User talk:Delldot/Archive 16

How the heck are you? I miss the IRC banter. Hope to see you around my most worthy rival. ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

KOS!!! So good to see you again, so psyched you're back. Sorry I didn't stop by to say hi earlier. I'll see you on IRC sometime soon. Peace, delldot talk 02:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed! I'm kicking back a few cold ones and using hugglee. What an amazing tool, I was quite skeptical about using it at first, but wow it's amazing! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

as you probably still can't last until Friday -- Gurch (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a little hard up for the huggles, and I'm completely out of snuggles and cuddles (glomps too, but that's not as pressing of an issue). Anything you can do for me? *snuggles and all other types of affection* delldot talk 10:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't your boyfriend provide any of these things? :/ -- Gurch (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I want Gurch huggles snuggles cuddles and glomps too! delldot talk 11:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to plain old hugs? *hugs delldot* -- Gurch (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, I need those too. *Hugs Gurch* delldot talk 11:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

*hugs Delldot tight* -- Gurch (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thaaaaat's more like it. *hugs* delldot talk 19:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please use your administrative powers to redirect Sasha Toperich and Sasa Toperic to Saša Toperić? All three articles are about the same person but the variations in spelling caused some miscommunication and more than one article was created. Saša Toperić is the correct spelling (as indicated in Sasha Toperich and Sasa Toperic) so, unless I'm mistaken, that should be the main article rather than just serving as a redirect.

Thanks again!

Peace!

P.S. Apologies if I'm interrupting exchanges of Wiki-fection between yourself and Gurch :) SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like DJ Bungi moved Saša Toperić to Sasa Toperic in October. Are you sure it's the right name and that it would be an uncontroversial move? If not, it should be discussed first. But yeah, the material in the two articles should definitely be merged, I can do it if necessary.

P.S. No probs, we're pro's at wikifection and unaffected by interruptions. You're welcome to join in if you have the stomach for it! delldot talk 18:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh God! Or should I say Oh Ceiling Cat?

It shouldn't be a controversial move. Saša Toperić is the proper spelling in his native language whereas the other two are modified to allow the use of english alphabet. The other two articles even specify Saša Toperić as the correct name.

Saša is a pretty common name for ex-Yugo nationals, but it's often transliterated as Sasha for the english speaking world. As a point of interest, Saša is diminutive for Aleksandar or Alexander. Hence, I myself have 2 nicknames that I'm commonly referred to by my friends :)

SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

K, I moved the long one to Saša Toperić. I'll let you deal with the merge from the stub. I don't want to do a histmerge with those because then you'd end up with a very confusing history; better to keep the histories separate with one in the redirect you'll create in the merge (like a merge from a regular article). Just refer to the article you're merging from in your edit summary and explain what you're doing (and you can link to the history on Talk:Saša Toperić). Hope I didn't bugger anything up, I've been editing wikipedia for like 19 hours straight now and I'm a wee bit disoriented :P Peace, delldot talk 20:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

All looks good, I can take it from here. But, seriously, step away from the keyboard dude/dudette. 19 hours? Now I can see your BF's point. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I've achieved a new unhealthiness record! Sweet! But I do have a real life excuse: I recently quit my night job and am having trouble getting back into day awakeness. So I'm trying to stay awake all day because the only way I'll be able to sleep at night is if I'm deliriously tired. So... no yeah, I need help. delldot is a dudette, but don't tell or they'll revoke her rainbow license on account of the boyfriend 22:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

:O TOO MUCH EDITING. See it is good for Wikipedia that you can't chat to me *huggles* -- Gurch (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the image copyright problem: we need to know how the image in question got into the public domain. I have withdrawn the nomination and have posted a warning at the presumptive picture uploader's user talk page, as well as on the image page itself. Even if it's copyright it might be fair-use, but I am not a lawyer and am not qualified to make that determination.

