USING PROMOTIONAL/ENTERTAINMENT PHOTOS FROM 1940'S
I have several photos from the 1940's (a couple are from the early 1950's, prior to 1953) for illustrating my wikipedia entry, "Dixie Roberts", which i am currently working on. This is my first entry, i am VERY new at this.
The photos I have are all promotional photos that belong to Miss Roberts, she gave them to me to use for this purpose. Most of the images are just of her. However, one image is a promotional photo for the 1943 Ziegfeld Follies and shows 4 dancers: Miss Roberts, Penny Edwards, Mary Ganley and Pat Hall. The front of the photo has a logo on it, "Murray Korman, NY", but no copyright insignia. I would love to be able to post this one, especially, because of its historical value!
Some of the other photos are stamped on the back, such as"AL. HAUSER PHOTOS, HOTEL ABBEY - 149 W.51 ST., N.Y. CIrcle 6-9400"; or "Bruno's of Hollywood, Thanks for credit" including addresses in NYC and Boston. One of the Bruno's photos has a charming stamp on the back, it says "PLEASE CREDIT BRUNO OF HOLLYWOOD, WE MAY BE ABLE TO RETURN THE COURTESY SOMETIME."
One photo i would like to use has the following stamp on the back: FOTO FERNANDEZ, ARZ. MERINA No. 51, CIUDAD TRUJILLO."
I am reasonably sure that I can use these photos, I am just not sure how to catagorize them.
You are entering a nightmare. This is NOT a situation caused by Wikipedia. Current copyright law in the US (where the Wikipedia servers reside) is consistent with the Berne convention on copyright: copyrights belong to the photographer and the copyright exists automatically, with no need for formal registration. For works published in the US prior to about 1987 and never formally registered, the work may have fallen into the public domain, but I have not a clue as to how you can prove that. Works published in the US prior to 1923 are clearly in the public domain. The situation is an evil nasty mess that we must live with. Good luck. -Arch dude (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Click Template
In addition to what I'm doing on Wikipedia, I am working on another Wiki using the Media Wiki platform. I use the Template:Click here but would also like to use it there. Is there a way to export this template to the other Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarverM (talk • contribs) 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just today begun experiencing problems being kept 'logged in' to wikipedia. It seems that whenever I close my browser now, and then open it again and navigate to wikipedia, I've been logged out, and I have never encountered this before. I keep the 'remember me' box checked at log-in, and although I have my browser (Firefox) clear my browsing history and cache upon exit, it retains my cookies, which has kept me logged in to wikipedia previously. Does anyone know what is happening with my account being logged out? Any help is appreciated. Thanks. -albrozdude (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have that checked as well. The strange thing is that this started happening suddenly although I haven't changed any settings on my end. -albrozdude (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happening to me for Firefox and IE7. Only if I type "en.wikipedia.org" into the address bar though. If I click on a link in my history, it shows I'm logged in. The only exception to this so far I've found is if I click on the Main Page in my history. -- Matthew|talk|Contribs19:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is happening to me also. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.12 and Windows XP. I haven't upgraded the browser lately and I haven't changed any settings. — Mudwater21:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, Firefox 2.0.0.12 also, tried a number of things such as clearing history and deleting cookies. Glad I'm not the only one getting this. --Zikar (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that my research (non commercial) website has been blacklisted. I am totally confounded by this and request an explanation. I am considered an expert in the field of Proprioceptive Stimulation (Researcher for 37 years, Research Fellow at the prestigious facility associated with the Italian Ministry of Health)- See Feedback from Other Experts http://www.rothbartsite.com/Feedback.html
I think the main issue here might be WP:COI since you are the author of the external site, which if you read WP:EL are links to be avoided. However, it seems the user's work has been published in peer reviewed journals, so this is a tough one to field. MoP, is there a way that you can request white listing so it could be used as a cite? Wisdom89(T / C)07:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found my research website - www.rothbartsfoot.info placed on the blacklist. How can I request that it be removed from this list?
I'm confused, too. Professor Rothbart, can you tell us why you think your site has been blacklisted? It seems possible that someone has misinformed you. AndyJones (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found it on a revertlist for a new bot at User:XLinkBot/RevertList. It's sort of a limited blacklist which doesn't prevent saving like the real blacklist. I don't know how it got there. Maybe somebody added many inappropriate links to the site. You can request removal at User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList. Note that a listing only causes a revert in some circumstances. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undo while editting
I used to be able to undo some changes I was making while editting, but the last couple of days it stopped working for me. Is there something I should enable in my preferences? Thanks, Crzycheetah07:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some edits cannot be undone--namely those in the same place where the text has been changed by a subsequent edit. I wonder if that may be your problem. What happens when you try to undo? —teb728tc08:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not trying to undo an already made edit. I am trying to edit a page and while my edit box is open I add new information, then at that time, let's say, I accidentally delete some information in the edit box and I want to right-click and click "undo" or just press "ctrl+Z" to get back the information I accidentally deleted. I used to do that, but now whenever I press "Ctrl+Z", nothing happens. My problem is that I have to start over my editting because of that.--Crzycheetah08:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That type of undo is a function in your browser or operating system. Wikipedia does not control how you write text in the edit box. Which browser are you using? Have you changed anything around when the problem started? Does undo never work at all? Does undo work in other programs? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. —teb728tc09:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some images on upload.wikimedia.org actually contain /ad/ in the URL of the file name, which commonly causes them to be blocked by ad-blocking software (or did they fix this?), although the examples you gave don't. I can't imagine what could block them across browsers. Here's something to try though: If in Internet Explorer, right-click on an image that won't load and click "Properties". Copy the URL of the image and paste it into the address bar directly. Or in Firefox, right-click on the image and click "View image". This will give you the actual file displayed directly. If it's being blocked by anything, it will display the message there. • Anakin(talk)01:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested to know why the above mentioned page takes an inordinate amount of time to load.
I am running on a new PC with a 2.3 ghz processor, 2 gb ram, Windows XP, IE version 6.
Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.45.160 (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it allowable to use an image when there is a resonable belief that is in the public domain? The image in question is [1], which is an advertisement from a magazine from 1926. The company being advertised has not existed since 1936. According to our article on the subject, a work from that era would have passed into the public domain before 1978 if the copyright had not been renewed. It seems resonable to believe that this copyright was not renewed considering that the company had long since ceased to exist. I can imagine some counter-arguments to this logic.
I was trying to submit an article about Thermilate products and the admin deleted it straight after. I am an employee of Thermilate and I have a permission to use the information about our products.
I have had another account, called Thermilate, but was said that there is a a problem and I cannot use that name.
Can you tell me why I can't submite the information and how are we going to solve it?
Hi Harshy, the problem with your account, User:Thermilate, is that we don't usually allow the names of companies in usernames as it can be seen as promotional. See WP:USERNAME.
Another problem is that you've admitted to being an employee of the said company which is a conflict of interest. It's not recommended that any user who is directly or indirectly involved in a company make an article about their company (And/or make major changes to an existing article about the company). Wikipedia is not an advertising service.
The reason why the article was deleted was because it was a copyright violation of the company's site. We cannot use copy righted material here at Wikipedia.
hi, i was just wondering if when you edit a page will it become visibal to everyone who seeks the infomation?
and will you be able to check if my 'Shes Britney Bitch' article is visible yet. you can locate my article if you search for Britney Spears and my article is the first.
