general first sentence) about competitive open water swimming. So I edited the page slightly. I added a picture of a person (oh, alright then, it's me) swimming in a river, and added links down to the bottom of the page to the (UK) River and Lake Swimming Association, and the Outdoor Swimming Society (also UK). Both of these are established organisations and I believe relevant to the topic. Yes, I am a member of the former, but only link to the organisation when I believe the link is highly relevant to the topic.

However, as often happens, my edits were reverted. The reason given for reversion was that the new topic was not relevant to the article. I have reverted those changes. And accidentally added a second picture as when I saw there was no picture the next morning, I assumed that I hadn't put one up. I didn't notice the undo until later.

OK, that's the background. Now, this is not yet a dispute. But whenever I've been in this situation in the past, there's been a short "edit war" and I've given up. I do have too much going on in my life to waste it on little arguments.

What I have done this time is this:

1. Undone the changes. (And, by accident, added another picture).

2. Edited the talk page for the topic, raising the issue of scope.

3. Posted a calm and I hope friendly description of my side of the dispute. User_talk:Deiz

4. Raised this issue on several swimming related forums, asking people to contribute to the discussion on the talk page.

I imagine that unless the dispute automatically disappears (which in my past experience only happened once), then I will need to gather evidence that the term "Open water swimming" covers recreational swimming as well as competitive, and potentially

What I ask people to do is:

1. Tell me whether I have followed correct procedures so far, mention anything I've done that I shouldn't have done. Things I should have done differently, etc.

2. Advise on potential future actions that can be taken if the dispute does not resolve.

3. In particular, I would like advice on situations where a term has a linked article is particularly narrow in scope. I would assume that it's not the case that whoever writes the article first gets first dibs on the definition, and can enforce that, suppressing other definitions of the word or phrase.

Ross-c (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that the societies that you mention are notable, why not first create pages for them, with suitable references. Get input from people who are interested in the topic to check them out, so that you are sure that they're not going to be deleted, and then you will have a strong case to put your edits back into the open water swimming article. --Slashme (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Having had a look at: Notability_(organizations_and_companies), I believe that both are notable, as they are both quite frequently mentioned in major national newspapers. Including special supplements on open water swimming. I would be hesitant to immediately create pages for these organisations, though I will now go off and email people from both organisations suggesting that pages are created. While I'm aware of "conflict of interest" guidelines etc., I would not feel it proper for me to create such pages without their significant input and agreement. Ross-c (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Weird. The editor who removed my new content previously edited the page. See this link (not sure how to Wiki-ise it. link to edits of the page

This edit removed text saying that the page was solely about competitive swimming. I think I've worked out what the problem is. The page, incorrectly, classifies open water swimming as swimming in large bodies of water. It seems that the editor removed my picture because he believes that the Cam isn't large enough to fit the definition. When, I can confidently state, it's the definition that's wrong rather than the picture! Now, that doesn't explain why the links were removed. However, I suspect that this was just carelessness on the part of the editor. He (I think it's a he) just reverted changes without checking what was deleted. If this is the case, then first I presume I wait for a response from the editor clarifying their position. Then if there's still a dispute, I collect information (of which I already know there is plenty) showing that the definition of open water swimming on the page was wrong, and then fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross-c (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, we have a straightforward edit war here. The article has been reverted again. The links to the River and Lake Swimming Association and the Outdoor Swimming Society have been removed again. The pictures of me swimming, one in the River Cam, and the other in Windermere, have been removed with the, I believe, frankly ridiculous claim that they don't show swimming !!!!. There is a comment "No authorative sources". What on earth is going on here. How am I supposed to produce an "authorative source" of a picture of someone swimming? What would this source be? Ross-c (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is probably the wrong place to discuss this, but I agree that the image is poor enough that it should be removed - it is near impossible to see the swimmer at thubnail size. Harsh as it might seem, a poor image is IMO worse than no image at all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that can be solved. For example, the picture can be cropped. Or, perhaps more suitably, I can select another picture as I only have about 500 such swimming pictures. A comment such as yours is constructive. Because you point out something about the picture that is a problem, without diving in an just deleting it with no adequately explained reason. And you focus on something that is a problem, rather than just suggesting that all changes I made be deleted. I added two pictures, you criticised one. Someone has removed that one for the same reason, and I've started more discussion on the talk page about what pictures would be best. I think the first photo (still there as I write now) with has me full body is a much better picture of recreational open water swimming. So if you had been the editor looking at the page, I would have said "OK, how about I delete the second picture. The first picture does for recreational swimming, and I can take a photo at a triathlon club training session to represent competitive open water swimming until I can get a photo at a race". You might then have opinions on that, and after some to and fro-ing, we'd have a better page. That's how I believe Wikipedia should work. But at present I'm just getting photos deleted with a stated reason that they don't show swimming, where in both cases, more clearly in the first, there I am swimming. Note that if you read this whole history, the second photo was added by accident sortof as I didn't notice the reversion.

