this is username nero again. I did not enter my username incorrectly. I even put an email adress on it but it says i didn't when i try to get it to send my password. I can't logg on and I know i entered the right password. I need help. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.120.36.66|75.120.36.66]] ([[User talk:75.120.36.66|talk]]) 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
this is username nero again. I did not enter my username incorrectly. I even put an email adress on it but it says i didn't when i try to get it to send my password. I can't logg on and I know i entered the right password. I need help. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.120.36.66|75.120.36.66]] ([[User talk:75.120.36.66|talk]]) 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Do you have you caps lock on? [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|The otter sank]] 21:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Start by not writing everything in capital letters. On the internet that is considered rude because it signifies shouting. Since you are referring to stories, it seems you are talking about getting in the news, which is not what Wikipedia is for. How to work with Wikipedia and your account is explained in the help files. You should probably start with Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs) 07:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything where the font is highlighted in blue like the Wikipedia:Tutorial is, means that it is a wikilink. If you click on it, it will take you to a new page. The same goes for all the links that are in the welcome on i put on your talk page. Hope this helps. Woodym55513:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Medco Slogan
The entry for Medco's slogan is outdated. It has recently been changed to 'Medco, at the heart of health'. I am an employee of Medco and the slogan change be verified at www.medco.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salsa80 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My browser (IE6) has trouble displaying a map at Pomeranian_Voivodeship#Counties.2C_administrative_division. If the browser window is more than a certain width, the map does not display - there is just a big blank. If the browser window is less than a certain width, the map displays fine. It seems as if the preceding image (of the Sea Towers) slightly overlaps the map, it prevents it from displaying at all.
I can't repro this with IE 6. I tried various window sizes and font sizes. Maybe you can be more specific as to the settings and sizes you are using. — Sebastian08:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17" flat screen; res 1024x768. Text size medium in IE. With maximised window, the problem occurs. I need to bring a side in about half an inch to get the map displaying. The problem occurs when the bottom of the box around the Sea Towers image is below the line under the "Counties, administrative division" heading, as you can see in the screen shot. Nurg21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. Also try Compton scattering. Woodym55508:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Font has changed
Wikipedia's font has changed!
I think it is 'Antique Olive' and it's particularly unpleasant to read.
I haven't changed anything myself and would like to go back to the default font.
Wikipedia hasn't changed anything, and unless you also have an account, you're not able to modify your CSS either. Try checking your browser's display settings - If you use Firefox, this can be done under Tools -> Options... -> Content -> Fonts and colors. In Internet Explorer, this can be done in Tools -> Internet Options... -> Fonts.... I hope this helps. Hersfold(t/a/c)14:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears my account has been hacked, probably due to a recent announcement of intention to edit an article about Rush Limbaugh concerning a recent controversial event. As it was at the time, the article was blatantly partisan and took Limbaugh's side. Now when I try to log in, I'm told my password is wrong (it isn't) and I'm asked to type words as they appear on the screen, again and again. I've had to do this in the past, so it's nothing new to me, but the number of times I'm being asked to type words makes me think this is some kind of endless loop I was placed in. How can I fix this and get my account back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.18.227 (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those words are CAPTCHAs and are in place to stop automated linkspamming. Are you sure your username and password are properly capitalized? Did you try to request a new password? If your account is compromised, how could it have happened? Did you forget to logout of a public computer? - Mgm|(talk)09:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might find what you are looking for in the article about Othello. If you cannot find the answer there, click here to post your question at that article's talk page. If that does not solve your problem, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They will be glad to try and answer questions about anything in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps. Hersfold(t/a/c)14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found an article on person X, for which most of the references are also by person X. Is there a template to flag this, that says something like "most of the references in this article are generated by the subject"? I've looked in Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles and I can see a couple which are close, but not quite right. p.s. In case you're wondering, X is Loren Coleman. Peter Ballard12:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two things to consider here: 1) Is notability established by an independant source? 2) Are the things covered by references from X non-controversial? If for example, Loren is the source for the statement "my favorite food is spaghetti." there's no point in questioning its source. If however, the statement is "I'm the most successful Z in the history of my hometown." that would require outside sourcing. _ Mgm|(talk)12:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are the COI tag for the article and the uw-coi tag for the editor's talkpage (both of those, of course, should be in double curved brackets). If somebody hasn't already done so, I'll add them soon. --Orange Mike16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Movie Quotes
I'm having a disagreement with another user over a 'quotes' section on movie article. The other user has added a quotes section with random quotes from the movie. Do quote sections belong on a movie article if the quotes are just selected favorites of a user? --Endless Dan12:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should get together on the article's talkpage and discuss some quotes which could go into the article. Share your views and opinions and review each quote, so you don't get a random list of quotes building up on the article. That's what I'd do. Lradrama12:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea actually. Although what I meant with the discussion is that inferior quotes and unsuitable ones would be ironed out so the section didn't get too big, if you get me? But all the same, you have a good idea there. Lradrama12:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I recently made edits to several pages. I was not logged in at the time as I had forgotten my user name and password which I have since recovered. The edits included links to photographs of historic aircraft two of which are the only surviving examples of their kind. Via a BOT edit all of my edits were removed including the factual changes made to the articles. While I can see possibly some justification to removing the external links even thought they were links to photographs that would add to the user's knowledge and experience, the removal of the factual content by using the Speedy Deletion Process seems totally unjustified. The factual changes are well documented and have even been included on other Wikipedia web pages by different contributors. I linked to at least one Wikipedia article when I added the content. I attempted to contact the admin who deleted my material but I have apparently been blocked. While I don't believe it is Wikipedia's intent to present historically inaccurate information, apparently an administrator does not want the material included and apparently does not want to discuss the matter given my inability to either email him or post a message to him. By blanking my revision he left intact historically inaccurate information on the purchase and use by the Kingdom of Siam (Thailand) of the Curtiss Hawk III aircraft. In the reverted form of the article it appeqrs China was the only operator of the Hawk III which is inaccurate. Thailand purchased and built Hawk III aircraft and used them in the French-Thai war of 1940-421 Further he removed links to photos of the only surviving example of that aircraft as well as links to photos of the oldest surviving Chance Vought and the only one of its kind left. While the addition of the content (concerning Thailand's manufacturing and use of several historical lines of aircraft). While I had hoped to contribute meaningful material to Wikipedia, it now appears the arbitrary action of one administrator will prevent that. Since the administrator apparently refuses to permit me to discuss the issue, is there anything I can do other than accept his revisionist history?
It may have been a mistake if the administrator in question is unfamiliar with the subject matter in question, because admins don't delete material for the sheer fun of it. Material usually gets deleted because it violated copyright or because it is vandalism. It may have been a misunderstanding, and if you think this is the case, you'll need to contact the admin in question and discuss the matter. I'm sure he'll be happy to help. If you've been blocked, get another account to do this. If not, you could provide links to the pages you edited here, and we could see what the problem is. Regarding the BOT edits, Bots only revert if vandalism is obvious, for example, if vulgar words have been included, large portions of text have been deleted, etc. If the Bot is malfunctioning, admins will have to be notified. Hope that helps. Lradrama14:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thankyou for that. With the first edit, I can see nothing wrong with what you did. Unless the information you provided was false, it shouldn't have been reverted.
However, can you explain why you removed the external links section in the second example? That type of removal of content is easy to mistake for vandalism. Many people would have revrted that under removal of content.
I did not remove the external links section in the second example. In fact none had existed until I added the external links section to the article. The administrator who removed all my posts removed that section too. The external link I provided was to a copy of a photograph of the the only remaining V93S Corsair. It is also the oldest remaining Chance Vought aircraft existing.
"In 1978, a V-93S in the Royal Thai Aviation Museum was the oldest Vought aircraft in existence."
"The V-93S was a modified model of the Vought O3U-6."
Note the admin chose to leave all referrences to the Chinese O3Us in the article while removing mine and as well as other posts other using the Speedy Removal Process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 14:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for accusing you of removing the external links section, it was my mistake, no worries at all. Now then, I think when the admin so the work Products at the top of the page, he/she instantly removed the link because of the negative connotations of that word when associated with external links. If the website is a promotional website, i.e. that is a product for sale and is being advertised, it is classed as a spam link. Links to websites which advertise / sell products are not allowed. If you can find another picture that would be better. Or, even better, do you have a picture of the plane that you created / photographed yourself? Because if you do, we can upload it onto the website and put it onto the article. You don't need an external link that way, because everyone will see it on the article. How about that? Lradrama14:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if another Wikipedian could continue to help this user because I'm going to have to leave my computer now. If he/she replies and someone could help, that would be brilliant. Thankyou,Lradrama15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no physical products for sale on the webs links that were deleted. Both museums presently shown are free to the public. If products are a concern why hasn't the admin removed the other links to museum aircraft including those from private museums? Warbird Alley is definitely a commercial enterpise but they are linked to a number of aircraft descriptions in Wikipedia. Then there is the Temora Aviation Museum, also a commercial venture. They not only have links on a number of historic aircraft pages but they also have their own Wikipedia page complete with a link to their website. Why didn't the admin see fit remove them when he deleted the links I provided? Are there two sets of rules here? Why did the admin see fit to removed factual information I provided that was not related to an external link?. Apparently the admin who used the speedy deletion process to remove my posts didn't even read them. While I assumed Wikipedia supported the inclusion of factual information apparently that is not the case given my recent experience. Admins apparently can do no wrong. Admins apparently can refuse to discuss a removal. Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to operate? While I have considerable factual knowledge including the resources to back up what I say regarding Thailand and aviation in Thailand (see the two links to supporting references), apparently the admins are free to delete posts without as much as reading them and they do this with impunity. What is the point of trying to contribute when someone with admin privileges can simply wipe out your work leaving the editor with no real recourse? If Wikipedia is intent on creating quality content this is not the way to go about it. It i really frustrating to see an admin given the authority of god who is unwilling to even discuss a deletion.
The Wikipedia policy on vandalism is as follows though you already know it.
"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.
Committing blatant vandalism violates Wikipedia policy. If you find that another user has vandalized Wikipedia, you should revert the changes and warn the user (see below for specific instructions). Users who vandalize Wikipedia repeatedly, despite warnings to stop, should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and administrators may block them."
What is the difference between an ordinary wallflower vandal and an administrator who decides to attack content using the speedy delete process with no basis for doing so? I suspect I am wasting my time bring up these issues since a it appears the lowly contributor is always at fault. I would have hoped someone would take it seriously. If I repost the material what is to stop the same admin from wiping out the material again? Apparently nothing. There ought to be required etiquite for administrator but apprently that is not the case at Wikipedia. It appears to be a matter of always justifying what an admin has done. Regardless of what the admin believes, Thailand did in fact employ the aircraft I mentioned. Thailand di in fact manufacture under license the aircraft I mentioned. Thailand did in fact use the aircraft I mentioned during the French-Thai war. Thailand did in fact purchase and manufacture Curtiss Hawk III aircraft. China was not the only country using this type as the admin believes. Apparently this admin thought the dissemination of those facts to be so critical that he used the Speedy Delete process to remove them before readers could see them. What a waste of my time trying to add content when an admin can without even reading the content delete it. I wouldn't feel so aggrieved if this admin had allowed me to discuss the deletion but apparently he has decided to isolate himslf. I could not sned an email nor could I post to his talk page as he suggests. What would stop the same admin from deleting my posts again should I restore the information? NYerkes15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to look at what happened, but be aware that the long diatribe casting all 1350 administrators in a negative light when you disagree with the actions of 1 of them is likely not helping your case. Succinct descriptions and attempts to contact the admin in question would help. LeeboT/C15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)If you readded the information and then he deleted it again, then that would be the beginnings of an edit war and no-one wants one of those. Where have you tried to discuss this with the admin concerned? Have you tried talking to User:El_C on his User talk:El_C or indeed on the talk pages of the articles concerned. I don't think that the admin was acting with impunity or that he intended to offend you. I think he was trying to protect the integrity of wikipedia. You say that you have sources to back up your information, could you state on the talk page of the article, the text that you want added and the reference for that text. Then other users can see what they think about the addition and whether it is accurate.
The speedy deletion process that you talk about is the revert system that is open to use by all editors. Try and open up dialogue on the talk page concerned and try to Assume good faith. I am sure that no-one means to offend. Woodym55516:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section break
I did not readd anything period. I do not want an edit war. I did not intend to cast dispersions on all the admins. However, it appeared the last contact here was attempting to justify what this admin did to the exclusion of looking at the facts. At one point I was hastily accused of deleting the Extenal Links Section. The person did apologize after I pointed out it was the admin who did so. But then the conversation again again turned to defending the admin's behavior. It appeared to me that rather than working to resolve the issue the person was more interested in defending the admin. As to contacting the admin in question. I attempted to do so first by email (my attempt to email was rejected) then by posting to his talk page which I was also unable to do. It was only after those attempts that I posted here. I had a nice email and post prepared asking him to reconsider. The more this continues the more it appears I am being judged as the only at fault party here. If I can't contact the admin by email or post to his talk page what recourse do I have? I don't have his phone number and I am not a mind reader. NYerkes16:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you haven't readded anything. You have done the right thing by asking for help. With regards to the external links, i made that mistake when i looked at it, it is easy to misread a diff. Try to contact him on his talk page. Why could you not post to his talk page the first time?. What error message came up? It is not protected so you should be able to edit it. I think everyone is trying to help you and trying to decipher what is going on. I don't think anyone has blamed you here for anything. If you weren't logged in you probably couldn't email him. Try and stay logged in. Please try and keep an open mind, i am sure that dialogue will reslove this situation. Woodym55516:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be anything preventing you from leaving a note on his talk page with this account. Also, your IP address, the one you contributed to and the one El C left a message for, has never been blocked. So there should be no reason you can't leave El C a message. Tell him his conduct is under discussion at least. LeeboT/C16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since El C was already contacted regarding my posts is there any need for me to do so? Reading what was posted on El C's talk page it appears that there is a consensus that the deletion of my posts using the Speedy deletion process was just and proper. I Since El C is now aware of the posts I made here it further seems that he has no problem with some commercial websites such as WarBirdAlley.com, Motorbooks.com, WWW.K5054.com (supports the site through advertising),etc. since they remain as external links on many of Wikipedia's aviation articles. Apparently operating under a double standard is acceptable practice among administrators. There was a referrence made to new users not understanding how Wikipedia works. I am to understand that part of how Wikipedia works is for Admins to circle the wagons when one admin's behavior is questioned? That is what appears to have taken place here. Is this how Wikipedia really works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 02:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't understand what you keep referring to as "speedy deletion". Speedy deletion refers to the criteria for speedy deletion, which are rules which allow administrators to delete certain articles without discussion. No article was deleted, so please stop insinuating that that happened. I looked at the discussion at User talk:El C and it's all about how you couldn't contact him, not about the actual issue. Talk to him. LeeboT/C02:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So an administrator removing all posts of user is an acceptable practice? An administrator operating under 2 sets of rules is an acceptable practice? I was able to contact El C this time. It will be interesting to see what the response will be. NYerkes02:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As suspected, EL C did not address my concerns but deflected by accusing me of misbehavior. I did as mentioned attempt to contact him unsuccessfully yesterday. It was only after finding I was unable to contact him did I resort to posting on the help desk. Yet he accuses me of posting here first when I did in fact attempt to contact via 2 resources. His failure to address my concerns regarding the posting of factual information specific to each article I edited suggests he will continue to delete any posts I make as he did before. Apparently he continues to believe he should remove certain posts since the others remain which blatantly contain advertising continue to exist despite my specifically informing him of their existence and content. Those sites are blatantly commercial yet he chooses to ignore their links and in at least one instance their creation of a Wikipedia article about their enterprise. Why doesn't he just use his powers to ban me since by deleting my posts and implying by failing to address the issue of the deletion of my factual information from several articles he will continue to do so he effectively accomplishes that end. What is my recourse now? Am I expected to simply stop adding factual content? NYerkes03:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, your contributions for this account, and your IP show you did not discuss any issue with anyone prior to bringing it here. This is not the place to discuss content disputes, or issues you have with other editors, this is the a place to get help using Wikipedia, and I would urge you to either discuss your problems calmly with El_C, and listen to what he has to say, or take the issue to WP:AN. I read El_C's response, and it seems to be quite explanatory. Additionally, please do not assume that all reverts are done by a bot, unless they say "bot" in the name, they are just simply done by editors trying to abide by policies and guidelines. Please have a little good faith with other editors. I realize that Wikipedia can be a pretty confusing place if you're not familiar with it, but if you take a little time and review some of the policies and guidelines, it may help you get a better idea of what the decisions are based upon. As for your content dispute, I would really encourage you to go to the article's talk page, make a section there explaining why you wish to include the information that was removed, explain why it helps the context of the article, and allow the community to discuss it and come to a consensus about it. This would be a very helpful thing to do, as well as a way to get other opinions. I do understand your frustration, truly, but I would encourage you to perhaps go about this a bit differently. Ariel♥Gold03:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I was unable to either email or post to EL C user page yesterday I began looking for other resources. I read this on Jimbo Wales page, "The best thing to do, if you have a complaint, is to start with the help desk.". That is my reason for posting here. While you won't find a record of my contact since none was successfully completed yesterday I did in fact make the attempts. Even today my initial attempts to contact him were not successful. I kept getting a notice that there was a posting conflict whne not other posts had been added. Rather than attempting to insert after the last post (one regarding a graphic) as I had previously done I move up a post and was able to insert at that location. Next time have problems posting I will do a screen save since it appears the veracity of what I stated is questioned. If you follow the thread you will note I deliberately did not use El C's user name in my post. That was instigated by a a response to my post. I was asked to post examples of the deletions which I did. Early off it was suggested that my poss were deleted bacause of an appearance of vandalism (However, can you explain why you removed the external links section in the second example? That type of removal of content is easy to mistake for vandalism. Many people would have revrted that under removal of content). When it was pointed out this particular administrator removed the external links section then is was no longer considered vandalism or even something appearing to be vandalism there was an apology made to me for the suggestion I had done so. I did not want to use EL C's user name out of respect. In fact I did not specifically use EL C's user name until long after others had done so. Yet I now stand accused by El C of doing just that. Had I been able to contact him directly in my earlier attempts perhaps things would be resolved. It now appears a resolution other than a de facto ban of any of my posts is unlikely. NYerkes04:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflicts are not always obvious, it is likely that someone was replying to a thread farther up on the page, and you were not aware of it. When this happens, your edit will be in a bottom window, and you can simply copy it into the new edit conflict window. I'm not questioning your truthfulness, as you imply, I'm simply explaining that there are a number of reasons for edit conflicts, and they are not always something you'd notice. And please realize that you are not being accused of doing anything, nobody is doubting you, but this is a content dispute, and I would honestly encourage you to take this issue to the article's talk page, to get additional input if you have doubts about the edits made. Or simply make your changes again under your user name, and provide your explanation for changes in the edit summary box so there is no misunderstanding as to your edits. I encourage you to have some faith in other editors, don't assume the worst, and don't assume anyone is "banning your posts" as you've stated many times, as that is most definitely not the issue. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold04:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will take it to the article talk page. However, the removal of all posts I made by using a Bot (Cydebot, I did check) appears to indicate a blanket banning by an editor of all posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would need to see some diffs to know what the edits were, but you can go visit User:Cydebot to see what that bot does. However, that bot is not associated with, El_C, and it has been approved by Wikipedia to do specific tasks. Bots do not answer to any administrator to "blanket ban" users, and are not used in that way. I realize how it could look to you, and you can discuss possible mistakes on the bot owner's talk page. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold04:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Lladrama did earlier, you misread the diff. Cydebot was changing a category per the WP:CFD page and did not revert your edits. El_C has used the revert tool that anyone can use in the article history. Woodym55509:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do
Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
Do not
Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
My point is that using terms like "speedy deletion" and "bots" incorrectly paints a picture of something different than what happened, because those terms have exact definitions and they mean something specific. El C used the rollback tool to revert your edit. He did not "speedy delete something with a bot". It's misleading because of the terminology you're using. I agree that that's not the way the rollback tool should be used, but please stop using the wrong terminology to make this sound like it's something much more drastically abusive. LeeboT/C13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I used the wrong terminology. I am relatively new here and did not expect to have my posts reverted without regard to content. I have tried to take a crash course in Wikipedia rules after I discovered the removal of my posts but apparently my effort is insufficient. While I would love to participate in adding content, such as the factual material I added regarding Thailand's production, ownership and usage of particular types of military aircraft, at this point I can see no useful purpose in it since my work can be reverted on the whim of an administrator who doesn't feel it necessary to look at the content if he believes a violation of some policy has occurred in any portion of a post. Wikipedia will do just as well without my participation or anyone else he decides isn't appropriate. I can assure you that what was said in the article on the revert tool is true. "Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor." A slap in the face is exactly what it feels like. NYerkes15:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly understandable for you to feel that way. As I said, the rollback tool shouldn't be used that way. Even the undo function (available to all editors) shouldn't be used that way. If he thought your links were inappropriate, he could have left an edit summary like "removing inappropriate links per Wikipedia:External links guidelines". Unfortunately, that didn't happen. LeeboT/C15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As i commented on El_C's talk page, i understand that you are an inexperienced user and that you will not understand the terminology. I agree that he should not have rolled back you edits likt that without talking to you and that the use of the tools can lead to this situation. I think that El_C was doing his best to protect wikipedia from vandalism and false edits that undermine the accuracy and veracity of the encyclopedia. All work on wikipedia can be edited, it is an open encyclopedia. Look at the note at the bottom: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. It was inappropriate for him to have removed those edits without discussion. Now, what you can do is discuss this with him on his talk page. He has replied to you post there. Please try not to be perturbed and disheartened by these events. Woodym55515:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, when I noticed as you pointed out the discussion going in circles which in opinion meant my remedies were exhausted I sent a email to Jimbo Wales. Whether he reads the letter or not is up to him. His procedure requires that attempts to remedy the situation be exhausted before contacting him. This has been going nowhere for sometime now. In the letter to Mr. Wales I answered EL_C's leading question which he could have just as easily answered himself. I do not block the registry data on any of the over 1000 generic domains I own. I own the photographs. I own the domain. I do not use that domain for commercial purposes though at this point I might as well. I am building another non-commercial website to document the reconstruction of a 13th century Buddhist temple that was destroyed during an ancient war with Burma. Though I am not Buddhist, I was asked to photograph and shoot video of the project by the Abbot of the temple who has become a friend. The temple has a fascinating history particularly the disposition of the original Buddha image. Most of the image is gone but in the late 1800s the face plates were discovered buried near the site. Today they rest in a government museum. The original image was called the Buddha of 1000 bolts because the plates were fastened not welded. I have as yet unedited documentation of the original 10 meter tall bronze Buddha image and the reproduction that was cast including the techniques used to make the moulds and smelt the bronze. In addition to those two I have other domains that are commercial and photos from those are not linked to Wikipedia. For the record good generic domains have built in traffic due to natural type in. Such is the case with that domain. I do believe the individual photos I linked to are relevant and added to the users experience. I have also been shown photographs of what I determined was an engine from a WWII Japanese KI-27 that was found in the jungle of Northern Thailand. A little research revealed it was likely the mount of a Thai pilot who was shot down during WWII. I am trying to get approval to retrieve the engine and look for the remains of the aircraft and pilot. Thais as do people in most other cultures find comfort when the location of a deceased loved one's body is known. If approval comes I will be photographing and shooting video to document the expedition.
From what I read of the rules, linking to photographs where the owner does not want to give up the copyright is acceptable if the material enhances the user experience. I do not want to give up my copyrights though any written copy I provide is free for the taking as was the case with the deleted material. That said, watch what happens when I put that information on EL_C's talk page. I will likely be further insulted and will likely hear a justification for deleting all my posts whether linked photos or otherwise. I enjoy telling people about my adopted home Thailand whether for free or for profit. I can add copy and articles without the addition of photographs if Wikipedia decides visual material isn't important if it produced by an editor who does not wish to give up his copyright but even the written copy is likely to be viewed as suspect since I own a number of domains and websites and have already been identified at least by this particular individual as a vandal even though that was not my intent and in fact may not have been my action. Meanwhile for reasons unknown, other organizations such as Motor Books and the Double Star Group both of which are commercial websites one of which is purely so are permitted to continue to extensively link to Wikipedia unimpeded.
That said, nothing further will be gained by discussing this. If Lord EL_C decides I am a vandal as appears to be the case Wikipedia can do just as well with my contributions or anyone else's contribution he deems unworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 04:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another section break
Not only that, he doesn't even bother to address when asked to do so the removal of verifiable factual material not related to any link. Instead he wants to engage on the links issue. The links could have been easily removed separately. However what was done was something entirely different. Non redundent verifiable factual content not linked to anything was also removed using the revert tool. It now appears after the revert for example that China was the only buyer and user of Curtiss Hawk III aircraft. Thailand not only bought them they built many under license. The Hawk II and Hawk III both were used by Thailand during the French-Thai war. Now it appears only China used Hawk III aircraft in combat and even that fact does not contain references. Thailand holds the only surviving Hawk III in the world. One of the alleged inappropriate links was to a copy of a photograph of that aircraft. Another removal of factual material concerned the pre WWII Corsairs. The link to the photograph, again of the only surviving example and coincidently, at least according to a Chaince Vought website, the oldest Chance Vought aircraft in existence could have been easily removed. Instead the article was reverted removing the unlinked verifiable factual text too. Apparently there is some good reason the public should not know these facts since no one is willing to address their removal or at least address the inappropriate removal. Maybe I am misreading material again since I am new but apparently EL_C spends a great deal of time every day reverting articles after they have been edited. I suspect he does so in a similar manner to they way he did the reverts to my edits though I have only my experience to suggest that. Reposting the material will likely only result in the same action since no one will explain why the added non-linked verifiable factual material is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 15:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that "no one will explain" the other issues (I assume you're referring to me and the others trying to help) is because this issue is so convoluted and drawn out that it's very difficult to determine exactly what happened. Instead of a succint description of what was added and how it was removed, I've read pages of rhetorical questions related to administrator conduct that don't seem to logically flow with what happened. LeeboT/C16:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What El_C does, is called recent changes patrol. He looks vandalism edits in the recent changes log. I think we can discern that your "factual edits" i.e. not the addition of the link, were reverted incorrectly. If you would care to reinsert them, that would be a help to the encyclopedia. This is not the place to discuss the accuracy though, of the material that you want to insert in the article. We are not experts in that subject. The best place to discuss that would be on the article talk page. If you were to reference the material that you added to the external link, or to another source, then editors would not rollback your edits. If they do, then discuss it on their talk page. Is it not now time to move on, and to put your obvious writing talents towards building an encyclopedia? Woodym55516:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Throughout the entire process of RC patrol, it is important to remember not to bite the newbies. Far from being a monolithic horde of vandals, trolls, and spammers, the available evidence seems to indicate that newcomers write most of Wikipedia's content.[1]
If you see a new user or IP address contributing, welcome them if you're so inclined, and include a pointer or two of feedback about how they can make their contributions even better. Most will gladly welcome the support.
It is also important to assume good faith as much as possible, or, minimally to assume incompetence instead of malice. For example, remember not everyone is as computer literate as you; some people will accidentally blank or damage pages when attempting to cut and paste material from Wikipedia. Others may not understand that, yes, their changes really are visible to the entire world.
"Recent Changes Patrollers must maintain a level of respect for fellow editors."
Apparently EL_C doesn't see it that way. It must be too much fun insulting new users and feeling the power that comes with being an administrator. I hope all administrators don't act that way.
Now this has descended into mud-slinging. This is not the proper forum for this. If you have a problem with the admin concerned, take it up with him on his talk page. Discuss it, i.e. have a two way conversation. I see that he is still waiting for your reply. The help desk is not the place for slandering reputations. Woodym55501:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seem that insulting and slandering me and other new users is OK but not OK for him? I am told to move on. He is free to continue acting in a heavy handed manner despite apparent policy or if you want to be technical, suggestions that such behavior is inappropriate. Can he do no wrong? Is that the case? Since my entire posts we wiped out due to linking, help me understand what is permissible. Am I to understand that linking to individual photographs that would enhance a user's experience ie. pictures of the only surviving Hawk III, V93S Corsair and other very rare but not totally unique aircraft not permitted? At what point are links permissible? What about photos with intact copyrights? It appears from what I read that links to material that enhances a users experience are supposed to be permitted. I noticed the links to commercial sites I pointed out to EL_C remain even after he acknowledged them as part of the message. One in fact has no redeeming content whatever. The Motor Books site is strictly advertising and includes the company's Ebay page. That behavior makes it appear he does not act on an neutral basis which I thought administrators are supposed to do. NYerkes02:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said that you should move this discussion to the admins talk page. You have not brought up these concerns with him. How can he act on problems that he has not been made aware of? I am not condoning his actions nor am i condoning yours. He can do wrong as much as the next person. El_C does not resort to name calling and personal attacks though, which is what this has degenerated into. He reverts what he sees as vandalism. I implore you to DISCUSS this with him on his talk page and highlight the problems that you have with his actions. In terms of links, earlier i mentioned inserting it and referencing the addition. This is becoming a rather circular discussion. Woodym55502:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woody if you noticed I did attempt to discuss this with him. He made a flip answer about the links I mentioned. He has yet to act on any of them including the aforementioned Motor Books link which is pure advertising. He wants to engage only on his terms. I can't change that. EL_C does not resort to personal attacks? As aptly pointed out in the revert article, "Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor." Whatever his intention may have been as the revert article pointed out it is insulting i.e. effectively a personal attack. However judging from his other posts when someone challenges his actions he believes himself to be infallible. For the record I am not infallible as already evidenced here by several admissions of personal error in this post. Apparently insulting new users is not a serious offense. EL_C can continue the practice unimpeded. What I read in another section you pointed out to me is that new users contribute significantly to the project and should not be driven away by heavy handed action. However, in practice it appears to be more important to protect an administrator who may be acting outside the guidelines. In practice new users should expect to be attacked by some administrators and should just keep their mouths shut and move on. Inappropriate behavior by an administrator is acceptable because he is an administrator and has a hard job. If I am missing something here please tell me. NYerkes03:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are still judging all admins by your one interaction with this user. In fact, you are judging this user on this one action. If you read one of my earlier posts i did note that he is awaiting your response to his admitedly leading question. New users do contribute significantly to the project and that is the whole point of the bite essay. No-one is trying to protect the administrator, no-one has taken sides here. You are still to discuss the problems with his conduct, with him. In practice your last three posts are identical. I understand that you feel aggrieved by his reversions. Yes, they went against the spirit of the Wiki guidelines.
No-one has tried to hush this up. Everyone who has responded to you has asked you to talk on his talk page about this, you have, once, to which El_C is awaiting you response. You should discuss it with him on his talk page and not here. Then, you should move on. It is easy for things on wikipedia to be blown up out of proportion. I suggest you discuss it there and then move on. I think this discussion has been exhausted here. We are going in circles. I hope you continue to edit wikipedia and that you enjoy your time on wikipedia from now on. Woodym55503:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, when I noticed as you pointed out the discussion going in circles which in opinion meant my remedies were exhausted I sent a email to Jimbo Wales. Whether he reads the letter or not is up to him. His procedure requires that attempts to remedy the situation be exhausted before contacting him. This has been going nowhere for sometime now. In the letter to Mr. Wales I answered EL_C's leading question which he could have just as easily answered himself. I do not block the registry data on any of the over 1000 generic domains I own. I own the photographs. I own the domain. I do not use that domain for commercial purposes though at this point I might as well. I am building another non-commercial website to document the reconstruction of a 13th century Buddhist temple that was destroyed during an ancient war with Burma. Though I am not Buddhist, I was asked to photograph and shoot video of the project by the Abbot of the temple who has become a friend. The temple has a fascinating history particularly the disposition of the original Buddha image. Most of the image is gone but in the late 1800s the face plates were discovered buried near the site. Today they rest in a government museum. The original image was called the Buddha of 1000 bolts because the plates were fastened not welded. I have as yet unedited documentation of the original 10 meter tall bronze Buddha image and the reproduction that was cast including the techniques used to make the moulds and smelt the bronze. In addition to those two I have other domains that are commercial and photos from those are not linked to Wikipedia. For the record good generic domains have built in traffic due to natural type in. Such is the case with that domain. I do believe the individual photos I linked to are relevant and added to the users experience. I have also been shown photographs of what I determined was an engine from a WWII Japanese KI-27 that was found in the jungle of Northern Thailand. A little research revealed it was likely the mount of a Thai pilot who was shot down during WWII. I am trying to get approval to retrieve the engine and look for the remains of the aircraft and pilot. Thais as do people in most other cultures find comfort when the location of a deceased loved one's body is known. If approval comes I will be photographing and shooting video to document the expedition.
From what I read of the rules, linking to photographs where the owner does not want to give up the copyright is acceptable if the material enhances the user experience. I do not want to give up my copyrights though any written copy I provide is free for the taking as was the case with the deleted material. That said, watch what happens when I put that information on EL_C's talk page. I will likely be further insulted and will likely hear a justification for deleting all my posts whether linked photos or otherwise. I enjoy telling people about my adopted home Thailand whether for free or for profit. I can add copy and articles without the addition of photographs if Wikipedia decides visual material isn't important if it produced by an editor who does not wish to give up his copyright but even the written copy is likely to be viewed as suspect since I own a number of domains and websites and have already been identified at least by this particular individual as a vandal even though that was not my intent and in fact may not have been my action. Meanwhile for reasons unknown, other organizations such as Motor Books and the Double Star Group both of which are commercial entities one of which purely so are permitted to continue to extensively link to Wikipedia unimpeded.
That said, nothing further will be gained by discussing this. If Lord EL_C decides I am a vandal as appears to be the case Wikipedia can do just as well with my contributions or anyone else's contribution he deems unworthy.NYerkes04:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot figure out why I can see the word "Image" above the photo inside the infobox on Jesse Hutch. There is also some writing below it that I don't know where it is coming from. Can somebody else please take a look? - Rjd006014:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My logo use meets all of Wikis criteria, but when I load it and add the rationale into the 'subject' box, I keep getting warnings asking me to put the rationale in the image 'description' but I don't know where that is??? Any help gratefully received.
Thanks, Alkazzi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkazzi (talk • contribs) 15:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could just check the "Ignore warnings" box until it's uploaded and the page exists. Then we can help you format it. LeeboT/C15:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Nick Albu and I tried to create an account call nickalbu, but the system replied that it is too close to an existing account called nick.albu. I don't know if I created this in the past. I tried to have the change password email sent to me but I did not receive it.
How can I find out if this account is mine? Is there other information in there I can use to confirm?