Many thanks, --Jordan Hale 12:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 95jordan95 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 15 February 2008
Yes, as soon as you make an edit it's visible to everyone instantly. Your "article", judging by the title, would've been deleted almost immediately. Please read Wikipedia:Introduction for a guide on how to use Wikipedia. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. ScarianCall me Pat12:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Yes, it does become visible immediately. And thanks for asking because it let me remove your edit quickly. The encyclopedia is not a place for personal opinion; it is a collection of facts from verifiable reliable sources. Before you edit another word of the encyclopedia please read WP:NPOV and perhaps WP:Introduction and WP:Tutorial. We welcome new editors but we do have our way of doing things and we expect editors to abide by our policies and guidelines. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nation rural emloyment gaurantee scheme by indian govt
Great Depression is semi protected so if you were editing from an IP then you couldn't edit it, but your account is old old enough to edit it. So try again making sure that you are logged in. Harland1 (t/c) 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is that you don't know how to edit the top section, click "edit this page" on the top of the screen. All the other sections have [edit] next to the heading, but the top section doesn't so you have to edit the entire page. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
I tried to login (User: Swelter) but I forgot the pass. The problem is I haven't left an email there. So I can't get a new pass. Can you please delete my user-profile so that I can create a new one? Or can you send me a new pass to <email removed>?
Thanks a lot!
Mirko Krimmel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.188.45 (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is no way to delete your account, nor is there a way for anyone to reset your password. You will need to create a new account for yourself, however you may edit your old user page at User:Swelter to redirect to your new one. Hersfold(t/a/c)14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a new account is the easiest for both you and Wikipedia. If you really want to keep the user name then you can try requesting usurpation. I don't know what the response would be when there are 3 unused edits from 2006 [3] to a later redirected page. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many new users are going to use the Sandbox talk page for testing whether or not it's intended for it. Accepting this seems a lot easier than trying to use it as a real talk page where tests would have to be manually identified and reverted, and the page history would become a mess. You can use Wikipedia talk:About the Sandbox instead to discuss the Sandbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial DVD as reference
I would like to add information (filmography and additional facts)to an article about Darby Lloyd Rains that are from a commercial DVD. How do I cite the reference for that since the DVD is not "published" in the conventional way?
I am doing some research on the Book of Job and would like to print out your page to help me get started, but when I just hit Print, it prints the entire website picture, which contains only part of the edited article.
How do I make a printer friendly copy of an article?
Every time I close IE or Firefox and then reopen one of them to come back to Wikipedia I have to retype my password, even though "remember my password" is checked. It started happening yesterday when I had Verizon put in. Before then I never had to log back in. From searching the internet I'm assuming it's something to do with cookies or a firewall, but I don't know how to fix it. It's a problem with Wikipedia only. With all other websites I'm logged back in fine. - Can anyone help please? -- Matthew|talk|Contribs17:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See this section a little bit up the page. I'm guessing it's a bug. Oddly enough, doesn't appear to be a problem when I use IE7 on a different computer; either it's fixed, or it's browser-dependant. --barneca (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's doing it in IE7 for me. The funny thing is, if I type "en.wikipedia.org" into the address bar, I have to log in. If I click on a Wikipedia page in the history (except for Main Page), it shows me already logged in. -- Matthew|talk|Contribs19:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replied with this message above as well. I noticed that this happened to me at work just now after upgrading Firefox to the latest version. Did any of you recently do this? This might be the problem - kinda of a cache dump. Wisdom89(T / C)19:22, 15 February 2008 (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.
How do I create a link to an image without actually causing the image to appear? There are a few explicit images that I want to report to WP:AN asking that they be added to MediaWiki:Bad image list, but I don't know how to add the links to the page without causing the images to appear.--UrbanRose19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I misread the question. The phrase "this userbox" had me thinking it was someone else's userbox (ordinarily people use "my" somewhere to refer to something they themselves made or possess), and "to ask" (without the "where") had me thinking you were going to ask on that user's talk page. My last chance to catch my error would have been to pay attention to your signature, but I find I have a harder time reading customized signatures. All the different fonts and color tend to throw me off. Yeah, that's my excuse. Stupidity on my part may have also been an issue. --Teratornis (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
putting a picture into my draft article
I want to upload my own pictures into an atricle i am drafting. These pictures are in my own computer, taken by myself, and I have no problem in putting them in the public domain. How do I get these pictures from my computer file into my draft user subpage?Adrian142 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add an existing image to an article, type [[Image:File name.jpg|right|Optional caption.]] to the article – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, right 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.
The above (canned?) answer might be confusing to someone who created his or her own images. In that case, the user is the person who gets to choose a suitable license. (As an aside, this is another reason why I would like to modify the standard response templates so they clearly look like messageboxes, rather than looking like they are spontaneous replies.) --Teratornis (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
we use "cammed" answers because we are volunteers: There are only a few of us. To the original questioner: If you own it, then you may upload it under the appropriate license. After you upload it, you may it to any article.-Arch dude (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why we use canned answers, and I don't use the term as a pejorative; I was one of the people who suggested organizing and expanding our early collection of these templates. I think these templates would be more effective if they clearly identified themselves as templates, for these reasons:
The Help desk must continuously recruit new volunteers to replace experienced volunteers who move on to other work. Since we have no formal training program for Help desk volunteers, they must educate themselves. We have a page of instructions, but I suspect the main training resource for new volunteers is the Help desk itself - they learn to answer questions by reading other users' answers. If standard response templates display themselves like ordinary human-written text, new volunteers may take longer to realize we have standard response templates.
People who ask questions on the Help desk are themselves potential users of templates. They may become Help desk volunteers eventually, or they may recognize a use for standard response templates in some other part of Wikipedia. If they don't recognize a standard response template for what it is when they see one here, we may delay their recognition of this useful technique.
Templates that look like messageboxes can use some helping templates that add links to make them easy to edit.
Wikipedia is for the most part a transparent system. Not only is it possible to see how almost everything on Wikipedia works, Wikipedia facilitates this by providing visible clues that encourage exploration. We are not being as transparent as possible if we substitute a template that looks like a human-edited reply. I don't see any benefit from trying to fool people. Showing people that we use standard response templates conveys important meta-information about Wikipedia:
Some questions come up so often that we have canned answers for them. We know this, but brand-new users might not. New users should realize they are on a well-trodden path, and a big part of learning Wikipedia is learning how to look up answers to questions.
We have an efficient mechanism for handling repetitive work. A new user might later run into some different repetitive problem amenable to similar methods.
Canned replies have to be general, and thus might contain some information not relevant to a user's situation. If the canned reply clearly identifies itself as such, the potential for misunderstanding decreases - we would be telling the user to use some judgment when reading the reply.
Again, I don't see anything wrong with telling people we are giving them canned replies. Everyone who uses Wikipedia should realize they're not paying $100/hour for commercial support, we're doing it all for free, so we have to use every possible method to reduce our labor. And we have some pretty clever methods. I'm proud of our methods and I think we should promote them. Anyway, the least disruptive way for me to illustrate my point would be to make alternate versions of some of our standard response templates that look like messageboxes. Then our volunteers can use whichever style of template they prefer, possibly leading to an eventual consensus when we might choose to standardize our collection on style or another. Since we need all the volunteers we can get, the last thing I want to do is alienate anyone. --Teratornis (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this (01:50, 5 February 2008 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback (Remove random line) (top)) and removed the phrase strike through text, but I don't know what stuff like this is about. Can someone tell me please? Andrew Kanode (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are asking about the markup: If you add "<s>strike through text</s>" in the edit window, you get "strike-through text" in the article. —teb728tc22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had uploaded our U's logo. It is named University_of_Northwestern_Ohio_logo.jpg earlier today and it seemed to work. I went ahead and put it into the article and all seemed well there too. Now it is later and I wanted to add some more content. I noticed that the logo image was "X"ed out in IE. When I went back to the logo page, it was "X"ed out there too, the link was now broken, like the file wasn't there anymore. I'm not sure now how to fix it. I would like to upload a couple more pictures but I want to make sure that I'm doing it correctly. Can someone look at what I've done to see if I did something wrong so that I upload the other pictures correctly? Or, do I just need to upload and replace again?
