Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

February 1

IP vandalism warnings

When reverting vandalism, and then posting a warning on the IP talk page - how long back should we go before there is a clean slate, and warnings start at warning 1 again. Thanks — Ched (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends. If IP addresses are reassigned as soon as one connects to the Internet (as is the case with many large ISPs), then there could be a different person behind the IP each time you warn. I would say start at level 1 or 2 -- I rarely use level 1, as I believe it should only be used for test edits and other "not-really-vandalism" edits -- for each time unless it is clear that the same person is vandalising; for example, a stretch of vandalism edits in a few minutes, or vandalism to the same articles over and over again. Xenon54 (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How to fix when tables/images and tex overlap

Is it like a bug or something? I don't know, but it looks ugly.--71.190.80.213 (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To which article are you referring? ArcAngel (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be better if you told us where the specific problem is so we could diagnose and target help better, but there are various templates that may be of use: {{Clearleft}}, {{Clearright}} and {{-}}. See also {{FixBunching}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox AFLretired

I would ask at Template talk:Infobox AFLretired, but it is redlinked. Is there a way to make it behave like Template:Infobox NFLretired so that Jack Kemp can have two stat pages like Keith Bostic (American football)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How to redirect for a duplicative article

I came across an article Abou_Yazid that is a very small article about Abu_Yazid. I tried to redirect it but it did not seem to work, perhaps because some lists link there. P7njsl (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. You didn't blank the page's content when you made it a redirect (which you should do), but the redirect was working anyway. Algebraist 04:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting images

Please point me to a page on how to revert images. I tried starting at Help:Reverting, Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Page_history#Image history, but could not find anything specific to reverting of images. Jay (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "revert images?" Images can be reverted to their previous uploaded versions on their description page. You can "revert" an image in an article by removing it. flaminglawyer 05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant reverting an image to a previously uploaded version. Is there any page that talks about this? Jay (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

withdraw from gabapentin

If someone has abused Gabapentin and wants to quit, what can they do to prevent severe symptoms and how long will symptoms last[?]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.35.159 (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer. Contact your General Practitioner and/orphysician. Chamal ^talk 07:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Images removed from Scutigera coleoptrata

Someone removed all but one of the images from this page. What's ther policy on this? Should the number of images per articles be reduced and people who want to see other images be directed to commons? I had so far understood the link to commons in such a way that the images there could and should be integrated into the article where reasonable. The article also no longer links properly from the "search" page (still works from the side bar).--76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The key words in that sentence of yours are "integrated where reasonable". A gallery just tags the images to the bottom. Integration is when the images illustrate and clarify a particular section of text. Adding images to a gallery basically duplicates the function of the Commons. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The gallery was done in a previous edit. The pictures had been in the text and then someone ripped them out and put them at the bottom in a gallery. I thought there might be some rule why they did that. It's a bug, so directly linking images to descriptive test is a bit more difficult than with other subjects, but I thought that some of the pix were quite informative and am sorry to have lost them. The link to the commons is more something for experts than the casual visitor. If someone might be so kind as to put some back? (Particularly the one with it hunting the spider would be nice.) --76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

hello

how do i paste a link? BOUT n actor i think you should know

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0108362/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joemorton (talk • contribs) 09:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nowhere to "paste a link" and there is no article on Kevin Breznahan, so you can either be bold and create one (please read WP:YFA, WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:V before you do), or you can make a request at WP:AFC that the article be created. – ukexpat (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not really sure what you mean by pasting a link. I think maybe you are asking that an article be written about this actor? This is a free encyclopedia written by volunteers, so articles are added to the catalogue by the mechanism of those who are interested in a subject, donating their time and ability by writing about that subject. This means that if you are willing and capable, you can start the article yourself. See Wikipedia:Your first article. To requests than an article be written on this actor, please go to Wikipedia:Requested articles#Biographies.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Annoying browser problem

Hi

I seem to have developed a problem with my browser. If I edit a section within a page, it is adding a blank line above the section header everytime I save the page.

I am going mad trying to work out what is happening, I have disabled most of my browser add-ons now, and am using firefox 3.0.5
Any help would be greatly appreciated as I have pulled almost all of my hair out now lol --Chaosdruid (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone had chance to look into this one ??--Chaosdruid (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Ban

Please ban Monkeyman1239 (writing uncivil comments on Saints Row 2‎). Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endothermic (talk • contribs) 12:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He's been warned with a level 3 warning. If he vandalises again, you or whoever reverts him can give him a level 4 warning (add the code {{uw-vandalism4}} to the bottom of his talkpage). Then you are allowed to immediately report him to WP:AIV. Xenon54 (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Slanderous attacks on Boy Scout founder, based entirely on one writer's imagination

Can someone be considered a good source on something, if they dedicated a significant portion of their book listing the most idiotic reasons imaginable than the founder of that organization was secretly homosexual? Or are there rules against such slander? In the article on Baden_powell they mention the repressed homosexual rumor. If you can not prove something, should the claim be there at all? Many have taken such things out over time, only to have them put back in. There is now a side article about the controversy, it mostly showing the claims, and dismissing them. For example, writer Tim Jeal‎ claims Baden Powell was a repressed homosexual, because his wife had short hair and wore a Boy Scout uniform. Many women involved in scouts wear Boy Scout uniforms, and doesn't mean their husbands are homosexual. Do to head aches, he started sleeping on open air balcony at age 60, instead of with his wife, therefor must be a homosexual. The list goes onward. Even if he got his other facts about Scouting right, the fact that a significant portion of the book is based on his ridiculous imagination that its founder was a "repressed homosexual" who enjoyed looking at naked boys for sexual reasons, should it be in the article at all? Tim Jeal's page even has a link to it in the Scouting portal. Dream Focus (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Interested parties see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Tim_Jeal. The "significant portion" DF refers to is 3.7% of a large respected book. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting#Tim Jeal → Talk:Tim Jeal#I erased the scouting project tag → Talk:Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation#valid references? How are those references valid? → Wikipedia:Help desk#Slanderous attacks on Boy Scout founder, based entirely on one writer's imagination

This is a content issue. If DF can't work it out with other editors (including myself), then it needs to go through dispute resolution. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Respected by who? How can you respect a book that has nonsense like that in it? Now then, does this qualify as slander or not? I couldn't find any rules about biographies, and slander. Isn't there a policy somewhere? Dream Focus (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be something that should be discussed among the interested parties and arrive at a suitable agreement. I don't think the Help Desk can do anything to improve this matter. Whether we say it is acceptable or not according to some standard policy, there will still be people who will not agree. The only thing that will happen is that the discussion will be dragged on to the help desk instead of where it should be. I suggest you guys take this to dispute resolution as Gadget850 suggested, if it is really necessary. Chamal ^talk 15:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick legal point, you cannot slander (or libel) the dead. So it's a Wikipedia BLP policy issue, not a legal one. – ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons also has nothing to say about the dead. Algebraist 16:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There was some discussion recently (that I can't find at the moment) that BLP may apply to the recent dead, but yes you're right, in this case it's a source/reference/OR issue.