No, the only method used to obtain a lost password is the email. You can try going through the process at Wikipedia:Request an account to get a new account - since the nick.albu account doesn't have that many contributions, it should be acceptable. I hope this helps! Hersfold(t/a/c)16:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
No, if i understand correctly he wants to move the article that he created in his userspace to mainspace. So the first response seemed adequate. Use the move tab at the top of the page. It needs checking though for the use of weasel words and also the advertising nature of its prose. Woodym55521:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I think you're right (based on his userpage). But couldn't he just create a new article via copy/paste? He seems to be the only contributor to the page. Best, --Bfigura(talk)21:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can do either, though move is preferred as it preserves GFDL though as you say he is the only contributor so it is preserving the author, just not when the author made the edits. Woodym55521:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's now a moot point. The material in question was a copyvio. Another editor speedied the article created, and had tagged the userpage in question too. (I should have picked that up earlier). --Bfigura(talk)21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently created a new article on DIFFA, previewed, and saved, however I cannot locate this article. Suggestions? Bryan554Bryan55419:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw the article on Diffa the African village. The DIFFA I created was about a nonprofit agency. Does it not differentiate between lower and upper caps? Also, there are multiple red links to DIFFA which I clicked on to create.Bryan55419:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to authenticate my email and I've requested a confirmation email multiple times and have not yet received the email. Help???
(sonya tormoen 20:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
Women's lacrosse has not been edited since 21 September and I don't see anything I would call profanity. Are you referring to "in men's lacrosse, full-body contact is an essential part of the game"? That appears to be largely correct. I don't know the game but Lacrosse says " In men's lacrosse, players wear protective equipment on their heads, shoulders, arms, and hands, as body-checking is an integral part of the game". PrimeHunter21:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
October 25
Error in decompression of file dump
Earlier today I downloaded enwiki-latest-pages-articles.xml.bz2, and was attempting to decompress it. I did not have enough free space on my computer, so the file continued to decompress until free disk space ran out, and then stopped (how large is it anyways?). When it stopped, hower, it did not give me any of my disk space back, and only a small amount returned when I restart my computer. My question is, what happened, and how to I get those gigabytes back? (if it makes a difference, I'm running OSX) 66.191.6.16200:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically a question about how the bipz2 program operates on an Apple computer. Please ask such questions on the Computer Reference desk. Here at the Help desk we try to answer questions about how to use Wikipedia, not how your computer works. However, from a user perspective this distinction is fairly subtle, so I will attempt to answer anyway: We don't want to scare you away, after all. When you download a file from any web site that has the ".bz2" extension, your web browser running on a UNIX-like OS (such as OSX) will invoke the appropriate decompression program, whose name is bunzip2. On your computer, the result in a "disk full" situation will be whatever bunzip2 does on disk full, in conjunction with whatever your OS does on disk full, in conjunction with whatever your web browser does when it runs a helper program that cannot complete its task. As you have just found out by experiment, your particular combination of browser/OS/bunzip2 reacts to a disk full by dieing and leaving you with a partially uncompressed file that occupies a lot of disk space. -Arch dude01:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It works fine. Type for example [[Image:Iamba logo (Lo).jpg|200px]] to display it (I'm not doing it here when it's fair use but preview worked fine). See more at Help:Images. PrimeHunter01:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whow do I change my Usermane?
Can you please instruct me on how to change my USERNAME? Then name 'Fury Anderson' that I currently have for Wikipedia, I would like to change it to something else. Please send me the direct link where I can change it. Thank you in advance.
Since this is your only edit, and since username changes cannot be initiated without help from a bureaucrat, your best bet is to log out and simply register a new one. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Default field to serach box
I'd like to suggest making the default field to the search box, so like google, when you start typing, it is automatically placed into the search field. I think this would improve the efficiency of wikipedia users.
Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.241.156 (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a possible suggestion, but the developers who make our software aren't likely to see it here. If you create an account at Bugzilla and post your suggestion there, they'll be able to respond to you much more easily. Hersfold(t/a/c)03:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir,
Yesterday, on 24th october 07 I could access one article named How to solve a problem_ article. I an how lost the contact and could not find the article I liked the contents i could read. Please help me to access it again.
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.210.210 (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My account, Mightyfastpig, appears to have been deleted. It isn't just a wrong password. The account itself no longer exists. When I check the pages I've edited recently, my changes are still there, but my account links to a missing page.
You created an account, but you have not created a user page for yourself. Your accont is perfectly usable as it is, and you have a "talk" page because someone created it when they wrot a message to you. You are not required to create the user page, but until you do, your user name will show up as a red link in edit summaries. If you Prefer a blue link, simply click on this link (User:Mightyfastpig) and add any thing you like (e.g., "Hi, I'm a user.") Most users add more content, and some user pages are quite elaborate. -Arch dude10:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the Page of Greater Nepal (Bishal Nepal)
Dear sir,
I post the article about Bishal Nepal, Greater Nepal, which is the historical truth, I posted so many article in wikipedia all are running but why you delete this article which is totally truth and facts.
Regards
Rabin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabinbaral (talk • contribs) 08:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the administrator who deleted it, the entry was a copyright violation. Please do not copy material directly from other sources, but use your own words. - Mgm|(talk)10:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do I reference a text to my article. I need to know how to get the little number next to a quote and then how to put a reference at the bottom of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartolomas214 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used the template and ended with this
Levinson, P. (2004), Cellphone: The Story of the World's Most Mobile Medium and How It Has Transformed Everything!, New York: Routledge
To make the references appear at the bottom in a references section you should use < ref > and < / ref > around the citation template (without spaces) and add either {{reflist}} or < references / > (again without spaces) to the bottom of the article. - Mgm|(talk)09:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome! The best thing to do is to sign up for an account in the top right corner of your screen, read the Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial and just start. Don't forget to search Wikipedia first. We've got over 2 million article and you don't want to create a new article on a subject we're already covering. - Mgm|(talk)10:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can I go about changing the title of a page? I have had a search, and cannot find how. The only method I can think of is re-creating the page and having the other page (with the incorrect title) deleted. KennedyBaird10:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've just created an account for the purpose of creating a reference to a notable New Zealand children's writer. I note that a number of NZ children's writers are already listed (some are my friends, some acquaintances and some I do not know). Some are far more notable that my own subject, while others listed I would regard as of equal note to my subject. On that basis I regard my subject to be of sufficient note to be in Wikipedia. My problem is that I am the NZ children's writer in question, and your guidelines preclude me creating my own reference. May I please submit my bibliography and let one of your people be the judge?
Respectfully
Ged Maybury
(you may Google me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookafar (talk • contribs) 11:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have offered my assistance at your talk page. It's very refreshing to see someone go about this the right way from the start. Maralia16:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking all Wikipedia work backlogged to 2006
Hello, I am building a list of Wikipedia work that is backlogged to 2006. (For example, merging).
Does anyone have any areas that have backlogged work?
This is part of an ambitious push to get things fixed up to 2007 before the new year comes. Please let me know, and also if I should post this question elsewhere. Guroadrunner11:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can, it's a browser issue. When you click on a box, and a list of previous search terms appears, you can hover your mouse over the entries you want to remove from your search history and press [delete]. Hersfold(t/a/c)15:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
I noticed a strange comma issue. If I cut & paste a line from MS Word with a comma ( ’ ) it did not bring up the article in the Wikipedia Search Engine. When I typed the same line directly into search block, the article came up. I noticed that the comma looked different ( ' ) when I typed directly into Wikipedia search.
The article that I original entered was “Mel Fisher's Treasure Museum”. As a work around, I placed a redirect with the other type of comma “Mel Fisher’s Treasure Museum” & the redirect worked. Was this a good approach, or is there a better way to handle this type of comma issue? FieldMarine14:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean apostrophe, but yes, there are different kinds and I don't think it's feasible to make redirects for all of them. Not sure if there's really a way to resolve it. LeeboT/C14:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft Word has a feature called "auto correct" which replaces some characters with others: to make simple spelling corrections (eg. try typing "teh " in Word); to allow simple keyboard sequences to create special characters such a emoticons; to improve the appearence of the text particularly when printed; and, some would say, to simply drive the user up the wall. One of the things it does is to change straight quotes and apostrophes to the curved versions that you often see in books. Astronaut14:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hold down CTRL and then press F. Type in the phrase you wish to search, and make sure you're at the top of the page and then click "Direction" - Down. But I don't know whether this only works on Internet Explorer! Good luck, anyway. RudgetContributions15:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means the Reference desk archives as well. As far as I know, there isn't really a way outside of manually searching each archive the way Rudget is describing. LeeboT/C15:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can do it using Google, with the search term inurl:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_Desk; for instance, google:inurl:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_Desk snail searches for Reference Desk threads (including in the archives) about snails. (You have to click the repeat the search with the omitted results included link to get more than 2 results when using this method.) The same method works for many other project pages, too. --ais523 17:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocking
We are trying to upload information about our school, the programs, curriculum and two administrators keep deleting the information as well as "tagging" our company. I've requested the administrators inform us of what copy is deemed commercial and they have not responded. The information is simply factual about our programs and history and in no way is commercial. Is there a way to block these individuals? 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empire2216 (talk • contribs)
I am one of the people who has been listing your articles for deletion (though I am not an administrator.) In my opinion the article was entirely an advertisement, and the admin who deleted it clearly agreed with me. The problem is that you, as an employee/owner of the company, have a conflict of interest when it comes to writing an article about it. Further, your article was HUGELY long, and cited no sources to attest to the company's notability. None of these things are deletion issues of course, though they do draw the attention of other editors! The principal problem is one of advertisement. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk to me)15:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, looking at the deleted version. It includes stuff like student testamonials and promotional language. It also appears to contain huge sections of directly copied and pasted text. It's not written like an encyclopedia article. LeeboT/C16:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i want to add one image to the page of Nagarjun(Hindi Poet). i have photograph of Nagarjuna Poet. Please tell me, how to add that photo to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.30.174.15 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before you can upload an image you need to create an account. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits. To create an account now click this link
If you want to add an existing image to an article, type [[Image:File name.jpg|center|Optional caption.]] to the article – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, center with the alignment of the image on the page and Optional caption with the caption, which of course, is optional. See our picture tutorial for more information.
If you want to upload an image from your computer, to put in an article, you must find out what license the image is licensed under. If you know your image is licensed under a free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons, where all projects have access to the image. If you are unsure what license your image is licensed under, see the file upload wizard for more information. Also, please read Wikipedia's image use policy, because if you upload the image under a false license, you may be blocked.
On the left in each row, alpha with tonos; on the right, alpha with oxia. Top row is Code2000, bottom row is Tahoma.
I've noticed that sometimes the distinction between separate Unicode characters sometimes gets lots on Wikipedia pages (or more generally, pages using the MediaWiki software). For example, U+03AC (Greek small letter alpha with tonos) and U+1F71 (Greek small letter alpha with oxia) are supposed to be different characters, and in some fonts they have different glyphs. But if you enter ά in an attempt to get the letter with the oxia, what appears is ά, which is the exact same character as ά (ά). Other distinctions that get lost are between U+00B7 (middle dot: ·) and U+2022 (bullet: •), between U+2329 (left pointing angle bracket: 〈) and U+3008 (left angle bracket in the CJK range 〈), and between the two right angle brackets corresponding to them. Is there any way to fix this or work around it? Is this something to report as a bug to Bugzilla? Should I be asking this/bringing this up somewhere else? —Angr17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... having asked this question I seem to have answered it. The difference does show up properly if you type in the Unicode entities. What makes the contrast disappear is entering the characters directly. If I copy-n-paste U+1F71 into the edit box thus: ά, what gets saved is U+03AC ά. Likewise if I copy-n-paste U+2329 〈 into the edit box, it gets converted to U+3008 〈. (The bullet and middle dot really do seem to be kept separate.) Anyway, I guess I know how to avoid the problem now. —Angr17:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure U+03AC (Greek small letter alpha with tonos) and U+1F71 (Greek small letter alpha with oxia) are supposed to be different characters? This mailing list thread and page 5 of the section from unicode.org suggest these are supposed to be the same. Then Unicode normalization, specifically Unicode equivalence#Canonical Equivalence would merge them together. Also, when I copy and paste U+00B7 (middle dot: · or ·) and U+2022 (bullet: • or •) into a Wikipedia editbox they do not get merged, and it does not appear they should be, see page 4 here. Stefán20:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are definitely fonts in which U+03AC and U+1F71 are visibly different, because in some fonts the Modern Greek tonos is vertical, but the Ancient Greek oxia is always slanted like an acute accent. Code2000 and Tahoma are such fonts (see image). You're right about middle dot and bullet not merging; I was mistaken about that, and said so in my second post. But the angle brackets definitely merge. —Angr20:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, sorry I missed the part of your second post where you mention that the bullet point is indeed kept separate. Here is a nice discussion about the tonos/oxia issue. It seems that the official position is that the fonts which render the tonos with a dot are simply wrong and lazy and in particular are unsuitable for displaying polytonic text. Avoiding the issue by entering the &codepoints is not the official standard so I guess we should expect that there will at some point come a bot (Curpsbot reborn?) which will substitute the &codepoints with the actual character and then the normalization will kick in. The proper solution is probably to ensure that Template:Polytonic does not list any font which renders the tonos with a dot. I would probably say that Code2000 is acceptable because eventhough that font renders the tonos differently from an oxia at least they are both acute accents. Tahoma is definitely off limits, as the page I linked to mentions. Stefán21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But what about the angle brackets? I just had to change the article Bracket to use the &codepoints so that the angle brackets there display properly. —Angr21:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, the bracket issue is even worse. The candidates are U+003c (<), U+2329 (〈), U+3008 (〈), U+27E8 (⟨) and U+2039 (‹). The first of these is the "less than sign" so that is probably out for wikipedia purposes, the second of these looks promising but Unicode has made it canonically equivalent with the thrid and their notes have a remark that this canonical equivalence has made this character roughly useless since the third comes from the CJK range and it's size is therefore too large too fit with latin or mathematical text. So I guess I would vote for using the fourth with mathematics (it is defined as "MATHEMATICAL LEFT ANGLE BRACKET") even though it may be poorly available in fonts since it has only recently been introduced and the fifth "SINGLE LEFT-POINTING ANGLE QUOTATION MARK" for denoting dialog and orthography in linguistics. Note I based this reply in part on a section of "Unicode Explained"by Jukka K. Korpela found by googling "2329 unicode" Stefán21:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Search Title
How come the search is case sensitive. I just posted an article and unless i put the exact case of the title, it wont show up. is there any way to change that so its not case sensitive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwhitt01 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia search is not case sentitive but it hasn't indexed the new article The NewsMarket yet. When it does, the article will show up in a search on newsmarket and other capitalizations. When you click enter or "Go" in the search box, Wikipedia goes directly to an article without searching if it has the same capitalization, so it works before search is updated. PrimeHunter19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
block anonymous edits from my ip address
I would like you to block anonymous edits from my school's ip address.
The correct place to ask would be the Administrators' noticeboard, but you'll have to give more of a detailed reason than that: is there a lot of vandalism from that IP? Does the school's IP staff agree with that? Is the IP frequently hit by autoblocks? If you can come up with a detailed explanation as to why, then by all means make a request there. --ais523 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I know this is a really dumb questions, but I simply can't find the answer. I want to copy verbatim an entry in Wikipedia to my web site. How do I reference the entry? What text do I use to show it came from Wikipedia? Please keep in mind that I am a techno-dummy and the answer is probably on the site someplace, but for the life of me I can't figure it out since it's probably written in some sort of techno-code.
As far as I can tell, I followed the directions properly but I still don't see my contribution
added.
I put in 'Simon Longmore' and 'Vancouver Academy of Dramatic Arts' pages and still nothing.
Is there a certain amount of time I need to wait to see it come up, or is there some necessary action I need to be taking?
Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissybug66 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your image of Simon Longmore is here. There is also a biography on that image page. Although there is no Simon Longmore article. You can create the S.L. article by clicking on that red link for his name and adding the biography there. Then you can add a link to the image in the biography. See Help:Images for more on adding images to articles. I didn't look but I'm assuming the same thing is going on with the other image you mention. Dismas|(talk)21:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Simon Longmore image looks like it was scanned from a book or magazine (notice the text included in the image and the metadata). Astronaut04:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Tale Etched in Blood and Hard Black Pencil - Deletion
Can someone explain why this page was deleted? It got a speedy deletion notice while I was in the middle of adding to it, then it was deleted even though the speedy deletion notice says that this would not happen if contested.
Parslad21:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside whether the deletion on the stated basis was proper or not, I think your best course of action is to politely ask the deleting administrator, whose talk page is here, to explain or reconsider his deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit22:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had already done that. Is it not sensible to take into account the time lapsed between creating an article and deleting it? The speedy deletion notice was placed on this article about 10 minutes after it was created, I was making a cup of coffee! Is this normal practice? Parslad22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way. I am an administrator, and personally I would not have deleted that article under the circumstances unless I had proof it was a hoax, you were a banned user, etc. or that the text was a copyright violation, i.e., that the text you listed from the back page was a verbatim copy (which did strike me as a possibility). However, please understand that reversing other administrators' actions is not done lightly. What I will do is provide the text to you in a subpage. Work on the article there until you are ready to post and please note the copyright issue, if it is applicable. I would aslo suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Notability as well as Wikipedia:Notability (books) which I am the majority writer of. Basically, keep in mind that you should be citing to reliable sources which verify the facts in the article. I will post to your talk page in a moment.--Fuhghettaboutit22:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too would not have deleted it, although I would have removed the back page blurb. As far as avoiding this king of in thing in the future goes, I always slap an {{underconstruction}} template on articles I am just starting. Nobody has tagged any of my tat with a speedy deletion tag for an awful long time, so it must work! And if you forget to remove the tag, a bot will come along and remove it after a couple of days. Worth a try, Angus McLellan(Talk)00:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
October 26
Dancarney keeps messing with my page
Dancarney is being an abusive user who is trying to delete a page that contains relevant information about and artist as well as their music. I dont dispute that the Neutrality can be disputed, but his insistance that the page be taken off or drastically changing information is unfounded. The page is for a reggaeton group "Yo Yais". Please advise me as to how to proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.77.210 (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it's not "your page" per WP:OWN, if you don't want other people to edit your work then don't post it here. Secondly, they are not being abusive. They have the right to tag pages as spam, non-notable, biased, etc. I would try abiding by the tags and remove the spam (as the article is very spammy right now) and rewrite it from a neutral point of view instead of just removing them without any discussion. NF24(radio me!Editor review)00:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might also try talking directly to Dancarney. He can explain to you his (good) reasons for his edits and can advise you as to how to improve it so that it won't be deleted. Sbowers305:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "clear=all" part of your tweak? More usefully, where I can find answers to questions like that? I tried br, which redirected to newline; then looked at the xhtml article. Sbowers313:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing Admin.