There is definitely something goofy with the version you uploaded. I was able to download it by right-clicking and doing Save As. I then opened the jpeg and resaved it (using Gimp), it went from 500kb to 8kb. I would recommend doing the same thing. —Noah22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you all's help! After looking at the image again, there was definately something wrong with it as it was given to me. I opened it in GIMP and resaved it. Now the file size looks correct. Maybe there was some artifact left in it from when the marketing guys were constructing it. Just uploaded it again. Hopefully all is well now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeBlancJ (talk • contribs) 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permanently block my IP address
I am the tech administrator for a private school in California, and none of the edits from our shared IP addresses have been useful. To discourage these sorts of edits while still allowing access to wikipedia, I was wondering if there is any way to permanently block our IP address from anonymous edits. That way if someone wants to make a useful edit, they can do so using an account. Thanks!
At my school, the IP adress is registered as something which makes people log in before they edit. When I forget to log in and try to edit, a Wikipedia page comes up with a template on it that states I have to log in to make a contribution. I will look on Monday and see if I can help. In the mean time, does anyone know what I'm talking about? Zrs 12 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the event of shared IP addresses or school addresses, a "soft block" can be made that only blocks non-registered users. However, the blocking policy specifically states "IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely." Many people prefer to make anonymous contributions for various reasons, but still edit constructively. Those people cannot edit if their IP is indefinitely soft blocked. Admins also do not block on request of the intended blockee. Hersfold(t/a/c)00:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the best way to do this would be for you, as tech administrator, to block your computers (or network control point) from accessing URLs at wikipedia.org containing "&action=edit". That will stop all editing from your network, but sill allow reading Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodego (talk • contribs) 03:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly technically possible. You'd need proof that you were the administrator (maybe by sending an email from an address associated with the school), and to let us know what the IP address(es) is/are. The correct place for such requests would be the administrator's noticeboard. --ais523 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
"Reply here" talk page convention?
I prefer not to have conversations split across talk pages. If a user posts to my talk page, then I prefer to respond there; if I post to another user's talk page, I ask them to respond there and I watch the page for a while. Explicitly stating this policy in every new conversation is tedious, and there must be other editors who agree. But I haven't found any standardized etiquette, convention, guideline, user talk page template, etc. that expresses it. Is there one? (Reply here, if you like. ;) Joshua R. Davis (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{Usertalkback}}, when placed on the top of your talkpage, will alert users to your talkpage procedures. See the template page for details on parameters - it can be modified to suit anyone's preferences.Xenon5400:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Always WP:AGF. It was deleted under WP:SD I'm assuming. Those are tagged by users, placed in a category and then admins delete them if they meet the criteria for speedy deletion. What was the given violation on your talk page? Wisdom89(T / C)00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can move on top of a redirect only if it is a redirect to the article you are trying to move. In this case only if "Yellow Fever (album)" redirected to "Yellow Fever (Hot Tuna album)". So you'll have to request a move. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Master chess player and writer who is attempting, for the first time, to edit your excellent chess page, with a minor revision, in the post-1945 section.
I make my changes, click save, but find that the entire section seems to be absent.
The edits worked just fine; the changes are there: [4]. It might be a page caching problem: try refreshing the page. That said, the changes you've made so far seem to suffer from WP:PEACOCK problems; please glance over that essay briefly. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! Thanks for using the help desk. Hmm, sounds tricky. Try going to the Tools menu, then click Options. Go to the Privacy tab and make sure "Accept cookies from sites" is checked and "always clear my private data when I close Firefox" is unchecked. This should help. Good luck! Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺05:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to experience the same problem using Internet Explorer. First it was just the French Wikipedia, then the English one started to do it. Now the German one has just started to. In all three cases they have started to forget my password within hours and, presenting me with my name only, expect me to put in the password manually, which they only did before on infrequent occasions (about once a fortnight, I seem to remember).
Alternatively, I can re-enter my name, in which case my computer remembers the password perfectly easily -- so it's not that!
As it doesn't apply to all pages, I imagine it might have something to do with the recent software upgrade. Could that be it? --PL (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS
It doesn't apply, for example, to Simple English Wikipedia, which is working as normal. Moreover, if I enter the wrong password here, ignore the resulting error screen and simply press 'Back', I find that I'm unaccountably signed in, and able to edit and sign off as usual, just as I am doing now. And decreasing the privacy protection makes no difference!
I did what MoP suggested (the options were already correctly set), and this problem still occurs for me. I am also using Firefox. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would (humbly) suggest that you all uncheck your various gadget options, maybe un-install your twinkles and AWB's, purge your browser cache, then manual-delete any cookies related to en.wikipedia (or anything-wiki-anything). Then reboot and try again before re-ticking any options. Go back to the bottom and try there. Franamax (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple English Wikipedia is working fine, without any of that. So, curiously, is Wikipedia itself this morning (though not the French version). My computer and browser haven't changed: Wikipedia's software evidently has (unless the problem has now been solved). --PL (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what service you are doing by allowing people to view what's consider to be kiddie porn on wikipedia? I was horrified to see the controversial cover for virgin killer posted on wikipedia. When our kids are searching for different rock bands they've seen a link for they should never be subjected to any profane, never mind illegal, images! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.51.71 (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't want my young children to see such images either (of course, at some point neither of us are going to keep them out of used record shops). However, I also understand why Wikipedia has the censorship rule. As a compromise I point my children to the 2007 Wikipedia Selection for schools. —Noah09:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my name is DanJ and I am trying to create an article on a popular site Gonintendo. I was wondering if you could stop the people deleteing the article because the article is not small at all as they think. I even got permission from the guy who runs the site. I am not trying to be mean or anything but I just want to make this article but everytime I try to it gets deleted please help thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanJ (talk • contribs) 06:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the deletion log at Gonintendo, the page has been deleted a total of six times, most recently for WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#A3. What this means is that the article did not establish why the site was important enough to be in Wikipedia, that is, its notability. In addition, it contained very little information, and was essentially a dictionary definition or entirely links to the site or other pages. If you would like more time to fully develop your article, you may do so on a user subpage such as User:DanJ/Gonintendo. As long as you are working on the article and remain active, that page will not be deleted, allowing you to work on your article until it meets the guidelines I've outlined above. Also, make sure that you write the article in your own words - text copied from another site will be considered a copyright violation and will be removed, even if the owner allows its use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is mirrored elsewhere, so we cannot guarantee that the text will appear on Wikipedia only. For more help, you can check the links I've provided, or see our help page on writing your first article. I hope this helps! Hersfold(t/a/c)07:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to change the title of a page i have created
I have created the roses,kings,castle page and was wondering how i change that title? i was also wondering whay, with the current title roses,kings,castles you can only find the page when typing it in precisely corrent in the search engine? when other pages can be found more easily —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenlovesam (talk • contribs) 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i want the title to be Roses Kings Castles (i.e. no commas) and i want it to appear on search results more easily (i.e. even if someone adds commas or whatever they can still find it..) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenlovesam (talk • contribs) 11:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it for you . I'm not a great expert on the search function, so maybe someone else can help answer this one? In the meantime, I'm not sure the band meets the notability criteria - have a read of this page which sets out a bit more detail about what is required. GBT/C11:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oh thanks! oh i'm not sure about the notability thing. i've been asked to set this page up by adam ficek the musician. he's in babyshambles a major UK band (top 5 album and singles in charts) and his solo stuff is also used by the band on their Uk tours so its got a big fanbase. do you know how i can get the notibility thing so its not deleted? the help page seems pretty complicated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenlovesam (talk • contribs) 11:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken a very quick look, I suspect it may squeeze in under Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.. If they haven't released any albums as yet, can you link to any independent coverage from reliable sources - newspaper reviews, etc.? GBT/C11:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)According to your source, the group's name is "Roses, Kings, Castles" (with commas). I have Moved the article to that name. It can still be found by Go-ing to "roses kings castles" (without commas and lower or upper case) because there are redirects from the other names.