A similar situation exists in the Lance Armstrong article. Lance has been tested hundreds of times and he has never tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs. He has also prevailed in court against people who have accused him of taking performance-enhancing drugs. Despite the failure of his accusers to provide any conclusive evidence, the article discusses these allegations because the allegations themselves are notable, even if false. If Wikipedia were to remove all mention of claims for which there is no conclusive evidence, we would have to remove all our articles about religion, for starters. There is no more evidence for the miracles of Jesus than there is evidence for leprechauns, but many millions of people believe in the miracles of Jesus so they are notable even if it should turn out that they were entirely fictitious. See also Elvis Presley phenomenon#Elvis lives? - all the objective evidence says that Elvis Presley died in 1977, but so many people claim Elvis is still alive that the almost certainly incorrect belief is notable. Occasionally people who are religious get careless and make claims that are falsifiable; then we can write articles such as: Great Disappointment. --Teratornis (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

rooots

i know some roots are for medicine are ther some poison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.119.144 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, any part of a plant can be poisonous, including the roots. Please address any other question like that one to the reference desk - Mgm|^(talk) 14:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

But note that we cannot give medical advice. – ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

random articles, changes?

Maybe it is the different web browser I am using? But I do not see how it could be this. Today is the first time I noticed this, but when I click on random article multiple times and then click back, it then sends be back to the page where I first clicked random article. This is definitely new. I always use random. Almost daily. And previously each click on the back arrow sent me back one previous page. For example, 10 clicks on the random page button. Then click back one time. I would then be on the page I was on after having clicked random page 9 times. Maybe I have not clicked my back arrow while using random article in a while. Is this new? Or is there a glitch in the system?And is there a place on wikipedia where they post changes such as this one of maneuvering around wikipedia? Thanks 24.166.153.36 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. It is the different web browser I am using. Safari does this. Safari is new to me and I don't know all that much about computers to begin with. Perhaps by default, so maybe there is a way to change it. But that is my problem. So. Anyway. I thought I'd at least put this up here so no one else has to rack their brain on it. Sorry for the inconvenience. 24.166.153.36 (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

deletion of entire section on SRIH.

I found the section on SRIH, The Societas Rosicruciana in Hibernia removed entirely and as i am the author of this piece(Knightpriest), i am reporting this to you in the hope you can do something about it, i do not see on what basis it was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightpriest (talk • contribs) 17:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary by the editor who deleted it indicates that it was a copyright violation of http://www.srih.org/pb/wp_d88a9d3a/wp_d88a9d3a.html but that page appears to be blank now. In any event the paragraph is back in the article, although it does need some references from reliable sources. Also please remember to sign your messages here and on talk pages, but not your edits on articles. – ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

writing reports

which of these would be the best source of synonyms for the word FASCINATE? books in print,roger's tesaurus,the world book encyclopedia or the world almanac and book of facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.147.18 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 17:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Login and site change

hi i have recognized that when i login with my english username through the english wikipedia it works, but if i try to login thru the german wiki site it doesnt, in addition after i login on english and change any article to german by clicking the reference link, i get logged out and cant edit etc., how does that work?!

Thanks in advance

Brais Brais (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The German and English Wikipedias are separate websites with separate logins. You can, however, create a unified account which will work in all Wikipedias by going to Special:MergeAccount. Algebraist 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing name format in search

Hi,

I am looking at Oscar J. Friend, and see that it cannot be found by searching Oscar Friend or Friend, Oscar. How can I remedy that?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PopHistorian (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It can be found with those search terms, actually, but you can make it easier by creating redirects. I've made one from Oscar Friend. I'm not sure about Friend, Oscar (is that really a likely search term?), but I suppose it does little harm. Algebraist 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would create the redirect for Friend, Oscar (just to help the casual browser who might not know how people articles work), but be aware similar redirects are spotty. Gates, Bill redirects correctly, but not Brown, Gordon, Clegg, Nick, or Tyldesley, Clive. Xenon54 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the Gates redirect is leftover from someone else who didn't know about article naming when the search engine wasn't so smart. As far as I've checked the idea of searching those combos works. Perhaps it didn't with that particular entry because it was not yet old enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference links...

I'm overwhelmed trying to figure out how to highlight in blue certain references, such as "Office of Strategic Services" in my new entry on "William Arthur Smith" I'm also not sure what they are talking about when they suggest I put the article into prose format rather than list format, since my entry looks like prose to me. I will be adding sections etc.

I think it would be good to have some simplified directions for people who just want the new entry to follow a format like, say "Andrew Wyeth".

Pascin727 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think you should probably start with Wikipedia:Tutorial to get the basics like wikilinking. The article is probably a list because it rattles off accomplishments without engaging the reader with alterations in the sentences or the tone. You will also want to make a references section where you write down where the information came from. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• The reference format used in Andrew Wyeth is quite complicated so you need some basics to understand it. If you feel brave and want to give it a go anyway, WP:REF and WP:FOOTNOTES are the place you should look. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I left you a tutorial on references. Parts of the article look like they used to be a list, but were simply collapsed into paragraphs. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Category "Sporting Knights": Knighthoods for reasons other than sport

I see Norman Brookes is in the "Sporting Knights" category. His knightood was not for tennis, but "in recognition of service to public service" ([1]). If Brookes is in, we'd also have to add Hubert Opperman, who was best known as a cyclist, but whose knighthood was for "High Commissioner to Malta" ([2]). I'm sure there'd be many other knights who had some sort of sporting career but were honoured for other reasons.

Either we allow anyone who was knighted for any reason and was well known as a sportsman; or we restrict it to people whose knighthoods were specifically for their sporting achievements. I'd favour the latter. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CAT, WP:SUBCAT, WP:CLN, and other links under WP:EIW#Cat. In particular, an excerpt from WP:CAT#Categories do not form a tree:

• Each Wikipedia article can appear in more than one category, and each category can appear in more than one parent category. Multiple categorization schemes co-exist simultaneously. In other words, categories do not form a strict hierarchy or tree structure, but a more general directed acyclic graph (or close to it; see below).

