User talk:Decltype/Archive 13

Min aktivitet här har varit starkt begränsad. Jag har ingen koll alls.

Kan du se om du kan "översätta":

<ref name="SCB 2010-06-30">{{webref|url=http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____244147.aspx|titel=SCB, Befolkningsstatistik 30 juni 2010|hämtdatum=2010-08-19}}</ref>

och

<ref name="SCB 2010-01-01">{{webbref|url=http://www.scb.se/Statistik/MI/MI0802/2010A01/mi0802tab3_2010.xls|titel=Statistiska centralbyrån den 1 januari 2010|format=[[Microsoft Excel]]|hämtdatum=2010-08-21}}</ref>

till vettigt enwp-språk? -- Lavallen (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Visst, om jag inte minns fel så är "webbref" baserad på enwps {{cite web}}. Är det såhär du vill att det ska se ut? decltype (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

^{[1] [2]}

I det här fallet vill det nog också vara naturligt att uppge utgivare (Statistics Sweden). "publisher"-parametern motsvarar webbrefs "utgivare". decltype (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ngt sådant då. (redigerat ditt inlägg)

Lägger jag den här reffen bäst i anslutning till siffran eller till fotnoten i kommunmallen? -- Lavallen (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Exact. Hmm, bra fråga. Har ingen stark åsikt om det egentligen. decltype (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxarna har en tendens att bli osnygga med en massa ^[1] bland siffrorna så jag lägger dem nog i fornoten. - Det finns utrymme speciellt tänkt för att berätta om siffrorna där i vilket fall. -- Lavallen (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, det är ju vissa som tycker att det är osnyggt med för många fotnoter i själva artikeltexten också. decltype (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Du kan nu se resultatet i Kiruna Municipality. Jag avvaktar lite olika diskussioner innan jag fortsätter med de övriga 289. -- Lavallen (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hejsan Decltype. Jag tror inte vi har stött på varandra direkt tidigare (även om jag känner igen ditt nick) men Lavallen skrev en notis om det hela på min användardiskussion så här är jag och fyller din diskussion med tyckande. Hoppas att det är lugnt :). Jag skulle föreslå att noten läggs direkt efter siffran då jag uppfattade det som lite förvirrande att den låg längst ned i tabellen. Jag fann det förvirrande eftersom det ger intrycket att man satt en källa på förklaringen snarare än att de är noter för var själva siffrorna (som använts för uträkningen) tagits ifrån. Men det kanske är standard på en.Wikipedia? Om inte så föreslår jag standard enligt sv. med noten fult, men lättförståeligt, placerad mitt i tabellen. Jopparn (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Please only talk in English at this Wikipedia, unless it's something personal. We are at the English Wikipedia, so in general, it should only be in English. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is true that English should generally be used on the English-language Wikipedia. However, I consider it common courtesy to reply in the same language as the one in which I am addressed (to the best of my ability). I will be happy to provide a translation if anyone interested in the discussion requests it. Regards, decltype (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hejsan Jopparn, visst är det lugnt :). You have a point. I agree that the footnote should be placed in a manner that makes it clear exactly what information it covers. Placing the footnote after the date of the census is common in the widely used {{infobox settlement}}, but I personally think it looks fine the way it is now. Again, I don't have a strong opinion in the matter. Regards, decltype (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

LoL, you now wrote in English anyway. /HeyMid (contributions) 19:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