When I read the section [3], I noticed it said "any editor" may perform this task. Yet the phrase, "closing admin." appears to mean an administrator. Administrators are supposed to be chosen by another process, don't they? Which is it? Who can close a deletion discussion, and what qualifications must that person meet?--Libertyguy02:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me assure you that it is not you. That section is so schizophrenically written I imagine it would be impossible to make heads or tails of it if you are not already intimately familiar with these processes. My response to you below defines some of these deletion processes. Read that first. As to your question: Only administrators can delete articles, so only administrators can close any deletion process resulting in deletion. Generally, articles tagged for speedy deletion are reviewed by administrators who either delete the article as tagged, delete based on a different criteria than the one supplied in the tag, or "decline to speedy" for various reasons and remove the tag; there is no formal "closure". See my response to you below for how it plays out when non-admins remove speedy tags. Prod tags can be removed by anyone, though it is bad form to remove without explanation. Like speedy deletion, there is no closure per se; a prodded article is either deleted, or its tag is removed at some point by someone. Finally, with respect to articles that have had a deletion debate at articles for deletion, which is what the section you cite to was actually speaking about, if an article is to be kept, either because there is consensus to keep, or because there is no consensus which defaults to keep, editors in good standing can perform such closure of the debate. However, an editor who participated in the subject article's debate, or who is involved in editing the subject article, should never do so. Finally, administrators are chosen at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit03:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Way too much information about administrators is here: WP:EIW#Admin. You might start by reading WP:ADMIN, which describes what administrators do, and how they got to be administrators. Yes, a "closing admin" in WP:GD#Closure refers to an administrator, and the previous task which "any editor" can do refers to moving the day's list of deletion discussions from the active page to the /Old page. Once you read about administrators, that section should make more sense, although the process is complicated as Fuhghettaboutit notes. --Teratornis03:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to how confused that section is, reading it again, I'm **fairly** certain it is referring to closing debates, and not moving /Old. Doesn't really matter but it definitely need a rewrite.--Fuhghettaboutit04:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated Deletion Prods
If a speedy deletion prod is removed, can it be replaced again later? Can an article be nominated for deletion after a speedy deletion prod is removed?--Libertyguy02:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what you mean by "speedy deletion prod". As you have some mixed up terms here, first some terminology. Speedy deletion refers to articles that are deleted speedily. The list of critria is set forth at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. The proposed deletion (prod) process shares some similarities to speedy deletion, insofar as it is deletion without debate on the merits of the article (such as is done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion), but otherwise, it is not a form of speedy deletion as prodded articles are not subject to deletion until five days after they are tagged. Speedy deletion templates should not be removed by the article's creator or another involved party, but they can be removed by any user if improperly applied. In practice, those other than admins removing such tags, who are not well established users, and where the speedy tag is not clearly improper, are likely to be warned if they do so. By contrast, anyone, including the article creator, can remove a prod tag and it should not be replaced. As to the second part of your question, articles can be nominated for deletion at AfD if speedy deletion is declined, or if a prod is removed. It is also not uncommon for articles which have survived an AfD to be renominated a second, third or even fourth time. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit02:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to the first revision of WP:PROD and it's always been five days. Maybe you're thinking of various image CSD or TfD which are seven days? WP:RM, AfD, CfD and Prod all have five day stated recommendations. It's also possible, of course, that you ate some ergot-contaminated bread--Fuhghettaboutit12:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, I don't think you mean "symptoms include strong uterine contractions, nausea, seizures, and unconsciousness." ... Oh, there it is: "hallucinations and attendant irrational behaviour." The things you can learn by reading the Help desk! Sbowers313:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marking a page as a blatant ad, how to? F5 Networks for example.
Can someone go thru the steps to mark a page for deletion?
F5 Networks page is blatant advertisement.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.75.222 (talk • contribs)
Or if the page doesn't need to be deleted: add the template {{ad}} to the top of the page, and comment in the article's talk page on why you've done so. Best, --Bfigura(talk)04:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were given step-by-step instructions. You obviously already know how to edit a page, as you replied here. Just copy and paste {{ad}} onto the top of the page or, if you feel it should be deleted, copy and paste {{db-ad}} onto the page. -- Kesh15:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
just joined and already blocked?
Hello, I just joined this site for the first time a few hours ago.
I've been browsing thru on and off since and I was about to take
a crack at testing some editing in the sandbox, and I now see a
message that my account is "blocked". May I ask why? I feel like
I just got a ticket for speeding without ever having driven a car
before:) Kind Regards,Mrrose1304:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it said something like "database locked" or "unable to edit" it may have been due to an edit conflict or the database not allowing changes to be made while it catches up to recent edits. (Or was this block on another account?) Best, --Bfigura(talk)04:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(via edit conflict) It's a little hard to say, since I assume that with your account blocked you created this one to ask the question. I would like to point out that technically this is a big no-no as (1) it counts as a block-evading sock puppet, and (2) there is an established process for appealing a block, and this isn't it. If that doesn't help, the least you could do is say what username you were blocked under, since then it would be possible to work out why you were blocked (as it should be mentioned in your block log, and usually on a message on your talk page). Confusing Manifestation04:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, such quick replies...cool site. I saw I was blocked when I went to the sandbox page, but that message is gone now and it appears I can try some experimenting now, not sure what happened. I have not read about appealing blocks, and a "block-evading sock puppet" only sounds like Kermit the Frog's retarded cousin that never made the Muppet Show to me right now:) Bare with me as I'm still learning this site. Thanks for the help, Mrrose1304:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a great analogy (and I admit I'm annoyed I didn't think of the possibility of testing a block notice in the sandbox, and hence not assuming good faith, thanks Rjd). I'm not so sure I'm ok with the "bare with me" bit though - we've hardly met! Confusing Manifestation05:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created an account years ago and would like to still use that account, and unfortunately I have forgotten the password! And I checked all the email addresses I think I could have used (except for the domain that I had that expired!) Is there another way to reset my account password?
Displaying Images and the some rights reservered commons license
I have two questions,
1. While there is a clear explanation of the image upload process using the tool bar, I cannot readily find an explanation of how to include the commons license. I have used the link on the creative commons website to create the code. Is there a tool bar button that allows for the insertion of that code?
2. Is it permissible to cite reference material obtained online to support my copy edit or must I go to hard copy?
1)The upload page has a pulldown menu to select the copyright tag to apply. 2) It depends on what you're trying to support but in general it is acceptable to have online sources. Just make sure it's a reliable site. You don't want to cite a bunch of cranks or someone without any experience in the field he's talking about. - Mgm|(talk)07:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does one contact a writter to let him/her know that thier page is totally wrong!?
I was looking up Peter Steel who was in a band called Type O Negitive, they gave me a pic of him, but ALL the information, up to the stats on birth and such was that of Glenn Danzig. You can look up Glenn Danzig and compare. So what do I do?
Cptannebonny07:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case an editor replaced the previous content with the information from Glenn Danzig's page. I have changed it back and I'll also leave a note asking the editor to be more careful in future. Thanks for letting us know.
In future, you can be bold and attempt it yourself. If you click on the "history" tab at the top of each article, you will be able to see a log of all the edits to the page. If you check the Peter Steele history (here) you will note that MrsSimson (talk·contribs) made some misleading changes today (this page shows the pages before and after MrsSimson made the changes). I have changed it back by clicking on the last good version (20:33, 23 October 2007 Logical Defense) and clicking the "edit this page" tab, then saving the page. This is called reverting. Rockpocket07:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to figure out which FA candidate pages you commented on? I can't seem to sort my contributions by more than namespace. Is it possible to sort all subpages of for example FAC or AFD for ease of reference? - Mgm|(talk)08:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google Search lets you search all pages on Wikipedia that share a particular URL prefix, up to a slash character, but I can't tell if that fits what you are trying to find. See: User:Teratornis#Useful searches for examples (such as searching the Help desk and its archive). Another option is to use a method similar to Pipeline (Unix)#Example so you can grep through your contributions in HTML format. If the edits you seek fit some regular expression, then you can pipe all your contributions through grep and list them that way. I can't easily provide an example because you did not provide an example of what you are looking for. --Teratornis12:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COUNT lists some tools that might do what you want, but my quick glance did not find anything resembling an actual manual that explains how to modify the output format of an edit counting tool to zero in on a particular namespace or page basename. The link I gave above, for example, seems to list only the top 15 pages you edited per namespace. I did not see any documentation on how to list more pages than that. --Teratornis12:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
adding social networking website
I have added a social network website and the reference for it as well but it has been deleted. I would like to know why. The netwok has more than 22,000 people so I dont understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelsconnect (talk • contribs) 10:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have a wiki attached to our company intranet. I have been trying in vain for days now to find out how to add a background colour to a wiki page I have created. I have tried many options, but none seem to work. Could you help please.
Thanks
Anniehall5310:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, articles on Wikipedia don't have any special background colours, and the background colour of an infobox (if that's what you mean) cannot be changed, either. Could you please tell us the title of the page you're referring to? Regards, PeaceNT10:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, thanks NASCAR Fan. :) I was thinking there's maybe a slim chance they meant to talk about something in userspace, in that case, they could go here. PeaceNT11:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a block element, simply used to denote a division. See Span and div. Think of it as "blocking" up some text, which has various useful CSS abilities, such as the one you have discovered, putting a background under some text. x42bn6TalkMess11:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a container for text, images and other markup to which formatting can be applied. Formatting can't exist on its own: it has to be applied to something, and the <div> is there as something to say which text the formatting should be applied to. (There are actually two tags that do this sort of thing: <div>, which is a 'block' element that surrounds lines of text, and <span>, which is an 'inline' element that surrounds characters; so your multi-line comment uses divs (and is correct to, because you want to change the background colour of each line and the space between them, and want the colour to continue to the right margin on the last line), but to change the background colour of a few words in a sentence I'm using <span> instead.) Hope that helps! --ais523 11:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's really helpful. Thanks. Have a good weekend.
Hi, I work for Loyd Grossman as his PA. Several incorrect details have been entered in his Wikipedia entry. How do we change these? Namely where he went to school and also his marital status. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camillaeadie (talk • contribs) 14:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to remove the bullet on each museum and insert a small SVG icon that represents what type of museum it is (i.e. science museum, art museum, history etc.) What would you suggest would be the best way to do this? I don't think a full image reference is appropriate because there are hundreds of bullets I would replace.
I like the way flag icons work. You can just use double braces and then the name of a template. I would like to make a template for each icon, but is that appropriate? Could I use just one template and somehow specify which icon to display? I only know how to pass true and false to a template.
Images I uploaded aren't appearing on the article.
Yesterday afternoon, I tried uploading some images for CDs that were missing cover art. I uploaded the jpg file, gave it a summary, and selected the Album Cover copyright. It seemed I uploaded them successfully, but it's been a day and still none of the images appear on their articles. I uploaded cover art for the following albums...
The Union Underground - Live...One Nation Underground,
Gravity Kills - Manipulated,
Stabbing Westward - Ungod,
Seven Wiser - Seven Wiser
Let me know what I did wrong or what the problem is. Thank you.
Thanks for your efforts. Uploading images is both difficult and tedious. IF you have succeeded in uppoading useful images, you are to be commended. After you succeed in uploading images t teh english Wikipedia, you must add links to these inages from the appropriate Wikip-edia articles if you want the images to actually be displayed in the articles. This is a technical issue.
We also have a very serious procedural issue: if the images are "fair use", then you must provide a fair use justification for each and every use of the image on the english Wikipedia. This requiirement derives from the laws of the United States and the state of Florida, where the data actually resides. We (the collective self-elected editors) do not make these rules, so we cannot argue about them. Just do it. Don't argue. We have no choice. Arch dude04:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding background image to a wiki page
We have a wiki attached to our company intranet. I would like to be able to add a background image to a new page I've written but can't find out how. I envisage this as being a faded image, like a watermark, filling the page and behind the text. Can anyone tell me how to do this please. Thanks
Anniehall5315:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TAMIL SPIRITUAL BOOKS
DEAR SIR,
WE ARE DA PUBLISHERS OF TAMIL SPIRITUAL BOOKS
I have my article, I used the sandbox and submitted the article saved it and everything but is not posting, how do actually post an article to be viewed on the internet, that is when you type your keyword on the search box you can actually see your article on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nestorvillalobos (talk • contribs) 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but if you're talking about the material on your User page, this article would totally fail our standards as to Hendrie's notability. The author of unpublished manuscripts, and founder of an obscure organization of which he is president-for-life, is not suitable material for this reference project. --Orange Mike16:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I AM HAVING A ISSUE WITH MY WORK PLACE. I AM A MINORITY, MEANING I AM BLACK, WHITE AND ITALIAN. MY WORK PLACE IS SINGLING ME OUT IN EVERY WHICH WAY. I AM A SINGLE MOTHER WITH TWIN DAUGHTERS THAT ARE THREE. SO I AM BARELY LIVING MAKING 12.00 AN HOUR. WE HAD AN EVAL. DONE ON EVERY EMPLOYEE IN THE WORK PLACE. THEY TOLD ME I DO NOT DRESS PROFESSIONAL. NOW MIND YOU, YES I DID NOT DRESS APPROPRIATE SOME TIMES, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT THAT WAS ONLY FIVE TIMES IN ALMOST A YEAR IN 12/04/07. THERE ARE PEOPLE IN HERE THAT WEAR TEE SHIRTS EVERY OTHER DAY, MIND YOU I AM THE ONLY MINORITY HERE, BECAUSE THEY EITHER FIRE THE OTHER OR THEY QUIT BECAUSE THEY SEE WHAT IS GOING ON. I HAVE REACHED THE PEAK OF JUST WALKING OUT. I AM MISERABLE AND I JUST WANT TO CRY EVERY DAY AT WORK, I AM 23, AND I REALIZE THAT THERE IS STILL RACISM IN THE WORLD, BUT THIS KIND OF STUFF IS NOT PROFESSIONAL AND IT JUST IS NOT RIGHT.. PLEASE PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT TO DO. I WANT TO QUIT BUT I NEED TO PROVIDE FOR BABIES, OTHER WISE I WOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT. IT IS BAD WHEN YOU WALK INTO WORK THINKING THAT YOU MAY LOSE YOUR JOB, BECAUSE I MAKE MISTAKES LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN HERE BUT I AM SINGLED OUT. PLEASE CONTACT ME... I HAVE A FEW EMAILS: <personal contact information removed for your security>... PLEASE CONTACT ME... THANKS SO MUCH... ELESHA D. STOKES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.118.42.134 (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, please calm down. This page isn't really the place to bring a problem like this. If you have legal issues, you need to talk to a legal professional in your area; We can't give you that kind of information. Lastly, I've removed your contact info for security reasons, see the note at the top of the page. LeeboT/C16:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to talk to a lawyer. I suggest you do research online about community organizations in your area that might offer free legal counseling and other services. -- Diletante —Preceding comment was added at 17:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll chime in here just to let you know that I'm afraid that there is little the volunteer editors here can do to assist you with your personal situation. I'd suggest that you find a support group, talk to family or friends, or perhaps a religious figure of your choice to help talk with you. But, just know that you're not alone. I wish you well. Ariel♥Gold17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone in circles trying to submit referenced academic based research to post on Wiki..is there no step by step process to show you how to submit this. I saw P&G and this looks great- can you please tell me how this type of format can be done?
Sunil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunil Bechar (talk • contribs) 18:37, October 26, 2007
Hi - I spend a fair amount of time going to disambiguation pages and cleaning up links that point to them, using the "What Links Here" resource. My question has to do with pages that are not disambiguation pages but that receive a substantial number of mis-links. Geographic examples would include Washington state, which constantly gets links intended for Washington, D.C.; New York, which gets a lot of links that are supposed to go to New York City; Manchester, England, which gets links meant for Manchester, New Hampshire and other places; Lisbon; Athens; and so on. It is way too time-consuming to use "What Links Here" on the main articles, since most of the links pointing to these articles are correct. So, is there a tool that an editor could use to ferret out links that incorrectly point to major articles? Thanks, --Ken Gallager18:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been dealing with a few dab pages "by hand" for several months, including Battery. Rugby. and Hawthorn. Fun and interesting. I have avoided Football, as it is an absolute nightmare. We need a more formal method to request editors to adoppt these pages for manual intevention. -70.177.166.20004:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this kind of user and I really want to know if this is allowed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marcello_capotosti
the reason of my question is because I use this encyclopedia (as many people different countries and ages) to achieve information, a complete information. And I cannot find ANYTHING of ethics I used to find here in this link.
So, I was wondering if was my opinion or a mistake.