If you want to categorize people by the reason for their knighthood, and the existing category scheme does not, you are (probably) free to set up an additional category tree to handle it. However, before changing anything on Wikipedia, it's good to first determine why things are they way they are now. Presumably whoever set up an existing order had some reasons in mind. Whoever wants to change the existing order must at least be aware of the original reasons - how else can you be sure your new thinking fully accounts for the old thinking? Changing things without first identifying the other players and the stake they may have in the existing order might trigger an edit war. You can edit almost anything you like on Wikipedia, but so can everybody else - thus it's not enough to have a good idea, you must have a good idea that everybody can instantly recognize as being good too, or someone may just revert you. Convincing us on the Help desk is hardly sufficient, you must also convince everyone who cares about who gets to appear in Category:Sporting knights. Note that there is also a List of sporting knights and dames in case you are looking for more things to argue about. --Teratornis (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking the last comment first, this has nothing to do with "looking for more things to argue about". For the record, as a very frequent respondent to questions on the Reference Desks, and have been for well over 4 years, I don't think much of your tone and I don't appreciate being lectured when I've done my best to do the right thing.

I know exactly what you're saying about seeking consensus first, and I agree with that. I have lots of good ideas, but usually I don't implement them without involving others first (unless I'm being guided by WP:Bold). I try to target my discussions to the most relevant place, to get the best chance of attracting the attention of the relevant stakeholders. Hence, I was going to raise this matter at Category talk:Sporting knights, in order to commence a discussion with the very users you suggest I talk to. But the first thing I saw there (apart from the fact that it's a non-existent page at this stage) was:

• "Talk pages in this namespace are generally not watched by many users. Please consider visiting the Help desk for a more prompt response or reviewing the Categorization FAQ for quick tips."

The FAQs gave me no guidance, so I came here. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I commend you for following up. The Help desk gets many questions from people who never let us know whether the help actually helped. The instruction you mention appears to come from MediaWiki:Editnotice-15, which I think needs a bit of editing, to something like: "Please consider visiting the Help desk, and mention that you were viewing this page." Wikipedia is just a bunch of individuals who can't read minds - nobody here knows that you read some other page written by other people that told you to come here, unless you say so. And it is important to say so - see How to Ask Questions the Smart Way - your odds of getting a correct answer improve if you summarize the sources of information you consulted and what led you to pose the question on the Help desk. As for my "tone", I don't understand what you don't like about it - when I use the word "argue" I refer to the activity which is fundamental to all human progress. (How did humans outgrow bad ideas such as slavery and animal sacrifice? By having lots of arguments, fortunately won by the slightly smarter people.) Wikipedia is wonderful because we can argue about everything, and a good percentage of those arguments are potentially productive, at least if we know how to argue. If arguing about the category is a good idea, and I think it is (because if we haven't argued about it, maybe we haven't found the best way yet), then the corresponding list might have something worth arguing about as well. Wikipedia is not a support group, it's a gigantic intellectual contest to see who can write what makes the most sense. When you come to the Help desk, you are asking to be lectured - and if you misspell a page name and neglect to link it, you are forcing respondents to do a bit of extra work to figure out what you are talking about (there is no Category:Sporting Knights as the correct name is probably Category:Sporting knights and Wikipedia's persnickety letter-case rules grant no quarter to the slightest error). When asking for free help, it's generally a good idea to make the helper's job as easy as possible. The Help desk gets lots of questions with these types of errors, and the great majority of them are from users with relatively little experience on Wikipedia. But it doesn't really matter how much time a user has spent on one part of Wikipedia or another - Wikipedia is so complex that everybody is a raw beginner in the many aspects they haven't yet explored. When I go to some part of Wikipedia that is new to me, I don't expect people to stand in awe of my vast experience on some other part. I expect them to treat me like the newb I am there. (Actually they aren't responding to me but rather to just the words I type, some of which might be clever and some which fall a bit short.) All that really matters is whether I get the information I need. And since written text carries no inflection as speech does, it's entirely up to me to decide what "tone" it has when I read it. So I just give it a friendly tone. In any case, I might not be the most congenial person on the Help desk, but it looks like I'm the only one who responded to your question, out of the possibly hundreds of users who monitor this page. Imagine what the people who didn't respond were thinking. (I have no idea, but it's so much more fun to imagine the worst.) --Teratornis (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I concede that I should have mentioned what led me to come here. On reflection, it could have been read as me trying to convince people of my point of view, rather than seeking advice about the best way of raising this issue with those most likely to be other than indifferent to it.

I don't think of these discussions as arguments. An argument is the point you're making or the evidence you're adducing, in order to prosecute your case. It forms part of an overall discussion, debate or conversation.

I mentioned my other experience here not to establish some sort of credentials or to have me treated in any special way. It was merely to highlight that I take very seriously the rules about courtesy, not biting the newbies, and being generally helpful and positive. I felt that a response such as "Convincing us on the Help desk is hardly sufficient" was not that; and when added to the didactic tone of the rest of it, it came across as anything but "friendly". ("And since written text carries no inflection as speech does, it's entirely up to me to decide what "tone" it has when I read it." - I'll just point out that this works in both directions.) But I accept that was your intention, now that you've explained it.

"Changing things without first identifying the other players and the stake they may have in the existing order might trigger an edit war." - well, yes, it might. But where did I ever announce I had decided to change anything? I raised this as a subject for discussion.

"When you come to the Help desk, you are asking to be lectured" - I'd be very surprised if other volunteers on this page have a similar philosophy; but if that's really the way this page works, I won't ever come here again. It's not called the Lecture desk, it's called the Help desk. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) the Category:Sporting knights appears to be a sub-category of Category:British knights by occupation, which (to me) implies that it would include professional athletes whether or not that's what they were knighted for. if you want to propose a redefinition/rearrangement maybe you could work it into the WP:CFD page somehow? or try raising a discussion on the talk pages of the individual knights. Sssoul (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll consider those ideas. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2

Cite Error

Resolved

I keep trying to fix a cite error on InTru 3D but I can't find out what is wrong could someone please fix it and tell me what was wrong. Thank you. Hda3ku (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed in [3]. See Wikipedia:Footnotes. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Second longest river in Australia ?

Wikipedia shows the Darling River as being 1,390 kms long and describes it as the third longest river in Australia. (I must concede I always thought it was the longest or second longest, depending on one's interpretation of its confluence with the Murray.) Furthermore Wikipedia shows the Flinders River as the longest in Queensland and the second longest in Australia, but with a length of 840 kms.

I would have thought that the Murrumbidgee, Warrego and Diamentina, all being over 900 kms, would exceed the Flinders in Qld or Australia.