@Heymid. Och du kan läsa/skriva svenska, så vad är problemet? -- Lavallen (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tja, uppenbarligen kan jag skriva på svenska också... /HeyMid (contributions) 15:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Heymid, yes, for two reasons. 1) Because you pointed it out. 2) Because the second inquiry is more likely to be of general interest than the first, which was a request for assistance in converting an svwp template to its English-language counterpart, something unlikely to be interesting for anyone who doesn't contribute to the Swedish-language Wikipedia, and consequently possesses at least a rudimentary knowledge of the Swedish language. Let me know if you have further concerns. Regards, decltype (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi dear decltype, Sorry for the late response, my e-mail has gone mad and i no longer use it, so you should remove it. Sorry for the spam messages from there which is out of my control. --Triancula (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. No harm done. Regards, decltype (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The August 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The September 2010 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting five coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next year; members are invited to nominate themselves if interested. Please do not vote yet, voting will begin on September 15. This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please create protect....thanks in advance! CTJF83 chat 06:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ctjf83! As the page has only been created twice by the same user, I don't think create-protection is necessary at this point, as the situation can be more effectively dealt with by blocking the user in question. Regards, decltype (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, that works too :) CTJF83 chat 06:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am keeping an eye on the user. Let me know if you have further concerns ;). Regards, decltype (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Can you not delete the pages I created about myself? I'm trying to make a name as a fictional writer, and the things I have encountered or talked about as far as my past and current living goes is all true. I am not attacking or making a mockery of anyone. I appreciate your help... thanks. And please don't ban me from this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadiyahh (talk • contribs) 06:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If I may....Sadiyahh, even if it is you, you don't meet WP:Notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. CTJF83 chat 06:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

@Sadiyahh: Pages consisting of unsourced contentious information about a presumably living person is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Like Ctjf83 says, as you are currently trying to make a name for yourself, you are presumably not notable, and thus not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. To better familiarize yourself with the project and its scope, you may want to read what Wikipedia is not. Further disruption and vandalism such as this will lead to your editing privileges being revoked. Regards, decltype (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Decltype, can you check this article, there is not even one single online reference which could be used to verify orjustify all those claims and stories: I have written in the "discussion" area of the article and invited people to come to discuss the matter, but nobody is responding. Everybody is occupied adding people under the title of "Prominent Thathaals". It is not very long ago that "Choudhry Abdur Rehman Advocate" was added in the list, the guy who did that was the son of the mentioned person. He even wrote a small biography of the person, but all the references were fake and had nothing to do with the person, so the biography article was deleted. Now somebody is adding name of " Deepika Thathaal and her beother Adil Thathaal as prominent Thathaals. the guy who is doing that does not even know that adil thathaal has changed his name, moreover he is born in Norway and not in Pakistan. I think this is a poor try to give legtimacy or credibility to an article which is fake and nothing more than a crap. The article is suggesting that "Thathaals" are Jatt, while according to my knowledge they are Rajput, moreover the real word is Thothal and not Thathaal. In fact the article started as Thothaal but someone later changed that to Thathaal. I had a conversation with the father of Adil khan and he gave me these information.

I know, you would say that you have no knowledge about the topic, but you can see that there is not even a single reference which justify the claims. The article is nothing more than stories. Can you please check my criticism of the article in the " discussion" area. Do you think if you can add some " citation needed" tags. RegardsJogibaba (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. As for the article's title, I do not see anyone contesting that "Thothaal" is more accurate, so feel free to move the page yourself, using the "move page" tab on top of the page. I disagree that there's a total lack of citations, because, even if online sources are easier to verify, high-quality offline references may also be used. Perhaps you can find the relevant sections of those books through Google books to see what the sources say? (It is not unlikely that this was used to add the information to begin with). As an editor in good standing, you are totally free to go through the article and add {{citation needed}} for information that needs a reference, or excise information that you believe to be false. However, you need to think twice before excising information that is sourced, offline or otherwise. And do remember to add sources for information you add even if you know it to be true. You're usually very good with that, so that shouldn't be a problem. Oh, and I've also added a {{disputed}} tag to the article, per the talk page. Let me know if you require further assistance, but yes, I do have little knowledge of the topic. Regards, decltype (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but the page is reverted by Atwozee , removed your tag and added back Adil Thathaal ( with the same wrong information that he was born in Pakistan) and Deepika Thathaal. He is the most active person in that article, in fact he is treating that article as his own property. He is quick to revert page to the version which either he has written or is close to his viewpoint. I had earlier left a message at his page to come for discussion, but he did not reply. He keeps on adding people without giving any proof if these people have anything to do with the article. This is the message he got earlier from somebody " Stop adding names for which no article exists. If they are notable you need to write their article first. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Reliable sources policy. 98.248.41.72 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC). But he is continuing his way. Please can you put the tag back and write him a message that he is not supposed to revert the changes made by an admin before the matter is sorted.