You have a reference to NME magazine. References are best if they are part of the article itself, not mentioned on a Talk page or here on the Help desk. Notability requires references from reliable sources. It is not a subjective personal judgment; it requires objective evidence in the form of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A link to MySpace, for instance, is not independent; a link to NME is independent and would help to demonstrate notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a start. A single reference doesn't show notability. Per WP:Notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." More than one reference would show "significant" coverage. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok i understand. Is the NME article + the fact that roses,kings,castles 'Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such' enough to ensure the page wont be deleted? sorry about all the Q's, i'm very thankful for the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenlovesam (talk • contribs) 12:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Greenlovesam. There are links on that "uncategorized" notice directing you to Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ. However, those pages on instructions are perhaps too much to take in at once (and I've never read through them in three years). Essentially, categorisation allows people to find articles much more easily, so what you (or someone) ought to do is add whatever categories you think the article naturally falls into. Try browsing through Category:Music to find suitable categories. When you find suitable ones, the syntax is "[[Category:Music]]", and they go at the end of the article.--86.149.54.221 (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you first have to log in as a registered user. It's super-easy to register an account name (as long as you can think up a name that isn't taken yet!) Just click log in/register at the top right of the screen. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? and Help:Logging in. Once you're logged in, I think whenever you're at a page that can be moved, that is, almost any article, you'll see a tab at the top of the screen marked "move", between the "history" tab and the "watch" tab (which is another tab that appears when you log in). If you don't see these, maybe that's one of the things that you only get after you've had your login account for 4 days. Anyway, once you're able to see the "move" tabs, just go to the article and then click "move" and you can easily rename the article. Feel free to ask me at my talk page or ask here again if you have any trouble; perhaps I or someone else can move the page for you if you can't. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ACCOUNT lists several editing features that only registered users have, and the only one of these the WP:ACCOUNT page lists as having a four-day waiting period is the ability to edit a semi-protected page. That suggests the new account immediately gains the ability to move pages. (Of course, it is possible for a help page to lag behind feature changes on Wikipedia. When someone changes a feature on Wikipedia, some time may elapse before other users update all the help pages to reflect the change.) --Teratornis (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frequent Logouts
Recently, I keep getting logged out of WP every two hours or so, even though I have checked "Remember me". The session usually does not expire that quickly. Any reason for this? --Schzmo (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just making a wild guess, but could it have anything to do with autoblocks combined with switching from one IP address to another if you're using shared IP's? (I don't know if that's possible or not. Maybe an autoblock would necessarily mean you can't edit at all. I'm not sure. What if it's an autoblock that only keeps out non-logged-in users, if there's such a thing?) --Coppertwig (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make an anchor beginning at a subsection--section 3.1 in The Holocaust. It is a crucial, reasoned section on how the # of victims can be estimated.
There are so many disparate numbers floating around in so many articles, with so many different cites (if given at all, some with endless disputes) that it would be worthwhile to refer readers to a solid discussion.
I would also need to know how to make the reference to that anchor :) ...
Note that links to section headings will break if the section name changes (they work if the whole article is moved). You could create a redirect at Holocaust death toll with the text:
Apparently you're talking about Sugaar and you've already had a discussion with the user via user talk page. I have a few ideas. Unfortunately I can't help you much because I don't feel I know much about fair use rationale policy -- maybe other help desk answerers can help. But one idea is for you to find a good fair use rationale for a logo, (or fix up one of the images Sugaar is concerned with: add a rationale yourself) and show it to Sugaar, so that Sugaar will know how to do it. Another idea is to try to get other people to comment. Maybe posting here is enough for that. Wait -- I just found a page which may be just what you want: try posting at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I suggest you ask there whether the tags Sugaar wants to use are good enough (even though you already know the answer), then show the answer to Sugaar. You might want to wait a short while first to see if anybody else answers here. I hope this helps. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you say I could easily provide a rationale myself. But unless I monitor all of his edits, that does nothing about his disruption. This is not the only image he has removed warnings from. —teb728tc22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Public barnstar: you guys who give help are the best
I thought someone should simply put that as the entire message and subject heading.
Thanks. I think it's great how everybody helps everybody else out here. The ones asking for help are also helping, by adding content to the encyclopedia. :-) Go Wikipedia. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's Help desk works as well as any technical support I have seen in 20 years of computing, and I have experience with commerial support as both a user and a provider. I'm amazed not by just the quality and speed of answers, but even more by the fact that it's all done by volunteers. In the corporate world, technical support tends to be such miserable work that few people view it as their career of first choice, and the burnout rate is high. But on Wikipedia, answering questions is actually fun. Also on Wikipedia, we can easily build tools to improve our efficiency at answering questions, such as the Editor's index, the standard response templates, search templates such as {{Google help desk}}, and other stuff we are going to think of. --Teratornis (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It's nice to occasionally get feedback like this. It helps prevent Helpdesk burnout. Helpdesk volunteers are entirely self-selected: anyone can answer questions. The best way to thank us is to stop by occasionally and answer questions here. -Arch dude (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Errors of fact in article on Mat Roy Thompson (and I can't figure out how to edit them).
Matthew Roy Thompson was Mat Roy and Patience's third son, not the first. Mat Roy and Patience eventually had six children: Philip, born 1896; Ralph, born 1899; Matthew, born 1900; Hugh, born 1905; Patience, born 1910; and Maxine, born 1915.
But replacing an unsourced assertion of fact with another unsourced assertion of fact is unlikely to cause problems unless somebody else objects. So yes, somebody might revert your edit, but it's not likely. However, we would greatly appreciate it if you can find a reliable source, and cite the source in the article. This requires a bit of explanation. Contributore sucyh as yourself are understandably affronted when we do not accept your expertise. However, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anybody can edit," and more than 6,000,000 people have edited. We do not have a mechanism to verify the identities of our editors, so we cannot hold our editors responsible for the facts they add. Therefore we try hard to have cite teh facts to sources that can in fact ve verified. -Arch dude (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
February 17
Distorted signature
Calling all tech pros! It's been brought to my attention that, only in Opera, my signature does an odd thing. See example A and example B. Does anyone know why this is? I can't figure it out. Thank you, нмŵוτнτ01:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opera and IE have problems with three-letter colour codes. Don't know if this will help, but try replacing the two instances of "color:#fff;" with "color:#ffffff;". Perhaps the folks over at the Technical village pump can help. Xenon5401:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, funny... they "made me" change my sig to make them 3 letters back in the day, and that's what's not working. Of course! Haha, нмŵוτнτ16:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
blacklisted link
last year i put up a link to my Official site for Mel peachey i see it was took down so i put it back up today but got a message that it was Blacklisted. Why Was it Blacklisted and BVy Who ? This really is Mel's Official Fansite. Please unblacklist my site. Thank you Write Soon.
I am having problems logging in that have not been answered elsewhere. Whenever I go come onto to Wikipedia after having my broswer window closed, I am logged off. Upon hitting "Log on", without hitting "log on" on the Special:Log on, my user buttons show up in the upper right as normal. This is just an inconveinence, though. Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its either a problem with your browser caching pages, or it's a problem similar to the one experienced by a few other people here, that they are getting logged off in sessions.---KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 02:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This problem has just developed recently, and I have not changed anything with my browser. Is there anyhting I can I do if it is the latter? Thankfully I have never been logged off while I was editing. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone tell me what is the purpose of creating a table using templates? In particular this template: {{Electiontable}}. Im curious why dont we just build the table in the target article. Im thinking of making a new table, but i dont know whether its necessary to follow this style. kawaputratorque02:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To know the exact reason why someone used a particular template in a particular article, you would need to ask that person. (You can see who added the template by checking the history of the page where the template appears.) Possible reasons to use a template:
To standardize the style among a set of related articles.