Does anyone have any clues on this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.14.96.4 (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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. – ukexpat (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many people who live in North America can name the second longest river in North America? Or better yet, correctly state the number of bridges which span it? --Teratornis (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

How to edit the text in the box to the right of an article (re: Pittsburgh Steelers)

I have only made a few edits on Wikipedia but I was inspired by the Super Bowl to just make a quick change to the number of Championships from 5 to 6 on the Pittsburgh Steelers page. It has already been done so it is a moot point. My question is - how do you edit that summary box on the right hand side of the page? If I go to edit page, that text does not appear. I'm referring to what is now

Super Bowl Championships (6) 1974 (IX), 1975 (X), 1978 (XIII), 1979 (XIV), 2005 (XL), 2008 (XLIII)

in the box on the right hand side of the article. It does not seem to be in the "edit current page" area.

Thanks.. Randomplanck (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)randomplanck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomplanck (talk • contribs) 03:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you click "edit this page" at Pittsburgh Steelers then near the top it says {{NFL team| and a lot more. This is an infobox template with documentation at Template:NFL team. It includes the parameter sb_champs which determines what is written in the field you mention. As you noticed, it has been updated.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles that relate to extremely high-profile events tend to attract a lot of attention on Wikipedia, and thus you have to move fast if you want to be the first person to add some extremely well-known recent event. Given the huge audience for the Super Bowl, the most trivial detail for this largely pointless event will receive oodles of loving attention on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, many topics with life-and-death importance go neglected. Wikipedia needs more help with its less popular articles. Check the history of an article to see how many edits it has had recently. Wikipedia has lots of infrequently-edited articles which you can easily be the next to improve. --Teratornis (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, articles about recent, and sometimes pointless events are updated very frequently as the event progresses. I saw at one point that every time the clock stopped during today's Super Bowl, somebody had updated the time almost instantly, along with the score, and virtually every play was updated and documented. Until It Sleeps 05:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do people find the time? --Teratornis (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

More about Infobox ship's code

As I asked before, unlike other infoboxes, Infobox ship dosen't have its real code. If Infobox ship doesn't have its real code, how can it be an infobox. If there is a code, where is it? Aquitania (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox ship just redirects to Template:Infobox Ship Begin/doc which is just a documentation page for using the ship templates. The reason {{Infobox Ship Begin}} has no code is that it is just a header, so it just transcludes basic style info. If you look a template like {{Infobox Ship Career}}, you can see actual code.--Max Talk (+) 04:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's explained in the answer to your question above: #Code for Infobox Ship – ukexpat (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that any template can begin with "Infobox" which is just a part of the template name. It doesn't necessarily mean that the template produces an infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploading

Sir/Mam, I am new user of wikipedia.I want to know that if i want to upload any topic related to society,political or something else.Then what i have to do.From where i can uplaod my any view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketan Goyal (talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If by "upload" you mean "create an article", take a look at the following standard 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.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation.

But note that articles must not be original research and must conform to a neutral point of view. – ukexpat (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Inexperienced Wikipedia User trying to upload image to article correctly, and with respect to appropriate protocol

I have been editing the article Jack Dann, and wanted to replace the current image with something I perceive to be more spontaneous and becoming.

I have found the following image, by photographer Cat Sparks

http://flickr.com/photos/42956650@N00/2919366711/in/set-72157607797775638

I have contacted Ms Sparks, and have been given permission via email to use the image, or others of hers in this Flickr set for the purpose of the Wikipedia article, as I see appropriate, as long as due credit is give to Ms Sparks as author of this image.

I am uncertain what to do from here. I am confused about the correct licensing attributions for upload and how I might proceed to use this imagine without attracting censure or deletion for proceeding inappropriately.Mesmacat (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Answering on user's talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Finding Wikipedia article in Google search

Hi,

I have put an article on Pandit C R Vyas in wikipedia recently. I am checking if one can find that article from google. But when I am searching on Google search, i don't find this article.

Is there anything to be done with the article to be found in google?? What could be other reason??

Regards,

Niranjan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niranjan.ranade (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It takes time for google to index them... around three days on average, it's not instant. -- Mentisock 10:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Which name to use in foreign games?

Game in question is Jump Ultimate Stars which is a Japanese game and has not been translated to English (and it probably never will, but that's an aside). Jump game makes use of characters from numerous Manga titles, many of which have been translated into English and have English names, but most editors on the page seem to like to use the Japanese Romanji (Romanised Japanese) names of Manga instead of their translated English names.

(e.g. [[Fist of the North Star|Hokuto no Ken]] instead of [[Fist of the North Star]])

I personally prefer English, as this is the English Wikipedia and I think this would make the English names more recognisable than the Japanese ones, but I also understand that the majority of the editors (and probably the majority of the editors for Anime/Manga topics) would prefer the Romanji name. I also understand that this is a Japanese only game and that the Romanji names might be more appropriate (although to be completely fair the game uses their Japanese names, which are in Hiragana/Katakana/Kanji/Romanji; in the above example, the name would be 北斗の拳, but using this would be a bit extreme).

If there's no specific ruling saying one way or the other I'm willing to leave it as it is, but if the manual of style suggests that 'official' English translated name is to be preferred, shouldn't we be using the English names for the titles (that have been published in English)?

I understand this is pretty petty and I don't really care one way or the other (well actually I do, or else I wouldn't be asking here) but mainly I'm asking for future reference, so some info would be extremely helpful and in particular, not just for games but for any foreign material in general (i.e. Manga/Anime).

In other words, when dealing with names/nouns in foreign languages, when should the name in the original language (or Romanisation of the original language) be used over an English translated one or vice versa?

Thank you very much.

Serrin (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. could someone please leave a note on my talk page? I realise I'm procrastinating by watching this page constantly instead of studying. Sorry, but I like to find excuses to waste time (e.g. wikipedia).

Changing static link

Anyone knows how to change the 'user' link near the person icon? -- Mentisock 10:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots copyright.

Greetings!

My colleague has put some screenshots into the article about our company here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroCraft Unfortunately, the moderators keep removing the pictures saying it may violate copyright although these very pictures are posted openly on company's website (http://www.herocraft.com). How can we provide the license or what else is needed to post these pictures? Thank you in advance.

Haseth (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Posting images openly on any website, including a company's website, doesn't mean there is no copyright. Also, it's impossible for administrators to know that your colleague is actually allowed to share those images. In order for the images to stick, you need to go to WP:OTRS and send the relevant address a message from a company address that says it is allowed to copy the image, make derivative images and use them commercially without restrictions. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:IOWN, and also WP:COI as you appear to have a conflict of interest. – ukexpat (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

spam filter

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1.I Why is "http://www. fisheaters. com" in the wiki spam filter?