As it goes for the referances, off course there are referances but those are false, does not support the claims that is why those are kept offline. I have been student of Indian history and never come across such stories. Just to make sure, I also bought the main book mentioned as referance, but I did not find anything supporting the claims. Regards Jogibaba (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have notified Atwozee that they needs to stop blanket reversion of the article, and to not add unsourced information about living people. However, I must also ask you to assume good faith, remain civil, and refrain from the kind of unfounded accusations such as accusing Atwozee of hiding behind an ip. The same goes for the offline references. Our policy on dispute resolution contains a lot of good advice on how to proceed, but discussion is definitely the first step. Regards, decltype (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

sorry decltype, I simply lost temper, that is why I used those words about "hiding behind ip", I had written a message , got no response, instead find the article "undone" even your tag got removed also. That made me angry but now I have edited those words, I would be careful with my words in future. But I have to inform you that the page is "undone" again by some ip. I hope you would ake appropriate action. Regards.Jogibaba (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As the list of Thathaal / Thothaals is unsourced, and few of the people in it have articles, I have expunged the entire section. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi decltype, sorry to bother you again but Atwozee has done that again, added deepika, adil and sultan mehmud, removed the tag attached by you, he does not want to come to the discussion section and just want the thing to be done in his way.Regards:Jogibaba (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi decltype, on 6th of September, there has been started a new article under the title of Thathal, the article consist of just 2 lines which are borrowed from the first paragraph of Thothal/Thathaal, is this allowed to creat a "new" article like this, moreover the reference given is not for Thathal but for Thuthal. RegardsJogibaba (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jogibaba, thanks for the notification. A new article that does not expand or detail upon an existing article should be redirected or speedy deleted under criterion A10. I have therefore redirected the page to the existing article. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi decltype, can you please check what kind of language is being used here for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Atwozee#Prominent_Thathaals , the guys can not reply to my criticism and start using ugly language like " mother sucker" and i do not know my father´s name ,which indirectly means that I am an illegtimate child of my mother, please look here. regardsJogibaba (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

by the way, what is going to be the outcome of the discussion, I, with the help of quoting "view History" have proved in the discussion are that the article is a copy/paste article and this originally was about a group named "Thothaal" and NOT "Thathaal", later the article has been "edited"( falsified) to give it the curent shape, please, can you check the discussion area and if you have time, can you read "the origin and the hijacking " of the article, can you , please also tell me what to do with the article, or the discussion would go for eternity. RegardsJogibaba (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The personal attack on you is unacceptable of course. However, Atwozee has already been blocked for 3 days for re-inserting the names into the article, so no further action is required at this point. It is true that the original article looks like something that may have been copied from elsewhere, but unless the source can be located it's impossible to tell. Otherwise it's just original research, but the article's sourcing has improved since then. Again, you may remove any questionable material that is not supported by a reference. As for the Thothaal vs. Thathaal debate, I think the best way to settle it would be through a move request. At the talk page, create a section like this:

== Requested move ==

{{subst:move|Thothaal}} Write a short rationale here for why you feel this name is more appropriate and sign it.