To make the standard style easy to change for all related artices by editing one template.
(Maybe) to simplify the wikitext markup for each article (that is, if the code to call the template is simpler than the table code in the template, which isn't always true, since table markup is already pretty compact).
Sometimes a template turns out to be inadequate for some new article in a series of articles, if the new article needs to show more information than the template accepts. If you want to change a template that lots of articles use, that can be trickier than changing just one article, because any change to the template will propagate through several articles and possibly draw the attention of many people. Thus a person may have to do some politicking to convince other people to accept the change. There is probably no hard requirement that you should use a particular template in a particular kind of article, but other users may see the article and decide to add the template if you do not. On Wikipedia, we cannot control what millions of other users do, so the best strategy is to try to figure out what will look best to the most people. --Teratornis (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that consistent design schemes in related articles tend to carry some weight. That is, more people would likely agree that all related articles in a series should use common templates, than for all the articles to have different designs. If you want some opinions on the specific case you have in mind, you could tell us the page where you want to add the new table. Our opinions are not authoritative but they might be helpful. I see that you asked on Template talk:Electiontable#Query why this template exists. If you don't get an answer there, you could try asking on the user talk pages of some users who contributed to the template. --Teratornis (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify the question further, the template you linked to is: {{Mycomorphbox}}; articles that use it are linked from here: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Mycomorphbox. Unfortunately, the template page lists no categories; if the template were properly categorized, you could check the category page(s) to find related templates. So when we do find some related templates, we should categorize this one. One way to search for templates is to use {{Google custom}}, for example:
In the article about the Big Apple Convention, the name "Michael Carbonaro" is linked to an entry for a movie actor. The Micahel Carbonaro referred to in the article is not the same person, and does not have a Wikipedia entry yet. What can I do? Can I make an entry for the right Michael Carbonaro? How do I distinguish between one and the other in the link?
Make an article called Michael Carbonaro (artist) or something and the replace the link in the big apple convention article, with [[Michael Carbonaro (artist)|Michael Carbonaro]].make sure that article follows all the usual guidelines.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 03:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think it would have been better advice to suggest that Zorikh creates a redlink. That's certainly what I do when I find a link pointing to the wrong person. To create an article which won't be immediately deleted involves having at least one reliable source as to notability available, and - indeed - the motivation to do so when you may have other priorities for your wikipedia time. AndyJones (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My first template
I've made an overlay for Vancouver neighbourhood maps that adds clickable targets so users can explore all the main neighbourhoods visually and discussed it here. Now I want to move my Franamax/Test2 template into the Template: namespace and apply it as shown in User:Franamax/Test3 for a few articles to see how quickly it gets shot down :)
Here's my questions:
It does have to move into the Template: namespace, right?
What should I call it? Vcvr_nhood_map_overlay? Something longer but more explanatory?
Should I add some explanation? Someone just looking at the template itself will just see a bunch of X's. Should I put in a noinclude section to explain it?
Should I put it in a category? I used {{ottawa map}} as a reference and I see it is in a category. Should I try to find an overlay category, or will some helpful wiki-gnomes come along and do this for me?
You can call it whatever you want. I would suggest trying to find similar templates and see if someone has established a consistent naming scheme. Wikipedia has naming conventions for articles, but template names are probably less orderly, at the moment anyway.
The fancy way to document templates now is with the {{documentation}} template. You can see an example on {{Google}} and {{Google/doc}}. Yes, the {{documentation}} template generates noinclude sections for you, and tells you where to insert your documentation, category links, etc.
Every template should be in at least one category. Your template could be in the same categories as {{VancouverNeighbourhoods}} and maybe some more. You don't have to figure this out instantly; you can come back later and add more categories to your template (actually you will add them to its /doc subpage).
When I make a new template, I sometimes add comments to the template talk page to deter the deletionists. For example, if you adapted your template from an existing template, and that template survived a Templates for Deletion nomination, you could link to the discussion if it also applies to your new template. --Teratornis (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MJ Morning Show
Hi There, Could you please point me in the right direction? Over the past 2 months, the article MJ Morning Show has been subject to repeated IP vandalism, much of it containing defamation towards the host, Todd Schnitt. The vandalism is a result of a campaign launched by a competing radio host. I've been keeping on top of reverting the vandalism to remove the defamation, however, in light of Wikipedia's clear policies on defamation, I'm wondering whether there is something else that would be more proactive to prevent the continued IP vandalism to the article. I've requested semi-protection previously, but the request was denied citing not enough vandalism to justify at that time. Any guidance you might be able to provide would be most appreciated. Thanks, Ihateaubergine (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from what you've already done and are doing, there's not really much else to be done. Looking at the history, this article does seem to be getting pretty constantly hit with vandalism. Should it continue, I'd request semi-protection again. The only changes to the article since the beginning of the month have been the addition or reversion of vandalism, with one or two exceptions. Sorry I can't be of more help. Hersfold(t/a/c)04:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling error in title
The page I have created for a course in knowledge building I am talking has a spelling error in the title.
As the original author of the {{Google help desk}} template (for which I shamelessly stole the idea from someone else's {{Google}} template, as well as the method of making {{Google custom}} links which I learned about by reading this very Help desk last year), I felt I had a conflict of interest after someone removed my previous attempt a few months back to put that search link at the top of the Help desk, so I didn't fight to put it back up there. It seemed pretty logical to me at the time. I figured eventually logic had to prevail. Help desk questions have a lot of repetition, suggesting that many users who are new to Wikipedia go through a similar process of figuring things out, and coming up with similar questions. Also, many of the answers to Help desk questions are really good and are worth searching. Anyway, the fact that so many people keep generating the same questions over and over suggests that we have some deficiencies in the design of Wikipedia - not that I know how to fix the problems. But I'd say overall we're muddling along pretty well as long as dozens of volunteers keep answering questions on the Help desk. --Teratornis (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions at the top of the Help desk page follow an endless cycle of death and rebirth. The instructions tend to grow as volunteers notice people asking inappropriate questions and so on. Eventually the instructions get large enough to trigger someone's WP:CREEP alarm. Then the endless cycle of instruction death and rebirth continues. Naturally, of course, I think we ought to encourage questioners to try {{Google help desk}} before asking a question, and of course the template is possibly even more useful for the volunteers who answer questions (who tend to be farther along the Wikipedia learning curve and are therefore better able to search and interpret the results). While I'm plugging my templates, also check out the examples I listed on the {{Google custom}} documentation page, for searching various parts of Wikipedia and related sites. --Teratornis (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the following sentence in the Gun politics in the United Statesarticle is inaccurate: "Also, Kruschke describes incidents where public political perceptions have been shaped by a few high profile violent crimes associated with automatic and semi-automatic weapons, resulting in a relatively small percentage of the crime in absolute numbers, none-the-less have brought public focus on that type of weapon." The problem being that:
Automatic and semi-automatic firearms are significantly different in their operation
Crimes involving semi-automatic firearms in the United States are not "relatively small percentage of the crime" or notable in any way when they happen
I am confident i can provide numerous reliable sources to back up those two points. The sentence could be made accurate by simply changing "automatic and semi-automatic" to "automatic" but then Kruschke could no longer be cited because that is not how he describes the perception. This is exacerbated by the fact that it is not exactly clear whose perception is being described. Any way, my "simple correction" now involves NPOV, verifiability, descriptions of perceptions, and reliable sources all in the context of a polarized political subject. My head hurts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus Vance (talk • contribs) 07:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you have found a nice non-controversial topic to work on <grin>. It seems the best place to work this out would be on the discussion page of the article in question. However, I think you have answered your own question: before you do any editing you need to find a new reference that will support the changes you wish to make. —Noah17:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a pointer to specific meaning to a page with template Wi
I've just created a (stub) article Devised theatre, and I find from the reference I've used that in the US, the usual phrase for this is collaborative creation. I was intending to create a redirect from this, but I find that there is already a page there, but with the 'Wi' template, so I'm not sure how best to proceed. Should I just add some sort of dab template, turn the page into a dab page, or what? --ColinFine (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, I think that "Wi" template should have been removed as soon as somebody added content to the page. However, the content there still seems little more than a dictionary definition and some common sense about collaboration in general. Personally, I'd go ahead and replace the article with a redirect - if someone wants to write a decent article for a different meaning, we can sort out the disambiguation later. - IMSoP (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went at made an attempt at addressing the issues using the {{for}} template. Feel free to change it if you think a redirect will work better. —Noah17:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably best off not putting it anywhere that's considered part of the encyclopedia (rather than part of the structure and community of the site) if it's not in the main article namespace.