I'll let editors more familiar with the subject matter address the other comments you left. Thank you for taking the time to review the nomination. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

 

Hello, Delldot. You have new messages at 69.140.152.55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And as an aside, I might be victim of #59 on this list. Despite my literally thousands of edits (when you count the other IPs, as well as my brand-new username), I have produced only 3 "real" articles (about 6 or 7 if you count those stubs that are more than just "sub"- stubs), all during a short span of a few months. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I must say, I really enjoyed the one thing you said, "It's like they think they're the only vandals in the world." I'll have to remember that... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's true, every vandal does! It's the only way they can possibly thing they're clever :P delldot talk 05:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

*huggles* -- Huggle (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

*snuggles* -- Gurch (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no real reason for me to leave a message here, just realised I hadn't actually spoken to you in a while! Hope you're okay! Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 15:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Good to get a note from you again, thanks for dropping by. I'm chillin', how are you? delldot talk 01:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty good thanks :) What're you working on at the moment, then? Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 16:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

i can't quite decide what criterion for speedy deletion this comes under, but as the supreme court justice said 'i know it when i see it' your attention at your earliest convenience is requested.paix. Toyokuni3 (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, good catch. A slightly braver person would have speedied it as blatant advertising (for the advocacy group), but I felt safer prodding it. Unfortunately, this means it'll be around for a few more days, and if someone takes the prod tag down I'll have to take it to AFD (at which they'll probably be like "speedy it as blatant advertising!"). But yeah, thanks for catching that. delldot talk 01:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

all's well that ends well. paix. Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you the person who is seeking deletion of the article?

You can reply to <email address removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.170.151 (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for the note. Yes I am. The matter's been brought to a community discussion, which you can find and participate in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huntly Park. Other members of the community will discuss the article and decide whether it should be kept or deleted, so it's out of my hands.

The very most important thing you can to to increase the article's chances of being kept is to add references from reliable sources that are independent of the subject (e.g. not the website of an advocacy group), such as news articles. This is because our very fundamental verifiability policy mandates that all subject matter in Wikipedia must have been covered previously in published sources. I was concerned that not enough has been written about the park in published sources for us to have a verifiable article. Feel free to improve the article while the discussion's going on (the next 5 days), and you may want to note in the discussion that you're doing so so people can take that into account while deciding whether they think it should be kept. Don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need anything, I'm always glad to help. Peace, delldot talk 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

*huggles* -- Gurch (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Delldot, I ran into a spammer this morning and found some things that I don't know if I am doing it correctly, or if the articles are formatted correctly for that matter. Anyways, would you mind explaining what goes into the 'see also' sections in medical articles? Is it only for wiki links or do external links go in there too if there is a see also section? Or do external links get a title of their own to go into and does it appear below the references? I have seen it above the references and also below, I think it looks better above but I want to do it in the correct format. Another editor is asking me too about this for clarification on my page and I don't want to give incorrect info and would like to also know myself. I hope I am clear on what I am asking. If you wouldn't mind responding to my page under the other editors questions I would appreciate it so he/she can see your response too. Thanks as always, and hope you are well. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as usual a clear answer to my impossibly worded questions! ;) I appreciate the answers and now I understand. I told Barek to watch my page for your response. Thanks again, oh we are talking about IBS and Crohn's disease articles. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, good seeing you again as usual Crohnie. Glad to see you keeping up the good work. delldot talk 19:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful to see you again too. I finally got bold and am jumping into more areas now. The good thing is that it's still fun for me. Great talking to you. We need to do it a little more often. :) Take care and I promise to pop in more frequently. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's so exciting that you're getting involved in more areas! I'm so proud to have been involved in your progress on this project. Indeed, we should talk more, I'm glad you stop by when you do :) delldot talk 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey delldot :)

Yeah I just emailed him out the blue, i'd read his article about SAH on eMedicine so essentially just looked around for his email address and managed to find it. Just emailed it asking very politely if he had any images that were free for release into the public domain and he replied with those two images. I did indeed try to hint that he could take a look at SAH but he hasn't to my knowledge, but I don't blame him being one of the top people over at John Hopkins (must be a very busy job!)

As for the FA, best option is to get it as good as you can make it until you're almost certain it's ready for submission to FAC. You can then either nominate it and they'll probably give you a few points to repair and then they might give you the FA. Alternatively, get it as good as you can get it and roll over to FAC and find an editor who has experience with reviewing for FA's. Ask them politely on their talk page if they'll see if your article is ready?