User:Marcello capotosti starts with "User:". This means it is a user page and not a part of the encyclopedia. Editors are allowed to say some non-notable and unverifiable things about themselves on their user pages. In this case, creating the user page 4 months ago is the only registered edit.[5] Some administrators might delete even a tiny user page in those circumstances. PrimeHunter21:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem. Some guy called 65.207.61.65 deleted the "Deaths" section of the October 2 article. I wanted to revert the article to the way it was before the "Deaths" section got deleted, but I don't know how to do it. Can you help me? --Angeldeb8222:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - In the future, go to the page's history (by clicking "history" at the top), click on the time the version you want to revert to was made, then click "edit this page" at the top then save. Alternatively, you can click "undo" next to the revision's listing on the history page to undo the last edit. Also Twinkle can be useful for reverting vandalism, especially multiple edits in a row by the same user. NF24(radio me!Editor review)22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected it. The reason you were having problems is because you were trying to move the page instead of redirect it. Moving the page basically means changing the title, and you didn't want to do that. - Rjd006000:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New lesson at the Virtual Classroom
The current lesson at the Virtual classroom is Scartol, on template use and design. Please come and check it for ease of understanding. It is intended for beginners. Does it make using templates easy? Your feedback is needed.
I had to fudge around with some of the code a bit - many of the coding examples weren't displaying due to the <pre> and <noinclude> tags. I eventually had to replace a few angle brackets with unicode nonsense to disable the tags - hopefully that won't adversely affect the lesson. Hersfold(t/a/c)02:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do I change a spelling error (capitalization) on a category? Would like to change "Category:Companies Based in Orlando, Florida" to "Category:Companies based in Orlando, Florida" The difference is the "B" in based. Thanks FieldMarine03:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[[We are specialized in polyester, metal and natural material buttons. We have thousands of button designs in our show rooms in HK and China. Our buttons, buckles and toggle varieties include the imitation and / or Real materials of the following.
Special buttons, laser side, laser engraved, chalk (basic white or solid colors) horn or rod, wood, leather, metal, coconut shell, sea shell (Agoya, Trocas, Abalone, etc…), nylon, ABS,acrylic, molded and many more. MOB, Rrivershell.
Pls add this company in the Plastic Buttons companies list of Pakistan as we are one of the leading Buttons suppliers here In Pakistan.I will be thankful to you for this kind action.
You go to Commons:Welcome, a database of over a million media files (photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text, video clips, etc.) available for use in any Wikimedia (community) project, to which anyone can contribute. --Teratornis11:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unexpected change of domain name
Dear Editor, just wish to inform you about a very suspicious change of a domain name to which I have been referring, for instance, in the entry on Tangeh Bolaghi. The address is as follows:
[6]. This site was at least until 26 August 2007 the official Pasargadae site, with the official name "Pasargadae World Heritage Site". Now according to Who.is the domain name Pasargadae.org has belonged to the same owner since 16 September 2004; it seems however to have been "updated" on 26 September 2007. The new page to which Pasargadae.org is at present linked is one which I have encountered earlier --- in my search concerning some historical documents, the majority of links on a reputable site turned out all to
have the same destination, and this destination coincides with the present destination of "Pasargadae.org".
The following address may be revealing of some illegal activities going on with domain names:
I am not familiar with the technical issues related to domain names, but the above suspicious-looking address seems to be using a trick to identify "adbaaz.com" with "pasargadae.org". In fact, if you attempt to link to
you will notice firstly, some delay, and secondly, a slight displacement of the frame on your browser (at least if you use FireFox as I do).
For your information, I have made some search on the Internet, from which I conclude that www.pasargadae.org is indeed the name of a reputable organisation to which a large number of references have been made, all related to the real Pasargadae in Iran. Interestingly, the McAfee SiteAdvisor has no information on Pasargadae.org. CallingID (an add-on of FireFox) is unable to verify the site, which implies that some mechanism prevents some vital information about Pasargadae.org to be released. CallingID reports "adbaaz.com" (see above) as being: "Private Registrations Aktien Gesselschaft ... Kingstown"!!! Above all, please note that "org" (to be contrasted with "com") can never be part of the domain name of a commercial company.
I am writing to you in order to request your help in resolving this problem. It seems to me that the problem at hand corresponds to some illegal activities which need to be reported to some appropriate organisations which safeguard the integrity of the Internet; unfortunately, I do not know which organisations have to be contacted. I should therefore greatly appreciate it if you would kindly bring this problem to the attention of specialists dealing with similar problems. In the meantime, I have added notes, both in Tangeh Bolaghi and in Pasargadae, warning the readers of the present problem with the site pasargadae.org. With thanks in advance, --BF 07:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many mindsets define what a “home stay” program is.
The following searches for a definition are indicative of this dilemma.
“Home stay - a visit to somebody’s home in a foreign country, often a stay by an exchange student in a family’s home (informal)” Encarta® World English Dictionary. From a Wikipedia search of home stay definition [found as a single word, ‘homestay’ – “A traditional practice in the West, especially in Australia, Britain, New Zealand and Canada, homestay provides economical lodging, meals, laundry and other creature comforts for tourists and students. It is an inexpensive learning experience to sight-see, soak in the local culture and interact with people.”]. Google has multiple home stay references, Thai and English, with the term as either one or two words. Given significant changes over the last few years in the scope and objectives of home stay programs worldwide, the home stay definitions may often fall short of actual experiences available. Homestay is also termed Homestay…with a capital ‘H.’
In Thailand home stay programs span the following classifications:
Bed and Breakfast; short-long term rentals; resort home stay; senior care home stay; Agra-farm home stay; Eco home stay; culinary home stay; spiritual home stay; massage home stay; sexed-based home stay; and herbal home stay. There are also other classifications to be found.
The following definition of “Authentic Home Stay” is presented to assist the tour provider, visitor and general public to have a clearer understanding of what an authentic home stay program is.
Home stay (also Homestay): An extended stay in a local private home where the visitor’s main objective is to learn about the local culture and customs through cultural immersion. The home stay operator’s objective is community development and maintenance of their traditional ways of living.
Authentic home stay programs incorporate the following principals and standards:
1. A community based tourism approach to development that incorporates program and cultural sustainability, economic assistance - not dependence, with community development as a primary objective and economic development as secondary, but essential;
2. Internationally recognized standards of operation, visitor guidelines and program evaluations used to ensure visitor and community satisfaction.
≤→ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.56.73 (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across an issue with another editor who simply insists on including a quote in each and every reference that he puts in. At times, these quotes can run into 2 or 3 sentences. This is done for even a very minor reference such as one for Ben Affleck, reference #5, or all of the references on the Dan Antonioli article. His explanation is two-fold: a) the reader needs to see the reference as it appears in situ (which makes no sense to me since to see the reference in situ requires one to go to the site to view it). b) the citation template has a space for a quote.
My issue is that this practice is usually unnecessary as well as functioning to bulk out the page with unnecessary information in the reference section. In some cases, the references end up having an excessive amount of info in the citation yet leaves the article bereft of content.
This is interesting. While it is true that the template does have a "quote" parameter, this seems to be used mainly to convey short, concise items, and not used as these examples are using it. The examples you gave are copying and pasting word-for-word, the first paragraph of the reference, which is really quite redundant to me, and it seems that especially for uncontroversial information (such as who someone's brother is, what job someone holds) it is really unnecessary. WP:CITE, WP:FOOT, WP:CIT, none of these guidelines, style guides, or policies say they must be used, should be used, or are preferred. I personally find the extensive commentary distracting, and redundant. References are to prove what you've said. The reference link is right there in the reference for someone who wishes to go read more, but it really seems that to quote the entire first paragraph of every source is just... well, to be redundant, redundant. I'd suggest that you inquire about this on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, or perhaps on the BLP noticeboard, at WP:BLPN. Ariel♥Gold09:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When guidelines are insufficient to resolve a particular style case, one can look to featured articles for guidance. Does this style of quoting appear in any featured article? If not, then it will probably have to go away before the article can be featured. See WP:EIW#Feature for more information. The ultimate goal for Wikipedia is for every article to eventually attain featured article quality, and every editor should at least acknowledge that goal and have some idea what it means. In the near term, of course, we know the vast majority of articles aren't going to become that good for quite some time. --Teratornis11:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The practice of including the relevant portions of a source within a reference is a model practice that should be encouraged and used more extensively by other editors. In addition to the cite template requesting the parameter, inclusion of the relevant cited text provides the clearest possible documentation of the statement being sourced, without requiring a reader to hunt through the source document. I have on many occasions tried to trace back a source from a reference, only to be forced to read through every sentence of the source document in its entirety, without any certainty of what material was being cited. For those sources that retain information for short periods of time online, especially some major newspapers, the cited text may be the only way most readers will ever see the source material. User:Wildhartlivie offers no reasonable explanation for why the practice should be prohibited other than the fact that he has decide that its use is "unnecessary". See New York City for an example of a featured article that takes excellent advantage of this feature. Alansohn04:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed offered reasoning for why I believe the use of this sort of "quote" is inappropriate. I didn't say it should be prohibited, I said the manner in which these quotes are being used is not what is intended for the quote function. Using information from a source to craft new text is entirely different from pasting entire sections of a page into a citation template. Besides the fact that it's bulky, distracting, and excessive, very little of the information contained in them is being utilized. Those sections pasted are copyrighted and the quote options are not being used in the manner they are intended. I didn't just up and decide it was unnecessary. I sought out opinions at two relevant resources within Wikipedia for opinions on this matter and have approached another. The majority opinion seems to be that it's at least bordering on copyright infringement, that it's a rather backhanded attempt to host the article, and its unnecessary. That is why references have an "accessed on" date, to show when it was available, should it no longer be. I did look at the New York City article. There are brief quotes in 4 references - out of 154. That is not what is going on here, which is why I've brought it up. 4 out of 4 references in one article have more quoted material pasted in the reference than the material in the entire article. Refer to the 1st sentence below the edit box: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted" and to the policy in Wikipedia:Copyrights#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement. I am doing exactly what Wikipedia asks us to doWildhartlivie08:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tovojolo, you can review Wikipedia:Redirect, but the basics are there should be a good reason for you to redirect a current (existing) article, especially if it contains information. If you find two articles that contain basically the same information (known as a fork), you may wish to get some help determining which article should be the one to redirect if you're unsure. If you're wishing to create a new page to redirect it (such as a common spelling error, or alternate name) to an existing article, the redirect instructions will explain the proper way to create redirects. Hope this helps! Ariel♥Gold10:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tags for disputed reliability and citations whose interpretetation is disputed
Is there some template for indicating by an inline tag that the reliability of a specific cited source is disputed? Template:Primarysources is not very helpful if there are a dozen reliable sources referenced and some editor adds a statement sourced with a dubious reference. Similarly, is there a template for indicating inline that it is disputed that the cited source actually supports the statement it is a citation for? Template:Citecheck is unpleasantly unspecific. --Lambiam10:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the page to request assistance with using Wikipedia. Your comment does not appear to be a question about Wikipedia, and doesn't seem to be a question, so perhaps you were looking for the Mentality article? If you have a question about using Wikipedia, please feel free to reply and clarify your request. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold12:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question is vague. The answer would depend on many factors that the question does not specify: the kind of situation, how much time is available to think before acting, and so on. Critical thinking is a generally good way to think, but in emergencies there may not be time to think, and a person would have to fall back on training to meet a specific kind of emergency. Pasting the question straight into Google Search yields some interesting results: how to think and act in a critical situation. Of course our hard-working Help desk volunteers think and act in something like a critical situation, each time they try to answer a question. Each question is sort of like a pop quiz. We have instructions to help the volunteers, but learning to answer questions here requires experience on Wikipedia, and practice at answering questions. --Teratornis16:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I've ever seen. Most people create them using an external program and upload the image onto the article. Sorry. - Rjd006015:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Garrett Argianas (Weekend meteorologist during early 2000s,went to WVIT in New Britain/Hartford, Connecticut, now chief meteorologist at WTIC-TV (Fox Hartford)
good morring, i was wondering if someone could help me, as im a bit confused, can someone tell me what the correct calling of halloween in Romania ? i have been told that it is \Sanhaim but this word belongs to the kelts, and im sure romaina is a part of russia or germany, so how would calling it sanhaim be correct ? their must be another name for this am i correct? im so confused lol, thanks fantum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.17.39 (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add a line to a template that I created that says something to the effect of "If you have a questions or concerns, feel free to contact me," but I don't know how to make it automatically use the talk page of the person placing the template. Is there a way to do this? Thank you, Falconusptc20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not without making the user who places the template give it as a parameter, which would make the template much harder to use. (The ability to make this possible has been requested, but not implemented yet, and there isn't a sign that it will be implemented in the near future.) --ais523 20:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
How should I deal with minor changes made by IP addresses? For example, changing a year from 2012 to 2011 for a sentence that does not have a source and therefore cannot be verified. If it were a user, I could judge their credibility based on their past contributions, but since it is an IP I cannot. However, I also don't want to revert an edit simply because there was no edit summary or source cited.
— Yavoh21:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask them for their reasons for changing it. If they don't respond or give you a rationale like "I felt like it", then it is probably vandalism and you should revert. NF24(radio me!Editor review)21:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In such cases, whether you decide to revert or not, it's often a good idea to post on the article's talk page asking other editors to review the changes (preferably with a link to the diff in question). If you do revert, make sure you use an informative and non-biting edit summary such as, say: "Reverting uncited changes, see talk page. If you believe the changes to be correct, please restore them with citations to appropriate sources or discuss the matter on the talk page." —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
invisible bullets
is there any way I can make an indented unordered list as I would with * but hide the bullet? I know how to with CSS and HTML but I don't think this works in this software? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windin22 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could use a colon, but that would not indent the same space as a normal bullet; you would need to use several. Why would you not want the bullet? i(talk)21:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can, in fact, use most types of HTML and CSS markup on Wikipedia. For example, this markup:
<ulstyle="list-style: none"><li>Look ma', no bullets!</li><listyle="list-style: circle">Woo, circles...</li><listyle="list-style: square">...and squares.</li><li>Back to no bullets again.</li></ul>
does work fine in IE on a non-Wiki webpage. Wikispaces uses > followed by a space then your text to give an unordered list without the bullets but that does not work here. Thanks everyone and if you have any ideas how IE could be forced to work do let me know. I tried "list-style-type" but it did not help.
The difficulties you see are probably related to conflicts with Wikipedia's default style rules, such as the one at //en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css which says:
In particular, I suspect that the list-style-image property is overriding anything you set using list-style-type only. I don't have IE on this computer, but in Firefox at least the following works:
Hi Ilmari, absolutely correct, IE can't cope with the conflict between list-style-image in the Wiki CSS and the list-style-type being set. If list-style-image is set to "none", then I can use list-style-type to display circles, no bullet or whatever, even in IE. Thanks. --Windin2221:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How Do I rate My Article?
I've written an article called Ai Xin Jue Luo YuHuan, ithas been recgnized as part of the biography project and the China project, I've recently joined the China project (or at least I think I have by adding my name on the list). So now I've done everything I know but I don't know how to rate it, please help. Eisenhower 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted contributions have been around for a while now, has anyone made a deleted edit counter yet?--VectorPotentialTalk21:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure to replace "USERNAME" at the end with your own (or another's) username, then look between the <count></count> tags at the bottom to find the magic number. It should be the exact one in your (or their) preferences. NF24(radio me!Editor review)00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use This counter (Kates Tool). It is the most accurate one I've seen. It does list number of deleted contributions, in addition to the regular ones. You can always click "my preferences" at the top and it lists your number of edits, including deleted contributions. Kates tool total is 48 less than my preferences count. - Rjd006023:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me, Kates Tool and Wannabe Kate are the same in accuracy, both falling short by over 100 of my actual edit count. Preferences is the best for your actual edit count, but the other two will show you full details, but do not expect full accuracy. — jacĸrм (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
October 28
Pictures with the same name
I want to use the image [9] to illustrate the relationship between the load bearing structure and the glass curtain wall in the article Curtain wall however the image title "Image:100_1607.jpg" is already in use for the another picture directly loaded onto wikipedia, how do I format the wiki markup to be able to use the picture I want? KTo28800:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No rush, looks like a pic that maybe useful to some one, I've asked for a rename of the Commons image,but with their backlog, it may take a while. Thanks again for your efforts. KTo28802:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
services for disabilty peoples
hi.
Does wiki provide services for disability people??
like Disabled individuals ..
It has general rules on things such as a users signature; "In consideration of users with vision problems, be sparing with color. If you must use different colors in your signature, please ensure that the result will be readable by people with color blindness." Do you mean things like this? As for 'services', I'm not so sure. — jacĸrм (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this page contains inaccurate information about me. I have already lodged a complaint through the proper channels. And now today there is MORE. How can I stop whoever puts this inaccurate information in from doing so? He/seems to be confusing me with a "Helen S. Hughes". He has given me a mother named Leanna, had me born in Los Angeles in the wrong year, and added three TV credits that I was not on. I want to unconfuse this person! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.93.138 (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When trying to execute the {Japanese year} (with two braces, not written because it processes the error instead) template the output is a malfunctional unexpected expression error. Mentifisto07:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It works if you give a year parameter, for example {{Japanese year|2007}} renders as: Heisei 19 . See more at Template talk:Japanese year. If you always want it to display the current year then {{Japanese year|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}} renders as Reiwa 7 and should automatically change next year. PrimeHunter13:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SAN can mean many things, but doesn't have a Wikipedia specific meaning that I'm aware of. Try looking at the disambiguation page SAN and perhaps your answers will be found there. Into The FrayT/C09:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add an existing image to an article, type [[Image:File name.jpg|center|Optional caption.]] to the article – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, center with the alignment of the image on the page and Optional caption with the caption, which of course, is optional. See our picture tutorial for more information.