In which case, the question you should probably be asking is whether that page belongs in the main article namespace - is there enough there to merit a new article, or is there an existing article to which it would make an appropriate addition? It seems like a nice summary to me, but we'd have to be careful about the criteria of what goes in there - what topics, whose predictions, etc.
Twice in two days I have been involved in edit warring over content where it is obviously just me against single purpose IP's that know how to WP:GAME using 3RR. What is the usual procedure to tackle this without violating 3RR? In both cases the IP's show no interest in using the talk page except to restate the two polar opinions, so there is no consensus for either version. MickMacNee (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are quite sticky situations. I'd recommend taking a report to WP:AN/I, a lot of admins keep that page watchlisted and will take a look at what you say. If not, you can always ask an admin on their talk to take a look at a situation, I would be happy to look at it if you'd like. Keilana|Parlez ici17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to know for the future is all. There seem to be a number of policies that cover it, I just wondered what most people do usually. MickMacNee (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bilingual help in Spanish
Hi, I created a page in Spanish and received a response on the page telling me the page needed to be wikified. However, I dont know what I need to do. Can you help?17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia so generally it's a bad idea to post articles in languages other than English. This does happen from time to time. When it does {{translate}} article tags that will usually get slapped on the article. Sometimes the articles will get translated (if a translator gets to them in time) but sometimes they get deleted. The best thing to do would be to translate the article before creating it. If you are worried about your translation skills you could create the article as a user sub-page and ask for help translating it. —Noah18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have mentioned that I created it in Spanish for Spanish Wikipedia. However, I need a little help discovering what I need to edit on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosgg (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. So you got the equivalent in the Spanish Wikipedia of "please Wikify this page"? To wikify is to link words to other articles. To do so, simply surround words that should be linked with double brackets. Example: [[Balkline and straight rail]], when saved will look like this Balkline and straight rail, and link to the article on that subject, already contained in Wikipedia, or if there is no article yet on the subject, the resulting link will be red. However, don't do this for every word you can. Please see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, which is, I'm sure, just as valid on the Spanish Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifying is not just adding links; it's a few other things too. to make sure the format conforms to a usual Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:Wikify and Category:Articles that need to be wikified, which gives instructions. It's pretty simple, really; like having no section heading before the first sentence; having the first sentence contain (usually) the same words as in the article title, and having these appear in bold type, etc. You can look at other Wikipedia articles to see what they look like, too. After you think you've wikified it, if you like you can post a message to my talk page with a link to the article (or its name if you can't figure out how to link to the Spanish Wikipedia) and I'll have a look at it to see if I think it's wikified. A link to the Spanish Wikipedia looks like this: es:Síndrome. Note that in theory I don't know any Spanish, though I know several related languages so I can kindof manage reading it a bit. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure I know what you're after, but tell me if this is responsive. Go to any page on Wikipedia. If the URL of the page is not provided in an address bar in your browser, right click somewhere in the article, choose properties from the menu that appears. In either case, highlight the URL. Copy that highlighted URL by either going to your browser's edit menu and choosing "copy," or click control+c, which does the same thing. Go to the email you wish the link to appear in. Paste the link into it, by either going to your browser's edit menu and choosing "paste," or click control+v, which does the same thing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another place to get the URL of an article is by right-clicking on the "article" tab at the top of the article (just right of the Wikipedia logo if you are using the default monobook skin. Select "Copy link location" from the context menu. Then paste that into your e-mail message. However, every browser I have used displays the article URL in the address bar at the top of the browser, so that's the most obvious place from which to copy the URL. The wording of the question is somewhat unclear, however: "How do I "Send a Link" from an article to my email?" An article may contain many different kinds of links, so it is not clear which link you want to send "to my email." And does "to my email" mean you want to send the link to yourself in an e-mail message, or do you want to send the link to your e-mail message composer window where you edit a message to someone else? --Teratornis (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sum and Limit Operators
I was on the sandbox and just messing around typing in meaningless formulas and I typed this in. If you will notice, the limit and sum operators are not working. The limit should look like this and the sum, like this . Why isn't it doing that and how can I make it? Thanks, Zrs 12 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you wrote:
Same thing, but with \displaystyle inserted just before \lim:
To force the display the way you originally had it, you can write \textstyle. I don't know how textstyle got activated; you could play around to see whether one of the operators you were using automatically turns on textstyle or something. Anyway, whenever that happens you can just insert a \displaystyle. Ah, I reckon it's the square root sign that might automatically turn on textstyle, so that the stuff can fit nicely under the radical sign. Just guessing. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the square root. Compare to . No \textstyle or \displaystyle were used. Being in a denominator is apparently enough to get the low-height format as default. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, don't think that's possible. If you want to monitor a user's contributions (for wiki-protective purposes only - see WP:STALK), then I suggest placing the user page on your watchlist and the latest pages he/she has contributed to. Wisdom89(T / C)20:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bug #470 is a request to implement such a feature, but in over three years no specific reason has been given for not implementing it. However it would have a huge potential for abuse and stalking by some editors, and even if used in good faith, may waste lots of editors' time watching others instead of doing something constructive. In short, it's not possible. I think it's actually better being not possible. • Anakin(talk)20:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How to "copy/paste" onto "search" line using a Widget?
Dear Wikipedia Advisor,
I have access to Wikipedia "search" using Widget on my Mac. How can I use the EDIT function "copy/paste," on my computer without the widget disappearing as I attempt to "paste?" Or, is there some other way to maintain fulltime access on my desktop to a Wikipedia's science glossary/dictionary? Currently, the only alternitive I am aware of, is to fully "open up" Wikipedia, which is awkward when I already have something else downloaded (from the internet).
People are allowed to edit Wikipedia:Introduction. Some have said that we should not let them do this in order to keep the welcome mat clean, and leave test edits for the sandbox. However, normally, the bots automatically restore the page when the header is removed (people are supposed to edit below the header). Please note that I have reverted your addition of a {{pp-vandalism}} template. The template is not to be used as a bluff - only use it on pages actually protected (by Administrators). • Anakin(talk)22:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am using Windows Vista and IE. Recently I cannot see any images or charts on any Wikipedia page, including this one. Is there a setting to block images, or am a having problems. I used to be able to see the images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.204.159 (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something to try: Right-click on an image that won't load and click "Properties". Copy the URL of the image and paste it into the address bar directly. This will give you the actual file displayed directly. If it's being blocked by anything, it will display the message and reason there. This problem has been reported rather a lot lately and I'm not sure why... Let me know if that helps. • Anakin(talk)18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Missing "File Link" after an album cover upload
Dear friends,
I've tried upload an image for an album cover using the upload tutorial in the original article page, an set all right (until now, I hope). I've made the Fair Use statement, after being asked to do it, but the File Link, in the bottom, remains without link to the original article (in this case a specific album related to the album cover).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CCR_Chronicle_Vol2.jpg
I've received a message explaining that this image was orphan:
Thanks for uploading Image:CCR Chronicle Vol2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The question: How I made this orphan image article to be linked to the right article ?