Hope this helps :)

Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 21:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, hadn't thought of asking the emedicine author, that's a good idea. I'll try that once I can muster enough courage. :P Thanks for the advice! delldot talk 21:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha :P Not a problem! Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 21:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopkins has a reputation to protect when it comes to SAH. The great Walter Dandy practiced there. JFW | T@lk 07:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

 

Here's a German chocolate cake for you! German chocolate somehow promote WikiLove, and hopefully this one has made your day better and sweeter. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari 21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the compliments, Delldot! They mean a lot to me! :) Those candies you gave to me look nice, and here's something sweet for you! :) Acalamari 21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Awww! See? Told you you were sweet ^_^ delldot talk 22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

:D. Acalamari 23:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On 18 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article penetrating trauma, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

On 18 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article sternal fracture, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

...seems to be disabled. Can you diagnose the problem? I'm an Internet Explorer luser, but section editing works elsewhere. Thanks. Yechiel (Shalom) 16:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it might have just been too long, I archived a couple and they came back. Are they fixed for you too? delldot talk 17:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it works now. Yechiel (Shalom) 17:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. You may want to post the following somewhere:

This user helped promote John Benjamin Murphy to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tony! Glad you appreciated the suggestions, it sure was nice of you to stop by and say so. delldot talk 12:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you offer your opinion as to whether subarachnoid hemorrhage is ready for FAC? Comments invited on Talk:Subarachnoid hemorrhage. JFW | T@lk 19:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

On 20 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article tracheobronchial injury, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

a number of questions on english usage and etymology: is the antonym of defunct 'funct'? is the opposite of disheveled 'sheveled'? if one takes something to pieces, one dismantles it. if one assembles something, can one be said to have 'mantled' it? and finally, is the opposite of unkempt 'kempt'? these are questions that keep me awake at night.i wish you peace while you contemplate these.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

XD Don't know, but it's definitely going to keep me up. I'm gonna start using 'funct' though, in fact it's my new favorite word. delldot talk 13:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

On 23 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abdominal trauma, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

hey kiddo, do me 2 favours, bitte. fill me in on the wp policy on medical articles containing rx advice, and take a peek at the above article.danke schön. frieden mit dir.Toyokuni3 (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Rx advice: Just say no. Any advicey-sounding stuff should be removed or reworded (e.g. here). This is covered under WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, which explicitly mentions medical advice. The article doesn't look horrible but it was good that you caught that. I took out the worst of it, but the ipecac/bulemia stuff might be a bit irrelevant still, feel free to go to town on it. You keep impressing me with your good instinct for what does and does not belong in articles Toyokuni! You've got a good head on your shoulders and make a valuable part of the project. delldot talk 14:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

aww, shucks.Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

First, hello! I'm back after the long while. The reason is I had to do my institute works, and I had to do that immediately... It actually took several months, as you can calculate.

Anyways, I hope I'm still welcome here. And I have a question.

If I take any data directly from a newspaper article, will that be copyright infringement? I'm not going just to translate it, yet put it into completely different form. I don't know very much about copyright, but I read that only the forms of expressing information (sentences etc.) and absolutely new ideas can be copyrighted. I'm trying to ask whether using a published description of anything to write an article not using the author's expressions is legal? And if it is, then under what conditions? I hope you know that.

Also, how do I cite sources? I know how to cite a Web source, but what if it is a book or something like that?

Thank you!

--A. Demidov Talk 03:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Demidov, what a pleasure to see you again! I had been wondering about you and hoping we had not lost you. Of course you are always welcome on the project.

Information itself cannot be copyrighted; as long as you put the information into your own words, you can use it (and yes, a direct translation would still be a copyright violation).

Probably the easiest way to cite a book is to use the {{cite book}} template. You fill in the author, title, publisher, year, and page number fields (at a minimum), and the template automatically formats it for you.

To use the WP:cite.php formatting, you put <ref> in front of your reference and </ref> behind it. And you put {{reflist}} at the bottom of the article.

I hope this answers your questions, definitely let me know if you have any others. I'm so glad you're back! delldot talk 04:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you! I did think you were worrying about me, but I could not tell you anything, because the connections were so slow, and I could not even download a single Wikipedia page. I managed to make minor edits to the article Melitopol, but I could not see the results until now.

Still, it's slow, but I do have time now. I am going to work the article up and you are welcome to copyedit it whenever you want. By the way, I saw your Russian User Space... It seems, your page contains nothing but your ru-1 template and you have no other edits there. If you wish, I could help you to fill the space, and make edits to the Russian articles. For example, you can put to your RU-sandbox some information, you'd like to add to an article. And I can translate that... As Russian would be the target language, it would be easier to translate. My Russian username is this same (Demidov2007). --A. Demidov Talk 10:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's an exciting idea. I'm afraid, though, that my Russian is so bad I'd be of basically no help at all, you'd be doing all the translating. Translation would be a very useful thing for you to do, but of course you can translate anything you want, not just the stuff I work on. I would think you'd be of most use to the Russian Wikipedia by finding out what articles on important topics they still need and translating those from us, especially our high quality featured and good articles. You could check ru:Википедия:Список статей, которые должны быть во всех языковых версиях against Wikipedia:Vital articles to see if you can improve any articles in Russian by translating material from good or featured articles on en.