If, after a week, consensus is in favor of moving the page, the article will be renamed to "Thothaal". Hope that helps, decltype (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Decltype, I would do that in the weekend, right now I am planning to upgrade Deeyah's article, add more information, add new references and remove non-working references, I am also trying to built Sabri Khan's article, which consisted just of 2 lines, I have added some material there, going to add more, would later add references. By the way, I found the site of Thothal/Thathaal article, it is here, the article was copied from and later pasted here on wiki. http://www.forumjar.com/forums/topic/History_of_Thothaals Regards.Jogibaba (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Decltype, the article Thathal is back again, this article is about the same group Thothal/Thathaal. I think you had created a redirect for this article, but it has become a seprate article. I don´t understand why there should be 2 article about the group.Regards.Jogibaba (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the redirect for now. However, I see that the creator of the page has voiced some concerns regarding the other article. decltype (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Decyltype, the guy who created the page appears to be a genuine guy to me. He was the only one who took part in the discussion, but later he gave up and started the new page. I do share his concern about Thothal/Thathaal, This article is a pure fabrication as he said, also as I wrote in the discussion area. The introduction and 3-4 sections about history of Thothal/Thathaal are completely untrue, unfound and unsourced stories. Do you think if I can delete those section and leave what is the original stuff like, "Villages of thathaal" etc. The content of Thathal ( article which is been redirected could be used on Thothal/Thathaal. It is true that the almost 90% of the article would be gone, but at least what would be left, that would be a genuine article though small. I can also send a message to the creater of Thathal to contribute in the other article.Do you agree with this soloution?. According to my knowledge the title of the article should be "Thothal", but this should not be a problem, We can keep the title as "Thathal" and explain in the article that some people believe that "Thothal" is the right word. the "Requested move" is expiring tomorrow. How about if you change the title to "Thathal" or/and do what is need to be done.RegardsJogibaba (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that may be one possible solution. Either way, the closing of the move request should be performed by another administrator, and I wouldn't recommend changing the title of the article without going through another move request, as it is clearly somewhat controversial. Regards, decltype (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There are only 2 person who are showing their concern about this article. Atwozee is merely occupied to enter those people's list who he consider "noteable". Qaleechpure, who started a new article, is concerned with the factual accuracy of the article which makes sense. I was thinking to paste all that what he had written on "Thathal" article to "Thothal/Thathaal". it was me who asked for the article to be moved to "Thothal", but has to find a compromise which could be "Thathal", this also sound as "Thathaal", moreover there are 4 villages which are named "Thathal". While there are 2 villages which are named "Thothal". Qaleechpure who had started the new page, had used the title "Thathal". so he wouldn¨t have any problem with this title. But when we look for "Thathaal", we don't find anything about this other than the wiki article pasted on different site. But what do you mean by "going through another move request". does this mean waiting another week or writing another move request. I don't think this wis really needed, but ready to do as you guide. RegardsJogibaba (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean both. That is, wait till the first one has been closed, then make a new one. But frankly, I don't understand why you want to change the title once more. If there are three possible spellings, and none are more prominent than the others, then I don't see what difference it makes what title the article resides under. Regards, decltype (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will do that, as far the name change, an admin has said that the title can't be Thothal/Thathaal, we have to chose either one of these. Thathaal can not be chosen because we don't have anything supporting this other than the wiki article pasted on differant site: We don't find anything about "Thothaal" on any site other than where it has been copied from. Now , we have 2 titles left which are "Thathal" and "Thothal". Though I am in favour of "Thothal" but we have 4 villages named "Thathal" while there are 2 villages named " Thothal". That is why I think this would be fair to call the title "Thathal", even though I am in the fovoue of the other one. Morweover, this would please people like "Qaleechpure" who had started a seprated article. With this name everybody can be on board.RegardsJogibaba (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have finished my work with the swedish municipalities now. You may then delete my subpages. (But not the monobook.css). -- Lavallen (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Just let me know if, for some reason, you need access to any of the deleted pages in the future. Regards, decltype (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Decltype, today I had written one article which I later divided into two. Those articles are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisterhood_(Network) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisterhood_Online_Mixtape. I also uploaded the logo of the first one and the cover photo of the later. I think, I need to have upload the permission somewhere to not get these deleted. Can you please do me a favour and get this sorted ( sorry for being so dummy). I think you would need to write an email here sisterhood.art@gmail.com . This is just a formality, because they don't have any objection to this. Thank you in advace. RegardsJogibaba (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Will look into it tomorrow. Regards, decltype (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Sisterhood (Network) logo is eligible for copyright at all (it's too simple). I've changed the tags accordingly. There's a few fields that I was unable to fill out, you may want to look into that. The mixtape cover is used under a claim of fair use under the nonfree content policy. Such use does not require the copyright holder's consent, so there's no need for an explicit permission. It's nice to know that the copyright holder doesn't object, but it's not a requirement. Regards, decltype (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Decltype, does this mean these uploads won´t be deleted, moreover, would it be possible to use this upload on other wiki projects?. For example Norwegian wiki .RegardsJogibaba (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Sisterhood logo, yes, but not the mixtape cover. The Norwegian Wikipedia does not allow non-free content. Regards, decltype (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi decltype, Atwozee is back and he is continuing the way he was. He is obcessed with adding adil, deepika and Barrister Sultan Mahmood under the section you had deleted earlier. He was quick to remove the tag added by you, and made the section which was deleted by you with Barrister Sultan Mahmood. Now he is asking in the discussion area for permission to add deepika and adil there. In order to add he brought a "proof" from a forum where it should not be difficult to ask for such post. Right after the post appeared there, Atwozee was quick to use that as a reference. If it would have been an earlier post, then one can conclude that the post was correct and Atwozee just found it now, but if, right after the post came on that forum, he knew that. This make it clear that either he himself made that post or asked someone to write that post as a favour. When I clicked on the post, this what i got about that; "(September 17, 2010 at 5:05 AM) secret posted a new entry Barrister Sultan Mahmood Chaudhry 53 minutes ago .", and it is here http://thathaal.webs.com/apps/blog/. He made someone to write a similiar post on another site also. I hope you would calm him down. as far it goes for adding Adil khan and deeyah, it should be better to ask his father or mother , if they belong to this group. if you like I can arrange their email address. I have put the "Requested move" there as was suggested by you. This is the first reply which is written there