2.) Why can't I find a "special page" (or a FAA in FAQ) on the spam filter?

130.133.8.114 (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• According to the spamlist (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist), the inclusion in the filter was requested by JzG (talk · contribs). You'd have to ask them for the reason. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• You can find many past discussions by searching for fisheaters at http://toolserver.org/~eagle/spamArchiveSearch.php. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The latest discussion (as far as I can tell) is located here, and JzG's reasoning can be found here. — Manticore 14:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks to both of you 130.133.8.114 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

==sN0W== 1'm currently sn0wed in s0 n0 classes F0r me t0day Instead I th0ught i w0uld try t0 learn wikipedia Where d0 i start —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.171.39 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Tutorial would be a good place. You'd also want to get familiar with our key policies. You'll learn more as you go along. Have fun, and happy editing! Chamal ^talk 11:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Title

I have a question regarding the search on wikipedia. When you search for crown oil- you get crown central petroleum article, to get the actual crown oil article, you have to type in crown oil ltd, so typing in crown oil should take you to the actuall crown oil ltd article. Especially that their official website is www.crownoil.co.uk and they own the following domain names: crown oil, crown oils-both take you to their website (www.crownoil.co.uk and www.crownoils.co.uk and even www.crownoil.com). In a short cut-typing in crown oil in the search option should take you to crown oil article; and typing in crown central petroleum should take you to crown central petroleum article. I just think that if a company is not called crown oil (but crown central petroleum), how can it take to an article of a differently named company? Am I right? Crownoil1947 (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• There were some serious capitalization issues too. All is solved now. _ Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Adminbots

Is there a list of adminbots somewhere? I've looked at Category:Wikipedia adminbots but it isn't comprehensive. User:RedirectCleanupBot isn't there and I'm sure there must be plenty of others who aren't. Is there a definitive list? -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 13:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Look in Category:Wikipedia adminbots. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 13:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:RedirectCleanupBot is no longer a Bot, although it remains an Admin. _Gb^T/c 13:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it is no longer an admin either - see the meta log. Bencherlite^Talk 13:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point - didn't think to look there. _Gb^T/c 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Pad lock

What was used before a pad lock was inveted???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.144.37 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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. Algebraist 15:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Referencing to 1 book but many different pages

In the article List of military science fiction works and authors we have a source which provided many references, but on different pages. What is the easiest way to format these references? Debresser (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

<ref name="longbook"/>{{rp|424-5}} is one way, or was that not what you were asking? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not precisely what I meant, but since it says on the template:rp page that this is the only thing to do, so that's what I did. It's not bad, actually. It's just that I would have prefered to see the pagenumbers in the footnotes and not inside the article. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Shortened footnotes. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I didn't find any real solutions here. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could have a simple list of references manually, then include a Notes section with the book's title and page number, using the <ref> system. See English heraldry for example. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

See article Alpha Phi Alpha where the book is cited once in the Reference section, then each page number(s) is cited when inforation from the book is used within the article (i.e Wesley 1950, op. cit, pp. 241).--Ccson (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

How do I upload a picture from Wikicommons to Wikipedia?

--Resr Vaguery (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You probably don't want to reupload the image, just use File links as usual on WP and all should be fine. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it's already in Commons then you can use it in Wikipedia without uploading it to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Double images

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen in some articles (don't remember which...) images that are doubled up horizontally in the same thumbnail frame. Can anyone tell me the syntax to achieve this, or just point me to an example? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You want this template for horizontally aligned or this template for vertical. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't edit a page, some sort of page protection i can't see?

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying for a while to revert two edits to TUGS, made most recently with IP addresses. However, trying this with Twinkle and using the standard "editing an older version of the page" method both doesn't seem to work. I don't think its a problem with the cache as i first tried to revert it last night and it has still not shown up as changed. As well as this, it appears on my watchlist as the last edit by the IP address, not mine.

Does anyone know if there is some kind of page protection which i cannot see? Thank you --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 19:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP reverted themself. Thus your attempts to revert the two edits are treated by MediaWiki as a null edit, and essentially ignored. Algebraist 19:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)works for me Dendodge Talk^Contribs 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, ok. I don't really know what's happened but everything's fine now so this is resolved. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Logging in

I can't figure out how to access the page I have been working on. Under my preferences it says that I am logged into 1 project, but I can;t figure out how to get back to my page. The page I am working on is called The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book. Please help me get back to my page so I can continue to work on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talentsmart2 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No page The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book exists on the English Wikipedia, or ever has. Are you sure that was the precise name of the page you were working on? There was a page Emotional Intelligence Quick Book, but that was deleted two years ago. Algebraist 19:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Does your records show that I am working on a project? If so can you help me get there. I might have forgot to name the articule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talentsmart2 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The one project referred to in your preferences is the English Wikipedia. You are there already. Algebraist 19:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyway to see what I have been working on. I was working on a page last week until Thursday afternoon. I don't want to have to start over on it, so can you see what I have been working on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talentsmart2 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All of the contributions you have made under this username are listed here. I don't see any to the article to which you refer. Maybe an admin can see the user's deleted contributions? TN‑X-Man 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your article Emotional intelligence Quick Book (note the capitalization - wikipedia articles are case sensitive) was deleted as blatant advertising If you would like to rewrite it in a more neutral tone you may try to do so It may be best to work in a private userpage (like drafting your article at User:Talentsmart/sandbox) then ask here for someone neutral to review it Once it meets wikipedia guidelines it can then be moved into article space Please also read our conflict of interest guidelines Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you would like I can restore the article you were working on and move it to your userspace Let me know on my talk page if you want me to do that Hermione1980 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And please also read WP:Spam and WP:N. – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And please stop recreating the article - it's back at The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book, and has been tagged for deletion per WP:CSD#G3. – ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of valid wikilinks to Pygmy Marmoset

Ok, an dynamic ip address:

• 129.120.193.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 129.120.84.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 129.120.84.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 129.120.84.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

has for the last couple of days removing wikilinks to Pygmy Marmoset. Not sure why, maybe they are trying to orphan the article. They take 5 minutes to remove the wikilinks, and then disappear. After a few hours, or a day they come back and do it all over again. I went and read WP:AIV, but they say there that IPs have to be active. Where exactly should I report something like this? BeckyAnne(talk) 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - try the administrators' incidents noticeboard if it continues. Bencherlite^Talk 20:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged all four talk pages with a shared ip notice - maybe once they see their college has been "identified" they will cease and desist, but I will keep a watch on them also and if they receive three more warnings, report them to AIV for vandalism. It's not just the Pygmy article though - there are 7 more articles common in between those four accounts, so it might be helpful to put them on your watchlist so we can more easily see the vandalism occuring from this location. ArcAngel (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

They almost never edit the Pygmy article it is always articles that wikilink to the it. BeckyAnne(talk) 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Now it was done by 76.78.147.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which according to whois, is part of the same college. BeckyAnne(talk) 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved to the administrators' incidents noticeboardBeckyAnne(talk) 01:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion code, what does this mean?