I'm sorry to hear your connection's slow. Still, I hope to work with you soon! Peace, delldot talk 15:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You know I found some template ({{cite paper}}), but I have no idea what kind of papers it describes. Can it be used for a newspaper article? Especially if it is written in semi-scientific style?

Well, I suppose it is possible to use no template at all, I just want to know how to cite the article. In what order do I put the information?

This is the primary information:

• The author's full name is Semyon Volovnik (Семён Воловник)

• The newspaper's name is Melitopol'skie Vedomosti (Мелитопольские Ведомости). By the way, is the name expected to be translated (Melitopol News), or just transliterated? If transliterated... uhm... well, then I have a blur idea about that, to be honest. English alphabet is not too phonetic, so perhaps that -skie ending should be transformed into -skiye. And the apostrophe may be dropped out, because it represents no sound in English and neither modifies the -l- sound.

• The article was published for this period: 31.10-6.11.2007. MV is not a daily newspaper, thus one more question appears: should be the interval kept, or is it necessary to choose just one date?

• It is the newspaper №44.

• The article's name is «Новый порядок»: день за днем ("The new order": Day after day).

• The footnote claims "Использованы материалы Госархива Запорожской области." (Materials from the National Archive of the Zaporizhia Oblast are used).

That's all about Melitopol. So how do I cite that? The whole subsection Melitopol in World War II is written according to the article's reports.

About the ru-wiki. I could be translating those articles you're talking about, but there is a lot of people who can handle that without me. My goal is to translate articles which are not existent in the Russian Wikipedia, and which are not well-known among English-speaking Wikipedians. That's my point. But I hardly can find those articles. Anyways, my drift is you are able to find an English article about something like Melitopol (I don't mean the contents) and let me know. If the article you find is not too large, and neither it is a stub, I would translate it pretty quickly. I can't do that myself, because searching is too data-intensive.

Thank you in advance!

--A. Demidov Talk 19:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think {{cite news}} might be better for the newspaper article you describe; I think cite paper is more for academic papers. If you want to cite it without a template, you can, but it makes the citations less consistent. Different styles are acceptable, check the links at WP:CITE#HOW. I recommend going with the template though. Here's how I would fill it out:

{{cite news
  | last = 
  | first = 
  | author = Semyon Volovnik
  | authorlink = 
  | language = Russian
  | coauthors = 
  | title =  «Новый порядок»: день за днем ("The new order": Day after day)
  | version = 
  | pages = 
  | publisher = Мелитопольские Ведомости (Melitopol News)
  | date =2007-10-31 
  | url = 
  | format = 
  | id = 
  | accessdate = 
  | work = 
  | location = 
  | page = 
}}

This will give you:

Semyon Volovnik (2007-10-31). "«Новый порядок»: день за днем ("The new order": Day after day)" (in Russian). Мелитопольские Ведомости (Melitopol News). {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

If you have other information such as the url, that would be great to add. If not, it's not important.

I would do the the original Russian and the translation in parentheses, without the transliteration (except for the author's name, as I've done here). This is all just my opinion, I have no idea whether a guideline exists on that, but I don't think it's a big deal. Same with the date: either would work, I selected the first date out of the range, but either way would be fine, probably. I hope this helps! Definitely let me know if you need any clarification.

Your plan for translation makes sense, I'll definitely keep my eye out for articles that don't exist on ru but that are short yet good. Peace, delldot talk 22:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it definitely helps! It's just what I wanted to use! --A. Demidov Talk 22:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

i need your thoughts on this idea:physicians whose primary notability is in a field other than medicine.obviously, that needs to be reworded.worth doing? problems? examples would be: dot richardson, michael crichton, graham chapman,roger bannister, sanjay gupta(?),somerset maugham.whatcha think? paix. Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s. add bill frist and probably numerous other politicians.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

O hai!

Hope everything's OK. I should make a habit of saying hello to you every now and then so it doesn't look as though I'm only being nice to you because I need something.