"Actually Jogibaba wants to upset this page because he has some personal anger on thathaals, the real story is this "A thathaal fucked his sister wildly so he is taking revenge. Bloody Bastard, son of bitch". Lolz!!!"

I am sure this was written by Atwozee. he wrote first reply while remaining unlogged with this ip 116.71.48.100"Thathaal sir name is used by only thathaals on this planet, and few Thathaals use this sir name, Thathaals Rajputs use the title Raja while Thathaal Jats use the title of Chaudhry. So Admin it's for your information that Adil Thathaal And Deepika Thathaal are real Thathaals so list them here under the heading of notable Thathaals". Then he wrote those filthy words about me while still unlogged. Then he logged and wrote " Barrister Sultan Mahmood Chaudhry is a thathaal Jat but he never used the title of Thathaal at the end od his name he used the word Chaudhry. Which is the real title of Jats and even every caste of Jats use this title." then he gave that link and unlogged and came back and wrote while still remaining unlogged ip 116.71.48.100" Admin must fix Barrister Sultan Mahmood Chaudhry under the heading of Prominent or Notable Thathaal."

Atwozee has gone mad because he thinks this page is his personal property. And he is feeling threatned that this might change. I am fully capable to use the same filthy language while remaining unlogged as well, but since you told me to be careful with the language, so I am doing as you said. I would need your advice and an apprpriate response as far it goes for Atwozee. RegardsJogibaba (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Those bad words got removed by an admin, named gu1dry. regardsJogibaba (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good. I have left a note on the talk page about reliable sources. Forum / blog posts are usually not valid references for such information. As for Adil Khan and Deepika Thathaal, their parents would not constitute a reliable source either, unless they were quoted in a reliable publication, again in accordance with WP:RS. Since the relevant section has been removed from the article, and the attack has been removed, I don't think further action is needed at this point. Let me know if you have further concerns. decltype (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Decltype, Atwozee was banned again for 2 weeks on 21 sept. Now he is cursing me again with words like this " Because we are great people and very organise not like you gujjars/Kanjars, or chora chamars, Ok???" these are really bad words "gujjars/Kanjars, or chora chamars". He is appearig with the ip, though everytime he pretend to be a differnt person, but his ip shows that it is him. Who is the admin. I should ask for removing that "move requested" tag. What should I do now, Should I just give up and let Atwozee shape the page as he likes?. But this is really shame that people like Atwozee are dictating their terms here. Wikipedia is considered so authentic that people who want to do some research, they base their research on Wikipedia material. I have been told by 2 well known journalist that when they landed on a US airport. The official already knew about them because they have read the wikipedia profile of these journalist. I think wikipedia needs to be a little more strict to keep its reputation.RegardsJogibaba (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is some more from Atwozee." Bloody gujjar/Kanjar keep your fucking face away from me. I don't wanna see you. Bloody Wahibi Kanjar. --DevJats116.71.60.89 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)" Kanjar means pimp, every time he use a new name.RegardsJogibaba (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have blocked some of the ip addresses used as obvious sockpuppets of Atwozee. In light of this, an indefinite block of Atwozee may be considered. Regards, decltype (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)