I am currently working on a page called The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book and after putting the "in construction" tag on the page, the page was deleted while I was working on it with a message that says: R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace: userfied to User:Talentsmart2/The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book to allow more work before the article is put into mainspace.

What does that mean, and how can I work on my page without having it be continuously deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talentsmart2 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It means your article has been moved to this page where you can work on improving it. It's not in the main article space, but in your user space. TN‑X-Man 20:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I moved your page into your userspace because I was not prepared to have a one-sentence article hanging around in the main encyclopaedia on the vague promise that you would be working on it "this week". You had previously been advised to work on the article first before submitting it. I have already left a message on your user talk about this, along with a welcome note. Bencherlite^Talk 20:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I presume that the articule I was working on last Thursday was also moved to that area. Can you please help me access that articule so I can edit it so its not as advertising.Talentsmart2 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't, it was deleted outright. I am not going to resurrect that deleted version across for you, since it was written like an advertisement and you need to start again from the beginning. Bencherlite^Talk 20:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone else now has - User:Talentsmart2/sandbox. Bencherlite^Talk 20:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Same IP?

Is there a way to tell if these: [5] and [6] are the same person? I'm trying to find the root of a little problem. Is there a template to provide a user who does too much or only user talk page edits in a forum-like environment with a lot of "personal experience" descriptions of drug use. They've found their way to my talk page, yay. Mjpresson (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's likely. WHOIS returns the same ISP for both IPs, meaning if it's not the same person, it's two siblings or two friends with the same ISP. There is no template for this sort of problem; just leave a note on their talkpage explaining (civilly) that whatever they are doing is against Wikipedia rules, and if they start spewing profanities or insults or don't stop, then get an admin involved. Xenon54 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Converting Bare References

I notice some articles have converted "bare referencs" and there is a "tool" or bot that does this. How would I convert bare references using such a tool? [7] is the tool (I think)97.101.183.225 (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some bots which do this (badly in my opinion). The easiest way is to do it yourself. A "Bare reference" is where there is only a blind html link like this: [8] and nothing else. Ideally, all references should contain full bibliographic information (author, title, larger work containing it, publication info, etc. etc.) The best way to do this is to use the citation templates found here: WP:CITET. I would recommend opening the bare reference, and converting it to a full reference using the citation templates yourself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

February 3

Why are commas and periods usually placed outside of quotation marks, where they should be placed inside?

For example: Today, the inhabitants of the village had to hear her so-called "apology". Instead of: Today, the inhabitants of the village had to hear her so-called "apology."

The latter is grammatically correct per Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary, as well as a number of other well-know publications. --96.232.54.7 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Because on Wikipedia, we don't follow Webster's style guide, we follow our own Manual of Style, which requires that punctuation go outside the quotation marks unless it is part of the quotation. Algebraist 00:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can the Manual be changed? --96.232.54.7 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it could, that's the great thing about a wiki. But things usually have a reason for being that way. You could try suggesting it on the talkpage of the manual and see what others think about it.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see here, where it is explained why this method is used. The method you mentioned is also used in some cases, as shown there. I don't think any suggestion to change the manual to incorporate only your method would be accepted because of the reasons mentioned there. You can try, of course. Chamal ^talk 00:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you would get any support to change MOS from British English speaking/writing editors. – ukexpat (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you make your own page?

I want to know how to make your own page on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.228.242 (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, 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.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You cannot make an article about yourself unless you are famous; for example, a movie star, a politician, a bishop, etc. You can, however, sign up for a free Wikipedia account, and make a user page, on which you can write all kinds of stuff about yourself. Creating an account has many other benefits as well. --96.232.54.7 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually you aren't allowed to write an article about yourself regardless of whether or not you are famous as that would be a conflict of interest. Although anybody else could.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 00:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. How would anybody know though? --96.232.54.7 (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well usually it's blatantly obvious. They may say so themselves, make it sound like advertisement (WP:NPOV), only edit that article (WP:SPA), have a username that is the same as the article (WP:UAA), make an article about something nobody has heard about (WP:NOTABLE), etc. Although you're right, it would be hard to tell but if it really is that significant then it probably already has an article written about it.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 01:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is no rule that says you cannot write an article about yourself assuming you meet the notability criteria. The appropriate guideline -- WP:AUTO -- says it is "strongly discouraged". – ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Strongly discouraged" meaning "There is no way you will ever do it in such a way that is acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, so don't even try". Seriously, if you are notable enough, someone who doesn't know you personally will eventually create a Wikipedia article about you. If there's not enough information in the world outside of Wikipedia for people who don't know you personally to write a quality article about you, then you aren't notable enough. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Name

Why was "Recentchanges" changed to "RecentChanges"? "Allpages" to "AllPages"? "Whatlinkshere" to "WhatLinksHere"? JCI (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason that www.expertsexchange.com moved to www.experts-exchange.com. Well, for similar reasons. All the old page names still work, but the CamelCase makes it easier for people to parse the individual words correctly. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Map of 2018 FIFA World Cup bids.svg

I accidentally uploaded File:Map of 2018 FIFA World Cup bids.svg both here and on the Commons back in June and it's been a candidate for speedy deletion since. I need a sysop to delete the image from English Wiki so we can use the up to date one on the Commons. Thanks!--Patrick «» 02:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the template {{NowCommons}} to the image page, this places the image in the deletion categories and acts as a speedy deletion template. Nanonic (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this is one part of Wikipedia I have little experience in.--Patrick «» 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted it. Theresa Knott | token threats 04:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

who is the publisher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.149.216 (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Of Wikipedia? The Wikimedia Foundation. – ukexpat (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking to cite Wikipedia in a paper or other academic report, you might find Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia helpful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I use the friendly and twinkle scripts on Wikipedia. Do either of them come with rollback rights, because I see the option to rollback on diff pages. Its supposed to be a granted userright, right? I don't believe I have been granted this yet by an admin, yet how can I be able to rollback? Cheers, Mazeau (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ROLLBACK and Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback for more information. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Tools like twinkle do some magic and give you the rollback button even if you don't have the rollback right (which you don't have at the moment).--Commander Keane (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the "Geological Information System(GIS)"?