I have proposed a truce on the page. I'll see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross-c (talk • contribs) 14:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I should give up. It seems that the person doing the editing is a big-wig in Wikipedia. They have said that I have until 9am until tomorrow to undo my edits and apologise (for saying that the full reversion of edits was vandalism - strong I admit, but I'm not undoing the edits). I'm threatened with forced reversion to the previous (incorrect) version, and a lock. In other words, he is going to use his admin "big stick" to enforce the previous incorrect information. I've been discussing things with him on his talk page, but he's getting more and more ... strange. He's claiming that the first picture was of someone in a shallow stream. When it's the River Cam and quite deep. Certainly well over my head. And so on. The discussion is on his talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deiz#Re:_Open_water_swimming —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross-c (talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. First thing: Everyone relax, as this is turning into something really silly and unnecessary. Deiz feels that the picture is not indicative of the concept, and I'd have to agree; to me, open water is lakes, the ocean, etc., and the picture looks like a relatively small river. It's not illustrative of the idea of open water. The page as it stands is virtually unsourced and needs a lot of work. I'm going to suggest that you, Ross-c, and Deiz both back away from the article for the moment, stop throwing accusations back and forth, and give it a break. Ross-c, if you have a better photo illustrating actual open water - away from the bank, or something - propose it on the talk page. DOn't continue to re-insert the picture. Discuss, don't edit-war. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be very happy to work out a procedure by which things are clarified. I have proposed a truce. But it was ignored. I don't believe that Deiz wants to work constructively on the page. I mix with people involved with open water swimming all the time, and do know that my definition is correct. I have checked this with knowledgeable people. I've looked for and found definitions on websites of relevant organisations. I'm prepared to have calm and friendly discussions with people who would like to work on the definition. But this is not happening. I feel that I'm unreasonably expected to take the photo and changes out, while it could equally be said that Deiz should leave them in. At worst, he could discuss his issues on the talk page and perhaps work out a method of resolution. But no, I'm told to revert the changes myself "or else". I have asked for a third opinion through the official Wikipedia page. I'm hoping that this would be enough to start things along a more productive path. But we'll see. Ross-c (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Yes, the page is unsourced and in an appalling state. Experienced open water swimmers (much more so than I) have commented that it's missing a lot of information, for example, safety information. I feel that I'm exactly the kind of person who could build up a page like this. Not necessarily because I have all the knowledge myself, but because I know who to ask. But a lot of the information on open water swimming from a recreational view will come from the organisations that Deiz considers not notable enough to mention. So where from there?

As for the photo, I've got a training session tomorrow. I thought of being sarcastic and taking my zoom camera, and swimming riiiiggghtttt out into the dead centre of the lake and have someone snap me doing 100% pure front crawl as that what the relatively uninitiated see as swimming. But I would prefer to work on the article in a more constructive manner.Ross-c (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

PPS. Sorry, I had to think about this, not being used to it being discussed reasonably. I would say that the photo is the least of the problems. The removal of the links to RALSA, and the OSS, are the most important change, as both of these organisations have vital information on their sites. Particularly importantly, information concerning safety in open water swimming. I believe the OSS site gives some information on safety but mainly (unless it's been edited since I looked) links back to RALSA. The RALSA safety information is very frequently referenced in newspaper articles on open water swimming. I do believe that the definition is too narrow, but this could be solved by discussing different interpretations of the word. And certainly the dispute concerning the definition of open water swimming shouldn't prevent the inclusion of the links. As both of those organisations cover everything right up to huge lakes formally, and more informally. Ross-c (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm redirecting participants of this discussion to the Talk:Open water swimming page. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Herpes simplex and epilepsy

A section on Epilepsy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seizure_disorder#Seizure_syndromes, makes very interesting reference to the Herpes simplex virus being associated with temporal lobe epilepsy, yet has no supporting reference! How does one get to find or contact the author of this section to substantiate and discover more about this?

Here is a clip-quote of this section: "there is an association with febrile seizures in childhood, and some studies have shown herpes simplex virus (HSV) DNA in these regions, suggesting perhaps infectious etiology." —Preceding unsigned comment added by WECIU? (talk • contribs) 09:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You would check the history of the article. Then go through the edit to see who put it in. Going back far enough, you might notice it isn't there. Then go forward and repeat until you've hit the edit that included that sentence. Synergy 09:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)