Having said that, I need something :)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glis (2nd nomination) is listed as a second nomination and, on the page for the debate, there are existing links to 2 previous debates. However, this is actually the article's first AfD debate and the 2 previous debate links are completely unrelated. Do you know how to remove the 2 linked debates as well as change the listing to not say 2nd nomination without having to re-nominate and re-relist? It's probably not that big of a deal but for the possibility that the article survives and then undergoes another nomination (the actual 2nd nomination), people might start scratching their heads not being able to dig up the very first one that never even existed.

Thanks.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Woooo, looks like a problem with huggle, I reported it. Thanks for catching that. Basically I just moved the page and G6'd the "2nd nom". Hopefully no one will notice or be pissed at me if there was a more appropriate way to do that. I'm not worried about the "previous AFD's" box on there, but you can remove the whole thing if you want (given that we've now established there's no previous AFD's :P ).

Definitely drop by any time! But of course I'm glad to help out when you need it. Although I generally just wing it and I suspect I don't do any better of a job than you would at any of this stuff. But yeah, it's good to have you as a friend! I should drop by your talk page more often myself. Peace, delldot talk 18:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You do do a better job, otherwise I wouldn't ask you for help :)

Your help is always much appreciated and thank you for being so eager to help.

As far as the redirect question that you had or the avoidance of it, you're absolutely right. In most cases it is not helpful to avoid redirects as WP:R2D clearly states. I only do it very sparingly when there exists a possibility of a redirect potentially misdirecting a link to the wrong article but my Nothing but Trouble avoidances were a wrong judgement call on my part and it wasn't until after I had already done them that I remembered I read something somewhere at some point in time about that being a no-no. And don't think you're being nosy about reading my talk page, either. I do it to you all the time :)

Peace!

P.S. Just to clarify something, there really are supposed to be 2 "do"s in the first sentence. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool cool, I only mentioned it because I knew you'd take it well anyway. Peace, delldot talk 02:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Some minutes ago, I edited the article Melitopol. As a matter of fact, I did a major edit. So maybe it requires some copyediting. But there is not just that issue.

The thing I have translated is an order originally written in Russian by the Germans. So there are some grammar mistakes. Do I have to keep these mistakes when I translate things like that into English? I try to do that, but I don't really know how.

Also, I have a question about the style. Currently, the orders are written in two languages: Russian and English. Every single order is put into a collapsed navbox. Here is an example:

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
 |-
 ! style=" background-color:#CCFFCC; text-align: center" |An order to provide bilingual labels
 |-
 {| class="wikitable"
 ! {{langx|ru|Приказ от 1942 года}}
 ! {{langx|en|An order of 1942}}
 |-
 |Всем старостам сёл. 

 С получением сего Вам необходимо организовать следующее:

 По всем организациям, которые находятся на Вашей территории, необходимо изготовить и написать
 вывески: на сельуправу, магазины, медучастки, больницы, МТС, заготзерно, общинные дворы рыбзаводы и 
 т. д. Вывески написать на немецком и украинском языках.
 |To all of the heads of the villages.

 On receiving this, You must organize following:

 For all of the establishments, which are on Your territory, You must make and write labels: For 
 village offices, first-aid stations, hospitals, machinery and tractor stations, the offices of grain
 [[procurement]]s, communal yard, fish factories etc. The labels must be written in the German and
 Ukrainian languages.
 |}
 |}

In the article, it looks in this way:

But is that acceptable? I think it is supposed to be changed... into what form? That's the question.

While I'm not sure, whether that form is proper, (I actually think it is not), I ask you to copyedit the article, if you have time, and apply some changes to its style.

Thank you and good bye.. Actually, good night, it's 1 a.m. here.

A. Demidov Talk 22:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't have to keep mistakes. In fact, it's best for you to try to improve the article as much as you can. If you can think of anything to add or take out to improve the article, you should. I'm sure the people that made the original mistakes edited with the expectation that others would correct their mistakes.

For the table, I don't know if you need the original Russian. People can read it in English, and they can go to the source if they want the original. I would recommend putting it into prose within the article, or leaving it as a quote within a template such as {{quote}}. I think you're right that the collapsible navbox doesn't really work. Keep up the good work on the article! delldot talk 01:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason." She has done neither. Zazaban (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you add to to AFD? Every time I try I screw up something awful and it has taken up to a week for me to do it right. It would probably be better for you to do it. Zazaban (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And I doubt she'll listen. She's been harassing a message board I visit for a about two years now and she regularly accuses anyone who disagrees with her of being mentally ill. Zazaban (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad to start the AFD on your behalf. Can I ask that you read WP:PROD (especially WP:PROD#Conflicts) again? I think you may be misunderstanding it. Peace, delldot talk 01:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems I did misunderstand. Could you post a link to the AFD on my userpage? Zazaban (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Done delldot talk 02:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Zazaban (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello delldot.