Hitesh2001 (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's called the Geographic information system, and if you click those blue words, it will bring you to our article on GIS. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it seems some people use the term "geological information system". I would guess it's like a geographic information system which includes geologic depth. If the questioner would tell us where he/she first heard the term, we might determine whether he/she really means "geological information system" or "geographic information system." Unfortunately, most supplicants on the Help desk have not read How to Ask Questions the Smart Way and so they omit critical details from their questions, such as the history of how they arrived at having their questions, and what goals they are trying to advance by asking their questions. Thus we cannot be sure whether a questioner really means what they wrote in some cases. --Teratornis (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Song infobox

I just noticed a user has removed a song infobox concerning Please Read the Letter, claiming the single by another duo is more important than the original song. I was under the impression it was perfectly within guidelines to have the song infobox for the original. Comments please HelenWatt (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would probably bring it up on the talk page. Since I don't know the subject matter, I can't comment on what should or should not be there. I would think, that if nothing else - the original song info should be included in the body of the subject, if it's not in the info box. (sourced and verifiable of course). — Ched (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well is there some guidelines on multiple infobox usage? HelenWatt (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A compromise would be to include both infoboxes. Several songs do just that. However, the most important place to have this discussion is on the article talk page. If the two of you cannot reach a reasonable agreement on how to proceed, you can bring in extra help via dispute resolution, for example seeking a Third Opinion or a request for comment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm not involved, but I'm interested in seeing something in writing on infobox usage. There doesn't appear to be anything which discusses this on the template Talk pages. HelenWatt (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) there was some discussion on this page here not long ago about the song and single templates - maybe some of it is relevant to your concerns. and/or you could raise the question on the Music Project talk page. Sssoul (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(Rev) Billy Simmons

Billy Simmons sometimes referred to as "Rev" is a Chicago based guitarist, lyricist, and cosmetologist. (Rev) Billy who is origionally from Wichita Ks arrived in in the mid 90's to persue a career in music, eventually securing a spot in the band "Specula" for one album and a small tour. During the mid to late 90's (Rev) Billy also had a abbreviated run as a session guitarist/songwriter for R.C.A. Recording artist "Ké". In the early 2000's(Rev) Billy did session work as lead guitarist for the band "Morphine Angel" who were reportedly to put out a 10 song album on their managers label which is still incomplete due to reported tension within the band. (Rev) Billy continues to record solo material in the Chicago area occasionally plays as a guest guitarist. As of late 2008 (Rev) Billy and Tim Schroeder have started a duo called "Blunderbus" and are currently in the studio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.144.208.198 (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the question is here. If you would like to create an article, simply create an account, and you'll be able to quickly start adding articles by being Bold. If you prefer not to create an account, you can request an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Hope that helps, if not could you please explain exactly what you are asking. — Ched (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• For people who don't wish to create an account. Article suggestions are better put through WP:AFC (requests tend to linger) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia

my teacher told me that Wikipedia articles are just a collaboration of news articles put together in a way to create article about a single subject, Is this true? I have been told that 98% of references are from the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.163.251 (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure exactly which percentage of references are news articles, but your teacher is basically right. We only compile information that is already available. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Actually, I'd say that (with the exception of extremely current topics), considerably less than half our material is from newspapers and television/radio/web reportage. Most of the content tends to be from books, magazines, academic journals, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

References from the news is probably not the best to use, Reporters write that stuff, storys get exaggerated ALOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolkittie (talk • contribs) 12:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That is why we have to adhere to neutral point of view and use reliable sources. Wikipedia articles are not a collection of news reports, article writing requires much more than that. Also, news reports are not the only sources used. Chamal ^talk 12:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedias interpretation of reliable sources seems to be popular websites and well known newpapers. If i were to write an article using a book nobody on here has heard of, would anyone really check if the book even exists? Britannica for instance has 4000 highly specialized people who check and make sure the best sources (not just reliable ones) are used. Apparently there are only around 1000 admins (about 700) active that are made up of people of little or no understanding of how to write an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.163.251 (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not just websites, but all kinds of sources. Maybe this page will help you to understand more. A book that nobody has heard of would hardly pass as a reliable source. There are ways to check if the book exists (for example, ISBN numbers or even a simple google search). In our better articles (FAs, GAs etc) the factual accuracy is generally checked strictly. In stubs etc, this may be somewhat lax, because of the large number of articles there are. There are actually 847 admins, but their job is not to check for factual accuracy. This can be done by any user (numbering 48,528,559) or reader, and an admin's role is different. There are a lot of people who do cleanup work, copyediting and stuff. I myself is not an admin here, but Mgm who answered your earlier question is. So as you can see, all of us work to keep this place as an encyclopedia. All our articles are not perfect of course, and they have to be developed gradually. BTW, the facts given in articles can be checked by the readers themselves. You can see some small numbers next to the text that will direct you to the source that information comes from. If there isn't anything like that for some controversial claim, you can request it by adding {{citation needed}} there. It's hard to explain everything here, I suggest you read our core policies, which will show you how things work around here. There are also some links at the bottom of that page, which will take you to more detailed policy and guideline details. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Someone added a book reference yesterday with an improbable title to an article on my watchlist. It was an actual book with quite relevant information. I personally have amassed a fairly extensive library related to my work here, and have found many more references in the local libraries. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Strictly speaking, the teacher's original claim has an incorrect connotation. To say Wikipedia is "just a collaboration of news articles (actually: reliable sources) put together in a way to create article (sic)" is like saying Pelé was "just" a footballer, Mozart was "just" a composer, Science is "just" a collection of ideas, etc. The qualifier "just" might mislead the hearer into thinking Pelé was not much different than the average kid kicking a football around in the street, that Mozart was like any other tunesmith, and science is like any other collection of ideas. All of these connotations would be very wrong, because all four of these examples are considerably more than "just" the particular one of their attributes that the teacher's cognitive capacity can grasp. There are thousands (maybe millions) of Web sites that aggregate, summarize, or reorganize previously published content in various ways. The vast majority of them are far less successful than Wikipedia (which is the world's fifth most valuable Web property now). This suggests there is quite a bit more to Wikipedia than the ignorant teacher has thus far figured out. Also, it is not entirely true that Wikipedia has no original work - we have our images and other media files which in many cases are original works that Wikipedia users donate to the project. --Teratornis (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ask your teacher to describe how one of your textbooks is created. How is this better or worse than how Wikipedia is created? Ask you teacher if Wikipedia's approach is better or worse than other encyclopedias, and why. Note that it is much easer to check the sources of a Wikipedia article than it is to check the sources of a textbook or of traditional a encyclopedia. -Arch dude (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sociophysics