This is a caption You can add an image to a page by linking to it as you would an article. For example, [[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|This is a caption]] would produce the image you see at right. For more help, see Help:Images. Hersfold(t/a/c)00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roller Coaster Infobox
To Whom This May Concern:
Hello:
I am in the process of creating a MediaWiki style site but I am stuck because I want an info box for all of the roller coasters. I was wanting to know if you could provide me the files and template sources for making the Infobox. If not, could you direct me to where I could have assistance in creating one? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcmolloy (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also be aware that templates may require MediaWiki extensions which you will have to install on your wiki. One symptom that you need another extension is when you copy a template from Wikipedia to your wiki, and strange codes "bleed through" to the displayed page, instead of the wiki software converting the codes into what you expect. Compare the Special:Version page on your wiki to the one on Wikipedia, to see what extensions Wikipedia has that you don't. Also check your MediaWiki version on Special:Version; since you are just now creating your wiki, presumably you installed the most recent version of MediaWiki. The version running on Wikipedia is usually a few months ahead of what you can download, but the latest version for download should be recent enough. Another problem with copying templates from Wikipedia is that a given template may transclude many more templates, which in turn transclude other templates, and you have to recursively identify and copy all those dependencies. I wish MediaWiki had a simple template export feature. We have Special:Export, but currently it is not smart enough to package up everything you actually need to get a template that works here working on another MediaWiki wiki. (Currently I am trying to get {{Navbox}} working on another wiki, and it is turning out to be not simple.) --Teratornis (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This probably does not apply to your situation, but I found that the {{Navbox}} template only works on MediaWiki wikis that use HTML Tidy. According to a discussion on Meta-wiki, many templates on Wikipedia contain various HTML errors, and Wikipedia runs HTML Tidy which silently fixes these errors. The problem only shows up when someone tries to port such a template to another wiki that is not running HTML Tidy. After I installed HTML Tidy on a test copy of my wiki, the {{Navbox}} template magically began working correctly. That's yet another gotcha to keep in mind if you end up tearing your hair while trying to port templates from Wikipedia. Note: I had not run into this need for HTML Tidy before when I ported infobox templates from Wikipedia. I guess this is more likely to be a problem with more complex templates. Anyway, this is more evidence that while MediaWiki is easy to install, and is pretty easy to use after somebody sets it all up, the setting it all up part can sometimes get ugly. --Teratornis (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on what browser you're using. In Firefox, go to Tools -> Options... -> Privacy -> Clear Private Data. Make sure your settings for that option include search history. For another browser, you'll have to wait until someone using that browser comes by or check your own help files. We can only offer assistance with using Wikipedia. Hersfold(t/a/c)00:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those are also blogs and personal web-sites that are not generally allowed under policy. Also of related note, Wikipedia is not censored and may contain content that some find offensive or objectionable.
Can you elaborate on what pages that you find content that is offensive in terms of hardcore pornography? In general, if the links are there only to advertise a web-site and do not relate to the article in itself, it can be removed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal pages
What's the difference between a celebrity that is more known than me, a local legend ?
If I wait until someone writes a wikipedia page on me, it might taken 20 years, and it might be wrong. If I write it, it will be accurate. And yes, I can make it unbiased, and only basic enough to be certifiable.
If a moderator decides "I don't know who this person is" and deletes it, is that fair?
If I Google myself and get 60 responses, and someone who was already featured in WP has 2000 responses, then does that make them more worthy of not having their page deleted?
If it does get deleted, and I put it up again with some additions or modifications, could that get me blacklisted or banned ?
Thanks DaveDodgy (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BIO for our biography guidelines. If you are not notable enough for Wikipedia yet, you can always start your biography on WikiBios, which accepts biographies about any human. (I'm not sure if they restrict it to humans.) Also, we refer to administrators on Wikipedia rather than moderators, although you have the basic idea about how they work. --Teratornis (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An admin is not supposed to delete an article because they “don’t know who this person is.” Rather they remove it because it because it does not assert the notability of the person, because it does not back up the assertion of notability with references to reliable independent sources, because it is written like a PR piece rather than an encyclopedia article, or because it is plagiarized for a copyrighted source. --—teb728tc04:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question, recreating a deleted article won’t get you blocked, but the article might be deleted sooner if it doesn’t seem to be improved. If you recreate it multiple times, the title would be protected to prevent recreation. —teb728tc05:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Any idea how to restrict the results to only images that come from our domain? The majority of those results are unrelated to our domain, or the subject matter. Using their advanced search gives this string, which still doesn't work:
I just did my search using the domain en.wikipedia.org, instead of the more general version. I got largely the same results, however I think I know what the problem is. You're finding images from all over the web because people all over the web are using images that were originally uploaded to Wikipedia. Clicking through all of my results, the images are all from our domain, even if the site using them is unrelated. It just turns out that the text of the site displaying the image is getting a higher hit rate than the original image description page here. Unfortunately, I can't find any way to restrict the images further. Hersfold(t/a/c)16:36, 18 February 2008 (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. Vivio TestarossaTalkWho09:10, 18 February 2008 (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. Vivio TestarossaTalkWho09:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
≈§−≥p86.140.104.13 (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)pMY MATE IS THE OWNER OF A 1958 FORD DEXTA TRACTOR BUT HAS NO REG DOCUMENTS OR LOG BOOK,
WE KNOW WHO SUPPLIED THE TRACTOR WHEN NEW BUT THEY HAVE NOW CEASED TRADING,HE WOULD LIKE TO GET THE ORIGINAL REGISTRATION NUMBER, WE HAVE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH DVLA AND THEY SAID CONTACT THE MANUFACTURER WHO SHOULD BE ABLE TO PRODUCE IT,I HOPE YOU CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE,I BELIEVE THE TRACTOR WAS MADE IN DAGENHAM SO PERHAPS I NEED TO CONTACT THEM, ANY INFORMATION YOU CAN GIVE ME OR THE PERSON WHO MIGHT BE ABLE TO POINT ME IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION WOULD BE MOST APPRECIATED,[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. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took all the routes given to me regarding the Big Brother 9 page, but once again those in CONTROL of the page, essentially ownership, win and continue to post unverifiable information. I dont care if the information are spoilers anymore, really, but live feeds are NOT verifiable sources and they don't seem to get this. What can I do now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMThompson (talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as we've been telling you on the articles talk page (where this discussion belongs), consensus overrules your opinion on the content. Until the consensus changes, this isn't going to help anything. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information added can be easily verified, and the only problem I see is that people sometimes aren't adding reference links at the time of adding the content. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing who wrote a particular sentence in an article
I'm familiar with the history and with the diff feature, but I'm looking for something slightly different. There's an article where I am slightly suspicious of a claim and would like to try to figure out who and when put it in to ask them what it's about. Any trick or tool to do this? I know we can slap on fact tags etc, but an informal discussion with whoever put it in would be the best solution here, but I can't wade through oodles of prior versions to zero in on it manually.
What I do is an approximation of a Binary search. Let's say there are 1,000 edits. Go back about halfway, to about the 500th edit. Is the sentence there? If so, then go back further to about the 250th edit; if not, then go further forward to about the 750th edit. Each time you divide in half - it's either in the first half or the second half. For an article with 1000 edits, it would take at most 10 tries to narrow down to the specific diff that added that sentence. If you tell us the article, I'll be more specific. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Would you please be able to give me information as to how I may cancel the account Keith1234?