If you want to upload an image from your computer, to put in an article, you must find out what license the image is licensed under. If you know your image is licensed under a free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons, where all projects have access to the image. If you are unsure what license your image is licensed under, see the file upload wizard for more information. Also, please read Wikipedia's image use policy, because if you upload the image under a false license, you may be blocked.
That redirect was created in February, 2007, and there are no prior edits. There is also no deletion log entry, so it looks like that article, at least under that spelling and capitalization, never existed. If you want to create an article for Rye House Stadium, then you would click on that link, then click on "redirected from Rye House Stadium" on the upper left hand side of the screen, then click edit this page and start the article.--Fuhghettaboutit13:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My novel “Clouded Crescent”: Garrulous Goon, ISBN numbers 9781425999568, paperback & 9781425999575 hardcover self- published though AuthorHouse, UK & USA needs your kind attention to include it in your list of books.
No, the google hits aren't much of an indication either. Lack of verifiable sales records and the fact that the author is asking us, rather than the readers, suggests it's not suitable for inclusion. - Mgm|(talk)22:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to learn what the acronym MOTR/L means. Searching for MOTR using WP search provides seven hits, but most of them don't actually include the text "MOTR." What is going on here? Can it be fixed? I know that the search is not as good as some commercial engines, but I'd expect it at least to be better than this. Matchups14:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a bit of a technical question, but asking at Help Desk first. If your answer is to point me to a better page to ask my question then that's fine.
I ran an article I've been working on through a computerised spelling & grammar checker, and it gave me the stats which I've set out here. My question is: how do we use that information? How can I work out whether, by Wikipedia standards, those are good stats or bad stats, and if they're bad stats what the target stat should be, and what the editors of the page should do to get there. AndyJones15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite an interesting question. I suppose the thing to do would be to run the same program on, say, a sample of featured articles (since they are supposed to demonstrate the best writing Wikipedia has to offer, among other things) and post some summary statistics in an essay, for example Wikipedia:Readability results. Of course, having done that, it will probably become a new layer of bureaucracy in the FA process as articles are deemed worthy based on their Flesch-Kincaid score, but then again maybe that's not such a bad thing (in some cases, at least). Confusing Manifestation21:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
submitting an article, pre approval?
Hello,
Is there anyone I can submit my article to in order to find out if it meet Wikipedia's guidelines? ( it's not long at all)I hate to upload it only to have it deleted. The article is about myself and a local wildlife education program I've started.
Thanks
Novagul11215:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Novagul112[reply]
You are discouraged from creating articles about yourself or something you are connected to per WP:COI. If you still want to create it, I don't think there is a "pre-approval" page, but you can check if it meets WP:N and WP:BIO. Make sure to at least assert notability or it can get speedily deleted. NF24(radio me!Editor review)15:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You an create a sub-page of your user page, for example User:Novagul112/Foo.By convention. such pages are considered to be work in progress and will not be deleted unless you do something really egregious. We will assume good faith: the article is intended to eventally become a mainspace article. After you get it into good shape, you can ask for comment either here or no any of several other forums, and then move the article into mainspace. -Arch dude02:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New Entry, existing name (for someone else)
I want to create a new entry for Arnold Shaw, author of many books on American Popular Music, founder and director of the Arnold Shaw Popular Music Research Center at UNLV -- definitely an important enough figure to merit inclusion. Why? Just because I'm a big fan of his books, and discovered by chance that there is no page for him.
My problem: When I go to "Arnold Shaw," I don't get the No entry exists -- would you like to create one? page, I get directed to a page for a different Arnold Shaw, a British MP. So how do I start a fresh page for this Arnold Shaw?
Looks fine to me, try bypassing your cache (ctrl F5) and see if the problem is still occurring.--VectorPotentialTalk18:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it, along with some of the other commentary that seems to have accumulated in and around the external links section. Someone should also probably fix up those last two citations as they're completely non-standard.--VectorPotentialTalk18:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure what you're asking, but if what you want is a blank header, you could always try === ===, ignoring the < b > tags, they're just there so doesn't display as a space.--VectorPotentialTalk18:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. Headers will always appear in the table of contents, which appears above the first header on pages with four or more headers (unless disabled by __NOTOC__) or when/where-ever __TOC__ is located. Might I ask why you want to make a blank header? Headers usually exist to aid in navigation of an article, and blank headers could easily confuse readers. Hersfold(t/a/c)00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you just want a horizontal bar without a section then you can make it with four hyphens: ----
At the bottom of the article I am referencing it says "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." Does the term 'text' refer to both photos and words in the article? I would like to use the photo in a book on The History of Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest. Specically I am referring to the articles about the Douglas squirrel, the American marten and the fisher. Jason Otter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.136.236 (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you are indeed referring to Douglas squirrel, American marten and Fisher (animal), all images on those pages are available through the public domain, the GFDL, and/or a Creative Commons license. You should check to make which of those applies to the image you want to use and check the terms of the license it is available under for use. In general, you will simply have to attribute the author, however in some cases there are additional terms that need to be taken into account. Public domain images are free to use however you want with no additional conditions. Hersfold(t/a/c)00:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the term text is a technical term. It refers to the actual wikipedia wiki text of the article itself, and not to the resulting displayed page. Every editor of en.wikipedia.org agrees to license the wikitext of each article at en.wikipedia.org under the GFDL. However, this wikitext may include links to images. The Links themselves are therefore licensed under the GFDL, but the actual images may be licensed under different terms. In this regard, en.wikipedia.org does not differ from any other web site that permits image links to "external" web sites, and in all such cases, the images may be under copyrights that differ from the copyrights of the serving web page. Example: Anna has a web page page whose HTML is under copyright license "A". This site links to images under license "B". Anna's site does not maintain any copy of any image at site "B", so Anna has no obligation to honor the licenses imposed by "B". User "C" clicks on a page at Anna's site, and user C's computer downloads images from site "B" and displays them. Anna has no legal responsibility to prevent user C's computer from displaying images from B's server, even though Anna's pages have interlnal links to B's web site that "direct" or "invite" C's computer to download these images. The coup is from B to C, and the copyright issue depends on copyright law, and on the justification under copyright law that C uses. For en.wikipedia.org, we only link to wikipedia.commons, ro the our own images. any other linlk are to non-wikipedia sites. If you follow an external link, you are on you won. For an Internal link, the commons site only permits GFDL (or other free) licenses, so you can use these If you adhere to the license, which may require attribution. By contrast to other wikipedias, en.wikipedia.org also uses images under the Free use clause of the US copyright law. You may use these images fro other purposes, but only if you make an independent determination that your use (completely independent of Wikipedia's use) is valid under the "free use" provisions of copyright law. -Arch dude01:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
October 29
banned but not blocked users
I remember years ago reading WP:BAN and it saying something about banning (as opposed to blocking) being a social thing, and they can still technically edit- but their edits are marked somehow in the history and any editor can revert such an edit if they see it. But it seems to be gone from WP:BAN.. is this practiced anymore or are banned users always blocked? And how were their revisions marked? --ffroth00:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The part on reverting banned edits still seems to be there... as banning is not actually enforced through the software, however, I don't believe it gets marked in the edit summary. From what I know of the process, a group of editors will take it upon themselves to monitor the banned user's contributions and remove any content that violates the terms of the ban. If a user blatantly tries to evade a ban, then they are usually blocked for a time, however as the process is intended to avoid the indignity of a logged block, it's not generally done automatically. As far as I know. Hersfold(t/a/c)00:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is chances are you can't. Images on another website are likely to be covered under a copyright. Sometimes an image under copyright can be used for a specific purpose, so-called "fair use." It is also possible that the image is not under copyright (if it is old enough, made by the US (federal) gov't, or was so released by the author). There is a bit more info at WP:C#Image_guidelines and Wikipedia:Image use policy. If you describe the image you're thinking about using and its use on Wikipedia, I may be able to give a more specific answer. Thanks, --TeaDrinker02:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of speedy answers to your question suggests we're all drawing a blank. I'll take a stab by hypothesizing that your interest in edits by unregistered users has something to do with tracking vandalism (given that something like 97% of Wikipedia vandalism is by unregistered users, this inference doesn't seem to require a leap of faith). If that is the case, you may be interested in the Tools: sub-heading under WP:EIW#Vandal. (Note that in general, it's best to frame a question in terms of your ultimate goal, along with the specific approach you have in mind, rather than only mentioning the specific approach. The ultimate goal might jog the recall of help desk volunteers more effectively, whereas in some cases a specific approach might not even be the best way to reach some (unstated) goal, thus potentially creating a red herring to mislead those who reply.) --Teratornis21:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. From what I understand, Wikipedia allows rangeblocks of IPs in cases of ongoing vandalism. I was just curious if there was a way to check all the contributions of a range prior to blocking (which would seem like the sensible thing to do). I'll check out the VF software. Thanks, --TeaDrinker22:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An incomplete answer, the featured article on the main page for a specific day can be accessed at Wikipedia:Today's featured article (an archive is linked from that page, the 1/1/07 featured article was Influenza). Likewise, the picture of the day archive can be accessed from Wikipedia:Picture of the day (bottom of the page). I don't know of a method of recreating the entire main page at a specific time on a specific day (some of the content changes more frequently than daily) since content is buried in various templates. If there is a specific bit of information you're looking for, I may be able to help track it down. --TeaDrinker03:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you allowed to delete parts of talk pages that you consider to be useless? And if someone were to do so then could you recreate it? Cryo92106:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are allowed to delete your own talk page although archiving is preferred. See WP:ARCHIVE for more details. The information is still retained in the history even if you delete it so it can be recovered. --Hdt83Chat06:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If its on an article talk, than no, you cannot delete comments that you don't like unless there is a very good reason (vandalism, personal info, etc). The talk page will be archived after it gets long enough. Even if parts are deleted, its still in the history and can be restored. --Hdt83Chat07:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
would saying that people shouldn't talk about a particular topic(which isn't the same main topic as the article but is related and thus being discussed heavily there) on the talk page and that the talk page is for talking about how to improve the article be considered something that is deletable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryo921 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going on the principal of least surprise, I would like to propose a double name change for these articles. Both articles are needing serious attention, and I'm willing to work on the sport article. Race, as an article name on its own should designate the first definition (least surprise) which is competition of speed!
I realise this involves quite a few redirects and talk history, but I'd be willing to do that, I just need a little coaching. I have not placed this question on the talk:race because there are enough fluff arguments going on there as it is, I'm pretty certain that they're not so interested in the fate of the poorly named racing article.
Why do you consider the "racing" article to be poorly named. Having a verb that conveys fast motion as the title of the article about a fast sport sounds perfect to me. Anyway, it can't be half has bad as "Race, humans". Naming conventions say that an article should be at a commonly used title, and that certainly isn't one; "Racing" follows the naming conventions just fine.- Mgm|(talk)08:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to the verb, but the noun. The principal of "least surprise" means someone searching for "race" should find the sporting event, not some vague third rate notion or human races, which scientists agree doesn't even exist in a scientific sense. A racism creating article is not what most people expect to find when typing the word race. The race (racism) article will never attain any level of quality because there is no scientific basis for it, it's all POV--Tallard14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Wikipedia's job to do what you're proposing. It's irrelevant that you believe "race" has no basis in science. Wikipedia is a sum of human knowledge, and humans have long had notions of "race". It's Wikipedia's job to document such information. The existence of an article on human races doesn't mean that it's condoned; it means that we're documenting the impact of issues related to this widespread belief. LeeboT/C15:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But by leaving race (racism) with no parenthesis is telling the readers that Wikipedia believes race (racism) is the primary encyclopedic entry for that word and it is not. At the very minimum, entering a search for "race" should lead straight to the disambiguation page, not the race (racism) page, then let readers select an appropriate article--Tallard15:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the reason I brought it here is because that page is rife with heated debates with racists and therefore not a neutral venue. My thought was to bring in outside help.--Tallard15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Myself, if I were a racist, I would not want to relinquish this wonderful mainspace Wikipedia is offering racists, so how could neutral people ever come to an agreement on that parenthesis. I guess it could get mediation. So this is my question, assuming that no consensus is reached on a parenthesis descriptor, what do we do then, mediation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallard (talk • contribs) 15:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea to seek outside help, but only after someone disagrees with your proposal and discussions have failed. They have not yet been initiated. Talk:Race will always be the proper place to propose something, and if you are unable to reach a consensus, there are mechanisms like third opinions to help resolve things like that. Dispute resolution begins once there's a dispute. It sounds like you're assuming bad faith before another editor has even been involved. LeeboT/C15:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's always been my understanding that in English "racing" is the name of the sport (much like "hockey", or "baseball"), and that "race" designates a singular racing event. In this framework, I would like to suggest it might be more appropriate to put a header at the top of the page that says something along the lines of: For the sport or sporting event, see Racing. "Race is a very important concept to anthropologissts, and I'm not sure it should be considered as "second" to the meaning of "race" as a sporting event. But, hey, that's just my personal opinion.--Ramdrake17:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) It's interesting that NASCAR, a motorsports racing organization, appears to acknowledge the concept of race: Drive for Diversity. I guess NASCAR recognizes what everyone else is able to recognize, regardless of whether scientists can agree on a scientific basis for what is plainly evident. Obviously it is premature for science to rule on the issue, given that the alleles which allow even children to distinguish a native of (for example) Korea from a native of Kenya have not all been cataloged yet. What scientists do know is that only a tiny fraction of the human genome appears involved in creating the recognizable racial differences, and thus the traditional notion of "race" is a very poor measure of actual genetic diversity, but to claim or imply that the visible differences have no basis whatsoever strikes me as being disingenuous. Historically speaking, scientists have tended to seek positions that avoid conflict on issues that elicit strong emotional responses from the general public, only challenging orthodoxy when the evidence for a new idea becomes overwhelming. This is a practical stance, because scientists constitute a tiny minority, and rely on the public to support their work. An excellent example of a topic science has only tentatively addressed is the notion of God, which is held by many to be inherently beyond the reach of science (see Non-overlapping magisteria, not that I'm as confident on what the ultimate limits of science are). The fact that God has no scientific basis is not an argument against Wikipedia having thousands of articles relating to religion. Obviously the various notions of God, gods, the supernatural, etc. held by various people throughout history have had enormous impacts on society, and are worth writing about, regardless of the scientific basis for the underlying ideas. The notions people have had about "race" have similarly shaped the world we inhabit, even if many of those ideas turn out in retrospect to have been as erroneous as religious ideas such as geocentrism. Also, I should point out that the Principle of least astonishment is not something a single individual can determine from introspection. Only by carefully studying a statistically significant sample of Wikipedia users might we determine what is least surprising to them. --Teratornis20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
vicks product
<removed> regards c,whiley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.16.122 (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry C. Whiley, your intentions might be noble, but this page is for questions about using Wikipedia. You might get a better response by posting it elsewhere. Don't forget to make it abundantly clear that the message is off-topic if it doesn't relate directly to the subject of the forum or mailing list you're posting it to. - Mgm|(talk)08:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article keeps getting edited
I recently updated an article with a lot more up to date precise information, the article is about Skinny Pigs. However within 24hours its back to how it was.
Im getting highly frustrated and want to know how I can get this updated and not re-edited back to how it was?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutronic (talk • contribs)
I just saw some external links removed for the sole reason that the linked websites are not in English. Is that considered a valid reason? Is there a policy on such matters? Regards, Guido den Broeder09:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the External links guideline: "Links to English language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English; or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language; or when the site contains visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables." When placing a foreign language external link, the correlating Category:Language icons should be used, to allow readers to know that the site is not in English. The Manual of Style also adds that linking to foreign language sites is helpful "When the website is the subject of the article", or "When the webpage contains key or authoritative information found on no English-language site and is used as a citation (or when translations on English-language sites are not authoritative)." While I personally don't see a reason to remove foreign language sites, as long as the site provides content/context beyond what is available on the article, and is directly relevant to the article's content, (not forums, or fan sites, etc.) the majority of external links should be available in English for the English Wikipedia, so if all of the links were in another language, that could be problematic. I hope that helped! Ariel♥Gold09:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To give a short answer: if there isn't an equivalent page in English, that wouldn't be a valid reason. If it results in the loss of information, it's a bad idea. - Mgm|(talk)22:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo this tag (article or section is written like an advertisement) from my page
How do I get the tag (article or section is written like an advertisement)removed from my page?
How do I ensure that NPOV has been maintained in the content I post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.247.254 (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For cleanup tags such as {{cleanup-ad}}, you can remove them yourself when you believe you fixed the problem. Leave an edit summary explaining why you are removing the tags. Another editor will see that the tags have been removed and check to make sure the problem has been fixed, and put them back if they think it hasn't. For some ideas on how to maintain neutrality, you can check WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and WP:V, or ask on the article's talk page. If the tag had a red side bar, like {{db-spam}} does, then please do not remove it. This is a deletion tag, and should only be removed by an administrator or an experienced editor not involved with the page. Hersfold(t/a/c)12:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
E-Mail ID of Mr. Chen Choon Seng, CEO of Singapore Airlines, Singapore
Please let me know the E-mail ID of Mr. Chen Choon Seng, CEO of Singapore Airlines. If not known, please write me the HQ address of Singapore Airlines in Singapore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.156 (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can embedded links of pictures that have been framed with a caption have their size adjusted with px? It doesn't seem to work... Mentifisto10:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, here's how you do it: [[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|###px|caption here]] "thumb" allows you to show the caption and mess with the size, and ###px is the width of the picture in pixels. You don't need to set the height, the software will keep the aspect ratio correct for you. Hersfold(t/a/c)12:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of Scarecrow in Wizard of OZ.