I have improved the Anarchist International page on wikipedia by adding the following text today:

"It must be said that a so called "Anorg-warning" based on quotes from two leftist-marxistoid persons from Denmark and Germany (no longer active), published by Jamal Hannah, a member of the mainly marxist Industrial Workers of the World, at flag.blackened.net is almost entirely false, see [1] and [2] and search for "Hannah". Nobody should pay attention to this false "warning".

For a discussion between the Industrial Workers of the World and the anarchist International Workers of the World see [3].

Some external links to the Anarchist International and associated organizations are found at the following link [4]

I am not used to edit at Wikipedia, so I need help. If you can help me it would be fine.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist

(84.215.147.184 (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

Hi Anna (Anna Quist! I get it! I'm slow on the uptake). Thanks for getting back to me! I see problems with the text you mentioned, I feel like I should explain more about the idea of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only for material that has been previously published in reliable sources (e.g. newspapers, journals); individuals' experiences cannot be added to articles. This is in line with the very fundamental verifiability policy, which says that all information added to articles must be backed up by reliable sources. Another very fundamental policy is the neutral point of view policy, which says articles must present all material without advocating one opinion over another. So if that opinion a reliable source you can say that "so-and-so said that this guy is wrong" if you cite the source, but the article can never say "this guy is wrong". I hope I'm making this clear, I know it's a lot of policies to understand all at once.

If you'd like to remove the post yourself, that would be great. Either way, I'll just let the discussion about whether the article should be deleted run its course; hopefully editors can come to a consensus about that. Definitely let me know if I can offer any more clarification. Peace, delldot talk 05:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

---

It is not true that there is no coverage from independent sources, se link to independent, external, sources, covering AI, at [5]. The article and all information added to the article are backed up by reliable sources, in newspapers, independent Internet-sites etc. --Anna Quist talk —Preceding comment was added at 17:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I believe Anna may now be using a meatpuppet. It speaks in the same idiosyncratic speaking style. See Special:Contributions/74.208.16.12

I can't prove its the same person, but can you keep an eye on it? Zazaban (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think its worth it, she can't really do anything. Zazaban (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're wise to have an easygoing attitude about it, but thanks for bringing that IP to my attention, they're definitely behaving disruptively. I left them a vandalism warning for changing the !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International‎, and someone else left them a warning for vandalizing your user page, so they'll be blocked soon if they keep it up. Let me know or (for a quicker response) report to WP:AIV if you see them acting up again. Good job being a cool cucumber in the face of this silliness! delldot talk 01:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Starting July, I will likely not be able to edit as much. This will likely conflict with my planned wiki-activities, but I will likely still check my watchlist and make a few edits from day to day. I might attempt to complete my to-do, but if this is done, it will likely be a very slow process. Best wishes, ~AH1^(TCU) 21:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it! Let me know if you need anything. Peace, delldot talk 01:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Nevermind, it now looks like I won't be semi-retiring, sorry for any confusion. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! Glad to have you back! delldot talk 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just received your message, but the link was not correct. My username is Adriansrf. Your message was, "Hey Adriansrfr, I replied to your note at WT:VAN#Accused of vandalism. Peace, delldot talk 16:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)"

I could not retrieve your response. Thanks.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adriansrfr"

My reply delldot talk 01:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, ∇.
Darn it all, I really did think sneaking a Flehmen Groovies "see also" link in a cluster of otherwise fair dinkum edits would go unnoticed. I must admit to churlishly sulking for a good 30 seconds (UTC). (Someone is bound to bring back the human flehmening, tho.) And tho I mean this in the nicest possible way, demn your perspicacity, sir!
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Shirt. Good catch tagging the human thing as dubious. Hmm, so this was actually a test to see how long an inappropriate edit would last in an article? Or just a little joke? I'm a little torn about how to react to it, because I can see you didn't mean any harm, and I don't want to be a total wet blanket but I do care about this project and I want our articles to conform to the highest possible standard, so that we're trusted and providing the best info. Can I ask that you keep all main article space edits serious and boring from now on? There's plenty room for joking around in the other namespaces, or on this cesspool. I looked at your other edits and didn't see anything I thought was sketchy though, it looks like you've been doing good work. There aren't any more Flamin' Groovies type edits, are there? Anyways, thanks for bringing it up. Peace, delldot is a ma'am and not at all perspicacious, but thanks 16:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT THE ANARCHIST INTERNATIONAL PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA !!!! From the "Deletion page" of Anarchist International:

<content from WP:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International cropped for space>

It is not true that there is no coverage from independent sources, se link to independent, external, sources, covering AI, at [6].