Best wishes, and thank you for the good service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1234 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template Problems
I am trying to figure out why Kent State's template is not showing up at all and why the Rutgers template shows up but without the collapsable "show" on the right... the others for some reason show up correctly.. this problem is beyond my area of expertise. Thank you for your time and help. For the issue at hand see Gary Waters.--Josh (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to put that in my userpage, but it links to the image itself, not the new sections of my talk page. Is there a way to disable linking to the image? Thanks, RJRocket53 (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the {{click}} template only supports internal wikilinks, not the sort of link that's required for editing a page. I thought I could fix this by using the ImageMap extension directly, but it seems to have the same limitation. If this is so, it might not be possible to link it in the way you want. • Anakin(talk)19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't work on my browser. However, a bug with ampersands in external links in imagemaps was fixed recently; when the change goes live (within a few days, hopefully), maybe one of your earlier tries will work. --ais523 20:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably, when you searched for those subject lines, you put the quotation marks in the search box (not useful in Wikipedia search). When you found that there was no such article, you created a new article with the quotation marks intact! I've moved these to better places now. --Orange Mike | Talk18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
uncertain how to report abuse
Hi, I apologize for sending this to you if you're the wrong forum...I have reported small instances of content abuse in the past but could not navigate the directions this time. I'm not a member and don't feel up to tagging people as vandals or getting into switching content myself, but would like to pass along that the "George Washington" page has had "Early Life" changed to "Sex Life," with the witticism, "YO YOUR GAY" added at the top. Was hoping somebody might be able to help clean that up. Thanks, and sorry again if I've missed how to handle this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgehog3 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I had a look through the history of that page, and couldn't find the specific instance of vandalism you're referring to, although it seems to have been reverted now. I have also purged the page to make sure it has been rebuilt from cache. It should be fixed now, although if you're still seeing the vandalized version, have a look at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache to make sure you're seeing the latest version of the article. Hope this helps. • Anakin(talk)18:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Logging in
Okay, so when I type in www.wikipedia.org, then click English, it takes me to the main page. The top of the page says "Log In / Create Account". But if I type something into the search box, like "WT:RFA" or anything else, that page will load and I will be logged in. Is this a new "feature" or should I change something so that my login credentials will show on the main page? I just can't get it to show that I'm logged in at the main page. If I wanted to edit the page, I couldn't because I'm not "logged in". Useight (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the initial Main Page that you see might be being cached in some way, so that even though you're logged in it's not showing it. Next time this happens try the instructions at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache (normally by pressing Ctrl + F5) to reload the page, to see if that shows you logged in. I have heard of some strange login problems lately though. • Anakin(talk)19:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Anakin, yeah as you may have guessed, it's a global problem. We've (many of us) detailed the symptoms and published our work-arounds. Lots of chatter from many of us but as of this time stamp it seems that the folks who can fix it aren't around right now! -- hydnjotalk20:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtless this is a very simple question, but I don't have the technical knowhow to deal with it. How do I write the letter yogh when quoting Middle English text? It isn't included in my character map, and if I cut and paste it from Middle English texts elsewhere on the Web I just get a square instead. Is Unicode the answer, and if so how do I use Unicode? Antiquary (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Write the uppercase letters and lowercase letters as {{latinx|Ȝ}} and {{latinx|ȝ}} respectively; this produces Template:Latinx and Template:Latinx. The {{latinx}} template is a workaround for Internet Explorer's handling of Unicode, and doesn't affect other browsers. (I got the hexadecimal codes required from the article for the letter.) --ais523 21:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
And to answer in more general terms: Unicode is a set of characters extended beyond what most traditional character sets supported. To use it in an article, you can either copy-and-paste the required character from somewhere, or write a hexadecimal (or in some cases named) code between an ampersand and semicolon. In both cases a fix is usually needed for the display to work in Internet Explorer 6 (and maybe 7, I don't know), and the exact template needed depends on which character you used (normally {{unicode}}, although apparently not in this case). (The edit view will appear incorrectly in IE6 if the first method is used, even with a font correction template.) The correct hexidecimal code is ampersand, hash, x, then some hexadecimal (which is normally listed in the article about the character), then a semicolon. Hope that helps! --ais523 21:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
First off, make sure you know what we consider to be notable. For people, we have a specific guideline at WP:BIO, however if he fails those criteria, the more general criteria at WP:N may also apply. If you don't believe he is notable (which does appear to be possible, just at a glance), here are some options:
Be Bold. If you can improve the article, do so! The main thing it seems to suffer from are a lack of references for verification, however there are also issues with a neutral point of view and possibly some other things as well. If you can edit the article to justify his notability and improve the style errors, there's no need to delete it.
Mark for cleanup. If you're not comfortable making these changes yourself, you can add cleanup templates to indicate to other editors that the article needs work. Again, if the problems are fixed, there's no need to worry.
Nominate for deletion. Deletion should really be a last resort, but if there is no chance of meeting our inclusion policies, this is the way to go. The best deletion procedure for this article would probably be Articles for Deletion, where editors discuss the merits and failures of the article in terms of our guidelines and policies to determine its fate. In order to complete the nomination, however, you will need to create an account. You may not be able to finish the nomination procedure until your account is at least four days old, as the nomination requires creating a new page. Alternatively, you can provide a valid reason for deletion here and we'll list the page for you. Please note, however, that there are certain arguments to avoid and you will also need to fully familiarize yourself with our deletion policy beforehand.
I just want to quickly understand how Wikipedia chooses these topics for the "Did you know..." sections on the front page. I do not visit Wikipedia as much as I would like, but this is usually a good source of general knowledge. I try to visit Wikipedia daily, and the "Did you know..." section serves as a very good starting point for me.
Thus my first reason for understanding how Wikipedia works on this subject. Does Wikipedia chooses the topics on that section automatically? or does it do so by certain editors or specific contributors? I generally find the site very well run, but recently on a couple of occasions, I find that there were feeds on Singapore that are downright mundane, but highly suspicious of mild propaganda to promote the city.
Today's example is: "did you know..... that during the construction of Centennial Tower in Singapore, the tower rose 20 storeys in just three months?"
I am only recalling from memory, but a few days ago, it was something like: did you know... that after the construction of Circle Line MRT, Singapore will have the highest density of railway per sq mile in Asia... or something similar. I do not remember the actual entry, but I hope you understand my point that this is entirely useless, very vague on information, and highly suspicious of self promotion.
What I wonder and worry about, is whether Wikipedia is being used as a base for some form of soft advertisement, whether there are any checks to guard against this, and what should we do if we start to see a worrying amount of propaganda, non-specific to any city/country?
Is it possible for Wikipedia or users to check if specific people (or IP addresses) are consistently promoting their interests on Wikipedia, or vice versa?
3)Is it possible for wikipedia users to check if specific people (or I{ addresses) are promoting their interests?
Each page on wikipedia saves every edit that is made to it in the Page history. There, every user or IP that has edited a page can be located. From there (or from the user's User page) the user's contributions can be found. From there editing trends can be discovered. However, it is wikipedia's policy to focus on content not conduct. As such, the articles are usually re-written or modified to remove the material in question.
I'm not sure which obscure help page this question belongs on so I'm coming here with it... For the last week or so, whenever I come here to Wikipedia on either my G4 or my MacBook, the main page will not show me as logged in. Although, if I hit the log in link in the upper right of the page, all the usual links for my userpage, talk page, etc. will show up and everything else shows up as if I'm logged in. I'd think this was a cookie issue if it were just on one system but it's on both. I run Safari on both systems, so is there a new bug with Safari? Dismas|(talk)09:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. jj137 (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:CCR Chronicle Vol2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atwaterkent.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Image:LDKing.gif&diff=prev&oldid=52281488){kind=link}
--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