I uploaded a picture of the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz for a PowerPoint to go along with a quote from the movie - ("I got a brain!") It's for a non-profit healthcare system's class for pregnant women called "Baby Brain Power." I'm confused about fair use. I give credit to the movie on the slide, but don't want to infringe on copywrite laws. I couldn't figure out what I needed to do to be OK with its usage.
Thanks for your help.
Meridith
(And War Eagle to Wikipedia's founder!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.26.127 (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like this isn't technically a Wikipedia related question. The anonymous user wants to know if the picture can be used in the powerpoint presentation for something unrelated to Wikipedia. You can probably get an answer here from someone more familiar with copyright law, but the reference desk is for non-Wikipedia questions. LeeboT/C13:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia visualization
I have built a visualization of wikipedia edits, as they happen, more-or-less in real time. It is a google maps mashup. For this, I am regularly fetching the "Recent changes" page, from where I get the IPs of people who make edits, geolocate them and plot them on the map. I estimate that I make about 100-150 requests every hour. I just want to ask if this is acceptable, or if I should use some other service for fetching info about recent edits. If needed, I can provide the IP from where I am fetching the pages.
BTW, the visualization I made is a completely free service, (ad-free too), I just made it for fun, and I think it's rather interesting. I would like to make sure that I don't violate any terms of Wikipedia.
Hmm, I can't seem to think of any policies this is violating, since, as you said, Google is a free service. The IPs may find it somewhat invasive, but that is an unfortunate drawback of not creating an account. I'm afraid I can't really tell if your visualization is working or not, though. Are the green areas where the contributions are coming from? GlassCobra19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vandalfighter might be a good solution, I just need some time to become familiar with it, until then I try to limit the frequency of page fetches that I am making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.8.34 (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit pager
Why do you allow random people to edit a page without having a login name or account to wikipedia. It would make your service more dependable and reliable to common people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.109.0.60 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a philosophical issue. Some people, for legitimate political, business or other reasons, don't feel safe creating an account which can be traced back to them. For more, read this. --Orange Mike14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on editing some sections of the "Dolphinarium" page. I am able to make the edits but when I save them the page shows the edited sections with all the strike throughs and other editing marks. Am I failing to do the final step or is it just a matter of time before the editing marks are removed and that section looks like all the others?
Thank you.
I've answered on your talk page, but you seem to be misunderstanding how editing works. If you want to make changes, just make them. You don't have to strike text you want removed. LeeboT/C15:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Click the "edit this page" tab at the top of the screen to edit the entire page at once. Edit links on individual sections are for further convenience, but they're not the only method. LeeboT/C16:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should read " Canadian Model of Occupational Performance", not
"Canadian Model of Occupational Therapy
Can you make the edit?
The creator of the page brought this to my attention a few days ago, and I instructed her on how to change the title. I had been waiting, but as you said, it still hadn't been done, so I went ahead and changed the name. GlassCobra19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How to edit, because one previous edit has a "questionable" reference.
In an article about Elizabeth Kenny, which I entered a year or so ago with the help of one of your volunteers, a sentence has been added which refers to an article from the Townsville Council about the Elizabeth Kenny Memorial there. The sentence contains a quote which I know has words they were "cherry picked" from the report (s?) mentioned. I wrote the latest biography of Sister Kenny and still have copies of the original documents mentioned.
The sentence in question is,“In 1938 the Health Department of New South Wales subjected her work to a medical Royal Commission whose findings condemned her unorthodox procedures as 'dangerous', 'damaging', 'costly', and 'cruel'[1].”
I have an edit alost ready to contrinute, but frankly because I have never done so I am reluctant to do it because I want to follow your protocols correctly.
Please help, Wfa193117:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)wfa1931[reply]
From what I can tell, Ms. Kenny's work on polio actually was somewhat controversial, and removed a sourced statement simply because it happens to be negative would be violating our neutral point of view policy, which means that here at Wikipedia we strive to encompass both positive and negative coverage. I would suggest that you discuss your potential edit at Talk:Elizabeth Kenny, the talk page for the article. GlassCobra19:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CW for detailed instructions on how to cite Wikipedia. Be sure, however, that your teacher allows the use of Wikipedia, as some don't. :) Lara❤Love17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. I want to note that Wikipedia is typically not accepted by most schools and teachers for a couple reasons. Firstly, Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity regarding information you find in articles. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. I would recommend that you follow the references that are already present in articles and cite them for your paper. LeeboT/C18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me....
Am I allowed to create a special page for my userboxes???
Regarding your first question, yes you may make a special page for userboxes. This can cover making userboxes in your userspace and transcluding them to your user page, or keeping all of your userboxes on a separate page and transcluding that whole page to your user page (like I do with User:Leebo/Userboxes). You can learn how to create a new page at Help:Starting a new page. LeeboT/C18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been told that one can operate the Supercharged version of the 3.8 Buick V-6 motor without the supercharger, but I'm trying to clarify whether that means simply removing the accessories (fan) belt and installing the smaller normally aspirated motor's shorter belt to bypass the supercharger altogether, or if the entire supercharger must be removed which would mean replacing the intake manifold as well with a traditional (plastic) intake. I really would prefer the simpler solution, for both the durability of the iron intake vs. a plactic one (associated with overheating leaks etc.), and with the better fuel economy of bypassing the supercharger, if you know then please respond —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJoDynamo (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia generally cannot provide you with information that would be provided by a licensed professional in your area. I suggest you seek an expert. LeeboT/C18:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia might not be able to provide you with such information but a Wikipedian might...me! (sort of) I don't know the answer but I know there are forums to ask this. There i s a caddillacforums.com . I'm sure there are Buick forums, too. I've also seen a message board for Hondas. Congolese04:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since articles are in a constant state of flux, it's not really possible to say when they were published. If you want, you can look in the article's history and go back to the beginning to find out when it was created, but keep in mind that the article could be quite a lot different than the way it currently does. GlassCobra20:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i found these pills in a bottle arfter my uncle died they are called
apap 325 mg/dichloralphenazone
100mg/isometheptene 65 mg cap
they are red cap. with IP on the front of them please reply
Wikipedia generally cannot provide you with information that would be provided by a licensed professional in your area. However the dichloralphenazone article suggests that these are not suitable for ordinary headaches, but for migraines. Relata refero20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should never take medication that has been prescribed for someone else. Speak to a physician or pharmacist about appropriate headache treatments. Your pharmacist will be able to advise you on what to do with leftover medicine. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of a previous version of an image
I uploaded Image:Army Voucher.jpg last April without justifying fair-use. Now that I have done so, I have uploaded a more appropriately sized picture to fufill the low resolution guideline. As such, the previous version should probably be deleted, though I am unsure if this is possible. Should I request deletion, then re-upload the newer version? thegreen J Are you green?21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Account name correction required
I have accurate, pertinent information to add to a Wikipedia listing. To this end I created an account using my own name as the user name. I overlooked a typo when setting this up. I have tried several times to follow the steps listed under 'Change user name' but the change does not happen. I would delete the existing account entirely and start anew but when I click on 'Delete account' the page that opens has no box specific to "account" and I have not been able to delete the account. Can an administrator please help! All I really want to do is change from lower case (as at present)in my surname part of my "username" to a capital "F" as below. I can be contacted at my email address as shown in my account details, and can provide my password if/when required. Errol F. FrithErrol F. frith21:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, he wouldn't be able to do it himself, because the software would stop him upon attempting to register. If he wants it, he needs the name change this way. LeeboT/C21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can log into WP:ACC as User:Errol F. frith, and follow the instructions for creating the new user name User:Errol F. Frith. An admin can help you there, so it takes less time than WP:CHU, which requires a bureaucrat. You'll lose "credit" for your previous edits, but I doubt you'd care. If you do this, please remove your request from WP:CHU. You'll also need to provide an email address, so your new password can be emailed to you. Do not post your current password anywhere! --barneca (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way that I may upload a word file, or some similar type file with correct citations. I have tried submitting the page several different ways. Do you know of a simpler way, other than manually creating html citation entries, that I can upload my document from a word file with the citations in the correct format for wikipedia?
The simple answer is no. A Wikipedia article has to be written in MediaWiki format, and citations require the use of one of the methods described at Wikipedia:Citing sources, which essentially requires use of citation templates. This isn't straight HTML (and should be slightly simpler), but there are similarities. I believe OpenOffice can export a document in MediaWiki format, but I don't know how reliable that is yet, and it probably doesn't include Wikipedia-specific features, such as the citation templates. Confusing Manifestation21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict):The citations look correct, but if you want to fix them, unfortunately, you can't upload a Word document to Wikipedia (likely because of concerns that users would use Wikipedia as a file hosting service). You can use the template {{cite book}} to cite books in standard Wikipedia format, though you have to type it in manually. See Template:Cite book for usage instructions. NF24(radio me!Editor review)21:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your policy for deleting user subpages?
As a new wikipedia user, I am very frustrated and disappointed that my user subpage was deleted. Is there a time limit somewhere that I missed that specifies how long a person has to go from user subpage to a posted public article? I would assume that it would be more than a couple of evenings if it is a relevent topic and the person is making progress.
"What may I have on my user page? You can use your user page to help you to use Wikipedia more effectively: to list "to do" information, works in progress, reminders, useful links, and so forth. It is also good for experimenting with markup (that is, as a personal sandbox)."
Well, after working on an article for a couple of evenings, some bully with admin previlages decided to stomp on my sand castle . I was working on an article with a worthy topic: U.S. Legislation, How a Bill Becomes Law, it hadn't been sitting around inactive for a long period of time.
The reason given for deletion was copyright infringement. I took the time to point out that the images and information on my subpage were not copyright infringement because they were from a U.S. government website which clearly states in it's Security and Privacy Notice that "The Office of the Clerk provides this website as a public service. The information on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Images on this site are provided as a contribution to education and scholarship." Yet my subpage was deleted anyway.
"All editors are encouraged to be bold"? It seems like if I ever try to post an article again that I had better have the content completed and only have page layout left before trying to save anything on a subpage :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.52.57.33 (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be logged on and without your username or the name of the subpage I cannot evaluate the page and answer your question. - Mgm|(talk)22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read about this, it doesn't appear that there was any sort of discussion between the two opposing parties about this. I think the admin deleted the article too quickly, and without any discussion (correct me if I'm wrong) about the subpage. I think that the creator of a page should be notified about it possibly violating anything before it being deleted, and I don't think that happened in this case. Ksy92003(talk)00:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a page meets the speedy criteria, it can be deleted without discussion at the administrator's discretion; that's why it's called speedy, and why we have a nomination process for administrators. Generally, for copyright infringements, as this seems to have been, a link should be provided in the deletion log, but it's not a requirement. However, it does appear as though the user was notified as to the reason for deletion - see his talk page. Hersfold(t/a/c)01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I didn't know that it was a CSD. I'm not that familiar with CSD deletions, and I'm not sure if I can see what the content of the article before the CSD tag was added was. That would possibly change my opinion on this. Ksy92003(talk)01:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ksy92003 is apparently embarking on a smear campaign against me. What he is unable to see is that Thornton32 created and re-created and re-created the same school project at least eight times at eight different places and copied numerous images for it as well. He was told to stop by a few people and did not. Whether or not the page is a copyvio, Thornton32 admitted that he was only maintaining it for a school project and that is certainly not within the realm of any policy I know of. Especially not eight times. I am being charitable by not blocking him indefinitely. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wknight, I already admitted that I was wrong. This has nothing to do with you. I saw from my watchlist that the anon made a huge edit on your talk page, and I saw the anons contributions which led me here. Also, as you admit Wknight, I was not able to see that Thornton had re-created the page numerous times, so how was I to know? I made my comment based on what I was able to see. Is it my fault that I couldn't see all the evidence and I'm pretty much in trouble for that? I already admitted I was wrong on this in my last comment, okay? I'm sorry. Ksy92003(talk)01:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to start a conflict. I'm trying to stop it. I admitted I was wrong, and I made my comment based on the lack of very important evidence that I couldn't see. If I were able to see that evidence, then I would've agreed with you, Wknight. I'm not trying to start something. I'm trying to convince you that I didn't have the evidence that I needed (at your own admission) and that I would've agreed with you if I had that evidence, okay? I think you're blowing this out of proportion. Ksy92003(talk)02:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My page got deleted
My page got deleted. i have no idea why because everything posted were true facts. The page Madison Jones (producer) was deleted. i work for him personally. He is a well established producer in the movie and television feild and is now moving into music as well. We thought it would be a great idea to post his facts here on Wikipedia, but have no idea why it was deleted. is there a way to get it back up? please let us know asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madison Jones (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, the page Madison Jones (Producer) was deleted Sept. 26 by the administrator Natalie Erin (talk·contribs) as Blatant Advertising, per criteria for speedy deletion General, Rule 11. Wikipedia does not allow articles which are written as advertisements. I don't have access to the page, but you can check with the admin who deleted your page (Natalie Erin) for a more complete explanation of the circumstances. I should add that writing about yourself is generally frowned upon (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). Thanks, --TeaDrinker22:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entry in question resembled a resume sheet instead of an article and as a result it got deleted for its promotional tone. Please read WP:BIO, WP:COI and WP:V. If you intend to make another effort, make sure you have multiple sources indicating Mr. Jones' notability. You can use your own website as a source, but not the only one. - Mgm|(talk)22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:PEACOCK for an explanation of what constitutes "promotional tone" on Wikipedia. That's a lot of reading we just handed you, but Wikipedia's organizing principle is to write down all our rules in great detail, so anyone who is willing to read and follow instructions can contribute. This allows Wikipedia to be incredibly efficient, i.e., to keep our labor costs almost zero. In most organizations, the rules are not so explicit, so there have to be hierarchies of managers, and that costs money. --Teratornis00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a new user is reporting he can't edit Tutankhamun which, he suggests, is because the page is semi-protected. There is no semi-protect icon on the page, but the edit history is suspiciously free of anon edits. Is there any way to confirm whether a page is protected? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if it is, the page probably should remain protected and have a small icon on it. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Click "history" and then "View logs for this page" to get [11] which shows it's protected. You can also log out to confirm that you cannot edit it then. PrimeHunter00:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add this, but you beat me to it: Addendum: Unless, Jeff, you had a specific reason for saying you thought it should stay protected. Normally, we protect as a short term measure. Is there a specific reason (for example, something about the new user who talked to you abut this, or your past history with the article, or soemthing) you think it should stay that way? Otherwise, I'd suggest giving unprotection a chance. I won't go to WP:RFPP until I hear back.
So, even though I'm generally in favor of short term protection, I'll defer to your closer experience with the article, and won't go to WP:RFPP. --barneca (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After many edit conflicts, my response has been covered. FYI i have listed it at WP:RFPP and have added the icon for the time-being, by using the {{pp-semi}} template. Note this does not semi-protect the page, it simply adds the icon. There has not been that much vandalism on the article, nor the talk page really. I count 4 in the past month, not enough to warrant its semi-protection in my opinion. We will see what an admin thinks, they might just try it and see. Woodym55500:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If an admin wants to unprotect to see what will happen they can go ahead, but how long do we have to wait before protecting again, and how many times do we have to go through this? Articles like this get tons of daily vandalism, junk, and test edits. I didn't comb through tut's edit history, but with my experience on article ancient Egypt, after each time the article was unprotected, the vandalism resumed. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did have a look through the edit history and couldn't see that much, this is obviously influenced by the semi-protect. The trouble is we have to balance the need to protect against vandalism, with the need to build the encyclopedia. A lot of good edits are made by ips. We can't really make a judgement on Tutankhamun given the length of its protection. Woodym55501:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the original question: the icon doesn't appear unless someone adds it to the page manually. The certain test for page protection status is to add ?action=protect at the end of the page's URL; for an administrator, this allows protection and unprotection of the page; for a non-administrator user, this shows the protection settings but they can't be changed. --ais523 18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Meaning of life. What's the meaning of life? The meaning of life is to give/gift, as you were given/gifted to life. Edward Vu"
Meaning of life. "What's the meaning of life? The meaning of life is to give/gift, as you were given/gifted to life. Edward Vu"
There is not a common place to send e-mails. Wikipedia articles are edited by a huge number of volunteers who usually discuss on Wikipedia pages. Do you want to contact somebody about something specific? PrimeHunter02:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Send what email to who? You can email specific users if you both have email addresses listed in your preferences. As for sending someone articles, that has been shut off for performance reasons and because it could give someone serious spam influx. - Mgm|(talk)05:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
diarrehea for long period of time
my two year old granddaughter had diarrehea for the last two weeks she has not been given any kind of medicine to treat it. no diagnosis has been found nor has she been checked by the doctor
Kathy Fagerstrom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.44.214 (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, we can advise you to seek the advice of a medical professional, and that sounds like a situation that cries out for professional assessment.--Fuhghettaboutit03:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crush Popsicles
We live in Penticton, B.C., Canada and this summer we were buying boxes of popsicles that you froze and then ate. In the box were three flavors orange, lime and cream soda.
We are not kids, but adults and loved these popsicles. We are snowbirds and came to Yuma, Arizona, but before leaving home we went to our local Walmart to stock up to bring what we thought would be about 3 or 4 boxes with us, BUT they did not have any and told us they were just a summer item and kind of a loss leader. We were certainly disappointed.
Anyway we have been looking at the Walmart's in Yuma, Arizona and they do not have any of these popsicles either.
Unfortunately we do not have the box, but know that it had Crush on the outside.
The big question?? Where can we get these wonderful popsicles in Arizona or even in California?
The help desk is here to answer questions on using Wikipedia. Sorry, but I don't think I can help with finding popsicles. You might have better luck doing a google search. Best, --Bfigura(talk)03:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it discouraged from writing negative information on wikipedia?