You don't seem to understand. True anarchism is a.o.t an accumulated updated research front of libertarian research, that is just what www.anarchy.no is. If the Anarchist International Wikipedia page is deleted, it is a severe attack on free research and publication of free research. I ask everybody that are for free research to support our claim that the AI-page should not be deleted.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist --Anna Quist talk

Truncating and linking to the discussion instead for space. Good job finding independent sources. Any independent reliable sources should be added to the article, and it would help its chances in the AFD if you mention you have. I'm not sure the sources you point to are very reliable though. Better would be mainstream news sources (I know, yuck :/ ). Peace, delldot talk 17:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem—I'm pleased to have typos and wrong colours fixed. I refer people only to the "noun plus -ing" section, and the other exercises are work in progress. Thanks for dropping in! TONY (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, then that means more is likely to come in the future! I look forward to them, I'm still pretty dismal at them, unfortunately. Sorry I couldn't figure out what exactly was up with the colors. Thanks again for creating this useful resource. delldot talk 16:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. The redundancy exercises seem to have been the most successful, but have the earlier formatting, which has been improved in the advanced exercises. TONY (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Frontal lobe disorder redirects to Psychopathy, which clearly isn't right. How do we fix this? --Anonymaus (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. Well, your best bet for a quick fix would be to find a better redirect target (e.g. if frontal lobe has a section on disorders, you could redirect it there. Alternately, you could actually create a stub at Frontal lobe disorder. If there's no good redirect target and you don't feel up to actually writing an article, there's WP:RFD, which I can help you with if you like, but it's pretty straightforward. Peace, delldot talk 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks--Anonymaus (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

*huggle* *huggle* *huggle* *huggle* *huggle* *huggle* *huggle* *huggle* *huggle* *huggle* *huggle* -- Gurch (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay! :D delldot talk 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look. Have you seen the latest discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources? Bear in mind that discussion is flavoured by the problem with editors cherry-picking primary sources in order to advance their POV. For example. Take a miracle-food. Search PubMed for all papers mentioning the food. Cite rat study showing changes in some protein level as evidence that it is helps with weight loss. Cite case note of one patient as evidence that it is a cure for poison. Etc.

Is your problem finding secondary sources for pathophysiology due to lack of access to the journals, or because they don't exist? Do you have access to a medical school library (for books)? Colin°^Talk 16:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I did see that, but only after I left you that note. It looks from my reading of it that the consensus is that primary sources are ok for WP:V but aren't that great. So I'd rather avoid them if I want to get pulmonary contusion to FA; if someone challenges a primary source at FAC, and it's supporting material that isn't in secondary sources, I'll be hard-pressed to replace the source.

I have access to a lot of journals, but there aren't that many reviews of pulmonary contusion. There are some from before the mid 90s that I can't get though, I don't know how up-to-date those would be anyway though. The reviews there are, you'll see I've relied on heavily. I'll have access to a little medical library in about a week, and maybe a bigger one at some point in the summer or fall. Thanks so much for your help Colin! I really appreciate it. delldot talk 17:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask me to review it again just before you submit it to FAC. In my opinion, the quality of the references is as good as it gets for a medical article like this. Most references are either textbooks or review articles. Axl (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Awww, thank you so much Axl! I most definitely will. You are now vying with Colin for role of "delldot's favorite person ever". delldot talk 19:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

lol! Axl (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You might like to know that I've submitted SAH for FA candidacy. It seems the League of Copyeditors is officially defunct, so you may be correct that we'll need to work on prose a little bit. JFW | T@lk 00:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's great JFW! Very exciting. Definitely give me a poke if I can help with anything and I don't notice right away. Peace, delldot talk 01:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

:( -- Gurch (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Aww, :( indeed. delldot talk 01:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[7]