I've studied the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia. Is it discouraged from adding negative information, even if reliable sources are cited? Or must one always add positive information whenever negative information is added. For example, I added some information about crime in Lagos, Nigeria with citations from the BBC and the Economist Magazine (online). I could not find any references that say "Reports of crime in Lagos are all lies; the city is completely safe and carefree". I felt it would be original research and possibly untrue if I added "There's probably quite a few residents of the city who have never been robbed". I am not on an all out mission to add negative information. I also add positive information.Congolese03:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1,000 make-believe bonus points to anybody that explains the following to me: What's the difference between getting "blocked indefinitely" and getting "banned"? - Rjd006003:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, a ban represents a formal revocation of editing privileges. It could be applied to a topic, or the project in general (in which case it could be for a year (common ArbCom remedy) or indef (from Jimbo typically)). Also, a ban has to be decided by consensus, ArbCom, or Jimbo. Can I trade my points in for flyer-miles? --Bfigura(talk)04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I've always wondered about that. Still kind of sounds the same anyways. Thanks! You can trade your points for anything you want. - Rjd006004:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the line gets a little fuzzy. Especially since according to the banning policy an indef block becomes a ban if no editor undoes it. (Which just begs the question at what point does the user go from indef blocked to banned?). --Bfigura(talk)04:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if a user catches the right peoples' attention (meaning Jimbo, or the ArbCom), then they do a formal hearing and call it a ban instead. - Rjd006004:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly invisible conversations in user talk pages.
Why are there questions/topics being started on user talk pages by other users but then there are only their own responses... seemingly responding to nothing? :-S Mentifisto04:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, okay, that's a bit weird and inconvenient especially for someone who wants to follow the conversations but thanks for clearing it up. Mentifisto05:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. To avoid the confusion, some editors keep a copy of both questions and replies on their talk pages. (Ie, answer on other persons page, copy/paste back to own.) Or you could leave a note saying that you'll reply on your own page, and expect people to watchlist it. (Although that might not work with new editors). Best, --Bfigura(talk)05:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I am looking at adding a page to Wikipedia for Defence Reserves Support. I am currently undergoing their new website and have been authorised to transfer alot of the contect to Wikipedia. I have never added a page to Wikipedia before. Last week I tried and it looked good but this week it has disappeared. Could you please give me links or a descritpion on the basics for adding a page to wikipedia.
You probably should read our policy on conflict of interest. Basically, many here feel that it's a bad idea to create a page about something that you're personally involved in. Further, in order to copy material from another source, you need to either post a link on the original website stating that you agree to license your content under the GFDL or directly email the foundation. (Otherwise, it'd be considered a copyright violation and possibly deleted). For more info on submitting copyrighted work to Wikipedia, see here. --Bfigura(talk)05:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia won't let me insert a new picture into a gallery
For over a year I have been contributing to the Terraced House site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraced_house that has a number of galleries of terraced (row) houses. I created the Brisbane gallery last year and am trying to update it with a new photograph of a famous terrace of Houses in Brisbane. Here's the gallery:
The second item in the list (Harris Terrace) is the additional picture I am trying to insert. On previous occasions, on saving the page, there has been a message to the effect that there is no such image, so please upload one, which I have done. Now, instead of this message, the text "Harris_Terrace.jpg" appears where the photo should be, with the descriptive text "Harris Terrace, George Street" in its normal position. I also see that an American Contributor must be having the same problem (further down the page) with his picture of Elphreth's Alley in Philadelphia, which I know to be a famous street of row houses in the US. If you go to the edit page here and look at the code it looks correct, so what is going on here, please?
--MichaelGG07:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it doesn't exist, because I haven't uploaded it yet!! As I said above, on previous occasions when altering the gallery and saving it, I would be prompted to upload the file, which I have on my computer, but now it doesn't prompt me to upload. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelGG (talk • contribs) 07:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are actually supposed to upload images before using them in an article. It's possible (I don't know) that the way the software behaves when a gallery tries to display a non-existing image has changed at some time. PrimeHunter13:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this image is thumbnailed and floated to the right with the thumb|right option
I'm trying to place some pictures under headings underneath each other but the headings keep going near other headings and not underneath each heading with the pictures below... and the pictures stay where they should be bereft of the headings.
How can I place headings underneath each other like they are when there's text under them? Mentifisto09:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two bits of markup may help, if you don't know them already. First, the 'thumb' option to an image, combined with 'left' or 'right', 'floats' it to the side of the page (like this example here), and allows text to flow round it.
Second, the {{-}} template causes the flow of text to move below any floated text or images; there's a {{-}} before this paragraph. This can be used to prevent images extending into the next section (although it does leave a gap; it's sometimes possible to fill the gap by writing more text).
Yes it does, I didn't know about that {{-}} template, so now the headings are all set underneath each other... actually before you posted I thought that I had solved it in another manner... just by locating the images to 'none' and it worked when I previewed it but only because I had max two images under one heading (the other headings having only 1)... and I had to leave the first image on the 'left'... middle one on 'none'... but I want to place three images near each other under one heading in one row in 300px or less... but I can't and if I set them left, right, and center the center one will be set too far away from the left one and mysteriously the right one falls a bit down... how can I fix this? --Mentifisto13:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have lots of images, you may need to set them out in a table. --ais523 13:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking a chemistry class. We were given a problem about a "bomb calorimeter". When I search for "bomb calorimeter", I get nothing. When I search for "calorimeter", I get a listing that includes an entire section called "bomb calorimeter". Why does the search for "bomb calorimeter" not work ?
68.54.10.17311:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I ran the search, it redirected me to a general page on calorimeters, which does contain the section you mentioned. You can't find a separate article for a "bomb calorimeter" because there is no article solely dedicated to that subject. For whatever reason, it may have been decided at some point that there wasn't enough information to warrant an entire encyclopedic article. There are several types contained under the general listing. Wildhartlivie12:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please tell me how one goes about reverting an article back to a revision that is more than one edit back? I've seen it done many times but can't figure out how to do so. Thanks. Wildhartlivie11:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made changes on American Airlines page because some of the information like coshared partners was wrong so I update it. When I check back the page, it went back to the same before I had update. Is there a way that I can update it so that it would not change again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.27.179 (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes didn't include any reliable sources to back them up so others are able to check their veracity. Providing the source where you got the information will probably give your edits more staying power. - Mgm|(talk)13:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The revert [13] said "oneworld - please read first sentence". The first sentence in the edited part is "In addition to its oneworld, American Connection, and American Eagle partnerships, American Airlines offers frequent flier partnerships with the following airlines:". Without examining it, I guess the comment means that the reverted additions are part of oneworld and should therefore not be listed. PrimeHunter13:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the revert as it looked like the Oneworld airlines were being added in - as PrimeHunter as quoted the first line "In addition to Oneworld..", if they were other changes to the list then I apologise, but please note that the paragraph is about frequent flier partnerships not codesharing. MilborneOne14:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lübeck Airport
The current text relating to the above uses the term "deceitful" regarding the use of the name "Hamburg". Lübeck Airport does not use the name Hamburg itself to market the airport but some airlines do. The proximity of Lübeck Airport to Hamburg and the surface connnections are superior to many European airports which identify themselves with their nearest city - e.g. Frankfurt Hahn which is further in time and distance from Frankfurt than Lübeck is from Hamburg. I consider therefore that the current Wikipedia listing is at least misleading, certainly unfounded and potentially defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmwilson (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Hersfold(t/a/c)15:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "deceitful" to "somewhat misleading", which seems a bit more neutral, but as I'm not familiar with the subject, I'll leave it to you and others to fix the rest. Hersfold(t/a/c)15:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts can't be deleted, at least partly for copyright reasons. There's nothing to stop you just abandoning your account and never using it again, though. --ais523 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Due to the fact that Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL, all edits must be kept for attribution purposes, and so your account cannot be deleted. You do, however, have the right to vanish, which you can exercise by (1) requesting your user page (found at Special:Mypage) and/or user talk page (found at Special:Mytalk) be deleted, by adding the {{db-userreq}} template to them; (2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers); (3) never logging in to your account again. If you do this, you are still free to register a new username if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia. Woodym55516:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really any point in vanishing if the user page and talk page were never created in the first place though, like in this situation; in this case, it would be equivalent to abandoning the account. If you really wanted to, you could change the username, I suppose, but that takes time as it has to be approved by bureaucrats and wouldn't make a whole lot of difference (as it would change nothing but the credit for the Help Desk question). --ais523 16:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
True, could have deleted contribs? The best option is to just abandon the account. Also he may want to change the account to prevent his real name being released (number 2 of the template). Woodym55516:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A name change for privacy reasons would be fine; the 'crats nearly always grant those. But that could happen whether or not vanishing happened at the same time. (And there are no deleted contribs, although it's kind of tricky for a non-admin to determine that without knowing how to query the API.) --ais523 16:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
As it is, i just checked and came up with 0. So the user has the requisite links if they want to do anything. I do hope you stay though and edit wikipedia. Thanks. Woodym55516:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
School Template
Hi,
I've looked on WP:TEMPLATE but I still can't find a certain warning template. It is about a shared IP address at a place ofeducation such as a school which is placed on the user talk page. The template is something like {{???|School Name Here}}. Can anyone help me out?
Yet, the instructions on the page say to use two { so that the user's name and a link to user's talk page and link to contributions are displayed. Here are the instructions copied here for your convenience.... <div id="credits">This space is to credit the creators/nominators of the items in this Did you know/Next update template that in fact appear on the Main Page. If you replace or remove an item from the above template before it appears on the Main Page, make sure to re-add the hook to [[Template talk:Did you know]] at the '''correct date''' along with credits, and preferably add a note explaining why you did so.
<!--Example: *[[Spoo]] - from January 1, {{user|Jimbo Wales}}, nominated by {{user|Willy on Wheels}}-->
Once again, using the above example, when I put user Jimbo Wales names in { , his user page gets copied, which is not what is desired. Only a link to user's talk page and link to user's contributions are desired.
Your problem here was adding {{user:Jimbo Wales}} instead of {{user|Jimbo Wales}}. Note the pipe instead of colon. {{ causes whatever is inside to be transcluded. {{user|Jimbo Wales}} causes the {{User}} template to be transcluded with the name "Jimbo Wales" as argument number one. {{user:Jimbo Wales}} causes the entire User:Jimbo Wales page to be transcluded. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The {{ notation 'trancludes' a page. Generally speaking, the only things that are transcluded are templates, which are specifically designed for this; for instance, to transclude Template:User, write {{user}}, which produces User-multi error: no username detected (help).. Templates (and other transcluded pages, but in practice nearly always templates) can also take arguments, separated with vertical bars; for instance, it's possible to write {{user|ais523}} to produce ais523 (talk·contribs). You were using a colon instead of a vertical bar; so you were transcluding, not Template:User, but User:Jimbo Wales, a much longer page that isn't designed for transclusion. See the difference between {{user|ais523}} and {{user:ais523}} (vertical bar versus colon)? That's what was causing the problem. --ais523 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
If you create a page by mistake (such as in this case, where you created a category page with a typo in), and nobody has edited it since, place {{db-author}} on the page and an admin will delete it for you. --ais523 17:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I was playing around with Preferences and modified my skin to be Nostalgia. Now I cannot change any preferences because the Save and Reset buttons on the Preferences pages are not active. Cleared cache, etc., nothing seems to work. I would really like to get back to the default skin - the Nostalgia one is horrid. IE 7. Thanks. (Sorry about forgetting to sign this.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizbin (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use this link to bring up the preferences page in Monobook so you can change your settings back: //en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Preferences&useskin=monobook. --ais523 17:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried going through all the hoops, but I am not even experienced enough to be called a Wikinovice. Could someone please explain to me how to request an article? I went through the whole page from the initial link, and got to political sciences, but never actually saw a "submit here" link. if one exists, where is it? thanks,
cadeeshak
You edit the page (using the 'edit this page' link at the top or the '[edit]' link for the relevant section) and add the link the same way as the others in that section. --ais523 18:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Employer wants me to write an article for the company
Hi there. My employer wants me to write a wikipedia article for a website that the company has on the side. I've told him that this is against wikipedia's conflict of interest rules, that we have to wait for a fan to do it for us, but since it's not illegal, he's probably going to tell me to go ahead and do it anyway. My supervisor is a very smart man, but he's not an expert on the culture of the internet. For example, he didn't know what chatspeak was or that sock puppets are considered bad form.
Does wikipedia recommend any course of action? Is there anything I can show him, like deletion rates, that might be a bit more persuasive than, "Well it's frowned upon"? Is there a bias against second postings of deleted articles? If I tell my boss, "If I post this article and it gets deleted for violations, then it will be harder for real fans who try to write one later to get their version approved," then he might let me off.
If I am allowed to write the article, then what are my limits? I've read the conflict of interest policy and the business page, but I think the boss will probably want to hype the new side business as much as possible and might not be satisfied with a factual, encyclopedic tone.
There aren't firm rules about this. But yes, it's a bad idea for you to write about a subject you're that close to, and we don't like it when companies try to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool rather than as an encyclopedia. If the website has not gotten significant coverage by reliable sources, it's likely to be deleted, no matter who writes it. Also, understand that you put Wikipedia editors in a tricky position by asking for this kind of advice. Friday(talk)18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Also, remember that if you are employed by this company, you may have a conflicts of interest, also don't forget that Wikipedia articles are neutral, so it should not be promotional, however, I (and all the rest of us here at Wikipedia) encourage to create the article, as long it is inline with Wikipedia policies. Cheers, Qst18:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, we might become notable at a later date, but we aren't now. I don't think any newspapers or other sources meeting wikipedia's verifiability codes have covered us. I have included this in my explanation to my employer.
At present, I know all about tricky situations. If you guys don't feel comfortable telling me what to say to my boss, then how about something about wikipedia? Is there a bias against second postings? For example, if we post our own article and it's deleted for COI or notability, would it be harder for a fan to get a fan-written article past deletion later on? What about asking the fans to write it?Needplausibledeniability18:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No not really. We are interested in neutrally written articles about notable topics. If your page is deleted now and someone comes along and writes a page later , once notability has been established it will likely not even go to AFD. Your boss does realise that neutral means bad as well as good? Theresa Knott | The otter sank19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the many good reasons created above, there's also the possibly that some user might find it entertaining to turn a promotional article into a snark. While this is good for Wikipedia, it may not be what your boss has is mind. Bfigura(talk)19:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While Theresa, as usual, is correct, I must add that there is going to be an additional layer of suspicion if there is a history of spam/advertising articles being written to hype a particular company or website. We try to be neutral, but we're human (except the bots); and there's going to be that extra smidgeon of cynicism if a hype "article" is part of the topic's history. --Orange Mike20:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... but the bottom line is - if your boss asks you to write the article, then write it - your job is more important that wikipedia. --Fredrick day20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday I moved two images in this small article into a gallery, because they were sandwiching text and clashing with the "See also" section. An editor reverted my edits, saying "galleries are tacky". I made those edits after reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images which says "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other." and "If there are too many images in a given article, consider using a gallery."
Now I am confused. If the article wasn't so small, I wouldn't have added the gallery, but are galleries considered tacky on Wikipedia? If so, why does the manual of style suggest them? Basil Richards19:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I had a look too, and I must admit, in this case, I think it looks better on the page with the gallery. However, I do think the TV trivia you added was unnecessary. I think the MOS advice is there to prevent having an images on the left and the right facing each other with the text squished in the centre, but I can see what you are getting at - having the two pictures one above the other with a thin line of text between them is also unattractive on the page. I suggest you try again, perhaps using the preview button to sort out the best places for the images without using a gallery (but remember that people use different browsers and screen widths). Astronaut20:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me. I meant to re-remove that after reverting to the gallery version but I got distracted. I've removed it again. - Rjd006020:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the advice. I think the television special featuring the Space Shuttle vanishing illusion was more than just trivia, since the trick is possibly more well-known than the Space Shuttle Explorer replica itself, but I understand why it might not belong in the article, so I didn't mention it in my original question. Basil Richards21:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The neutrality of an article I submitted is being disputed, how do I resolve it?
Have you tried to have it send your password to you via the pasword reset tool? If however there's a typo in the email address, there's no way to recover the password. Best, --Bfigura(talk)21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That depends, are they citing the sources in another article, or the article itself? Circular sourcing isn't reliable, so citing another article that has no references would be bad. The best thing would be to cite the actual sources in the present article. (Ie, instead of article A referencing article B, it should reference books C, D, and E, which are cited in article B). For more details, see this section of policy. Best, --Bfigura(talk)21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I mean. I mean for example if wikipedia cites source A but source A says it got most of its info from wikipedia. Cryo92121:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
password
this is username nero again. I did not enter my username incorrectly. I even put an email adress on it but it says i didn't when i try to get it to send my password. I can't logg on and I know i entered the right password. I need help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.36.66 (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please can someone tell me what's wrong in this page, or if now does it satisfiy the notability guideline? [14] Please tell me it with simple words, I'm not very expert in Wikipedia. thanks--Carlons21:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - In the future, go to the page's history (by clicking "history" at the top), click on the time the version you want to revert to was made, then click "edit this page" at the top then save. Alternatively, you can click "undo" next to the revision's listing on the history page to undo the last edit. Also Twinkle can be useful for reverting vandalism, especially multiple edits in a row by the same user. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The Mansions, Brisbane CBD
Cook's Terrace overlooking the river in Milton
O'Keefe's Buildings Petrie Terrace
Petrie Terrace - on Petrie Terrace
Gregory Terrace Replicas 1988, Brisbane
Musgrave terraces, West End
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:100_1607.jpg){kind=link}