Wikipedia is an enormous help to which I desperately wish to contribute to , but cannot because of the paypal blog: it would be appreciated if a proper researched article on 'Sociophysics' is displayed asap. ---ijaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autistic49 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Explain "because of the paypal blog", please. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I too cannot understand the question. However, that rarely stops me from attempting to answer - life's more fun on the ragged edge of coherence. Just picking up on some of the keywords, and ignoring the sentence structure, in a Google-like way:

• foundation:Donate explains how to donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation. If you can't or don't use Paypal, see:
  • foundation:Donate/WaysToGive/en
• "Contribute" can also have a non-monetary meaning, as in helping to edit our articles. See WP:COFAQ.
• Wikipedia has no article on Sociophysics at the moment. However, see the (most likely related) article: Econophysics, and you can:
  • Search Wikipedia with Google for: sociophysics to see where else we mention the term.
  • Examine the history of our article Econophysics to identify other users who might want to create a Sociophysics article.

--Teratornis (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimmys talk page

Can someone take a look at Jimmys chat page - I suspect someone has messed with his archive box !

Cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for letting us know. Woody (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing a Page

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Wiki

I have just edited a page , but the information added will not align itself with the rest of the text after I have pressed the "Save Page " .

It continues t0 be highlighted in the edited form .

Am I missing something .

I would be glad for your help .

LweeraRuxing (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the page for you. GlassCobra 16:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Great ......many thanks .Ruxing (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Viewing .svg files with IE 7.0

I am absolutely sure I am not the first one who stumbled into this. I have searched entire Wikipedia, I have read the article on scalable vector graphics, I searched the F.A.Q. and help desk, and only thing I could find is a recommendation to download and install the discontinued Adobe plug-in for IE 7.0. I did this, to be sure, and found out that it does not support scrolling, so I could only see the upper left corner of the image, or the whole image greatly zoomed out, when nothing can be really seen. I am not a technician, and I really do not care a bit about graphic formats and their pros and cons. What I care about is that the most massively used web-browser does not support this obscure format used in the most massively visited on-line Encyclopedia, and I simply cannot see most of the images I am interested in. Naturally, switching to other browser just for Wikipedia's sake is simply not an option for me. Could you please tell me what plug-in should I use to cope with this? I would be grateful for a web link. And please no jokes about "pluggin' in one's own brains", I have heard that one already :-) 194.44.31.194 (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not an obscure format by any means, but I still would be interested in the replies, though I never use IE7. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean any insults. I just supposed that if it is not supported in IE, than it should be for a reason. Namely this format ought to be so scarcely used that supporting it is not feasible. 194.44.31.194 (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Adobe has an SVG plugin: http://www.adobe.com/svg/  – ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Internet Explorer has lagged behind Mozilla Firefox in several aspects of development, for example Tabbed browsing was available in Firefox before MSIE, and security features such as NoScript may still be ahead of MSIE. As the Scalable Vector Graphics article says, SVG is an open standard, which diametrically opposes Microsoft's explicit goal of maintaining proprietary advantage. Thus it is hardly surprising, though no less dismaying, that "All major modern web browsers except Microsoft Internet Explorer support and render SVG markup directly." If you (Mr./Ms. 194.44.31.194) want to fully enjoy the free content on Wikipedia, then you should reconsider your refusal to switch to a non-crippled Web browser. You are correct when you suppose that if MSIE does not support SVG, it is for a reason. The reason is, quite simply, that Microsoft (correctly) views the entire open source movement as a direct threat to its vast revenue, which it built through a comprehensive strategy of vendor lock-in. Microsoft wants information to be not free - Microsoft wants to own all the information it can, and charge you to use it. Notice that you asked your question on Wikipedia's Help desk, instead of trying to ask Microsoft to tell you how to fix their broken browser. Microsoft would charge you $90/hour to listen to you telling Microsoft about their bugs. --Teratornis (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more. I switched to Firefox several years ago and do not regret it at all. It has its issues, but with hundreds of add-ins available it is a very customisable tool. However, let's not forget that some organisations and companies do not permit installation of unapproved software on their PCs. If that is the situation facing the original poster, all I can do is suggest that they lobby their corporate IT organisation as strongly as possible. – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Another option would be to install Inkscape or some other SVG editor, and then the questioner could download SVG files and view them offline. That's a bit clunky, but it might be worth the nuisance if the questioner wants to take a detailed look at these files. I'm aware that many organizations do not permit various software packages on their computers. I wonder what those organizations think of their employees browsing to Wikipedia on company time? Wikipedia has an awful lot of content that probably doesn't contribute to a typical employee's productivity, not to mention a fair amount that is not safe for work. Depending on the job, there might only be a few Wikipedia articles that directly apply, but on the other hand some of them might be extremely valuable to someone in a work context. In any case, the questioner did not say whether he/she is browsing to Wikipedia from work. --Teratornis (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, jumping in here, but are we absolutely sure IE7 doesn't support SVG? I've just tried this wikibooks page in IE7 and it appears to work just fine (i.e. it looks the same as it does in Firefox). I've hovered over the images, and checked that I'm actually looking at SVGs... Are there some maybe aspects of the SVG spec that don't render in IE7? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To quote from Scalable Vector Graphics, "As of October 2008[update], Windows Internet Explorer is the only major browser not to provide native SVG support. IE requires a plugin to render SVG content." Presumably, you have some kind of plugin installed. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I must do. I had a quick scan of the add-ins, and the only interesting ones were Adobe PDF stuff and Java, but I'm by no means an IE person (and my IE will have been installed by my employer's IT department, so is quite possibly non-standard). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think MediaWiki renders SVGs as PNGs for thumbnails, like in that wikibooks page. However if you go to the SVGs image description page and click on the image, IE7, for me, opens a file download window, whereas Firefox displays the image.--Commander Keane (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha! (Feeling slightly daft now...) You're quite right - when I checked an image's properties, it was indeed a PNG. Thanks for that! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) This reminds me of a sign I saw hanging in a computer room (back in the days when you had to go to a special room to find a computer):

• If it is there, and you can see it, it is real.
• If it is not there, and you can see it, it is virtual.
• If it is there, and you cannot see it, it is transparent.
• If it is not there, and you cannot see it, it is deleted.

--Teratornis (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to everyone for such detailed replies. It seems to me that really the only option to view these .svg files normally is to switch to some other browser. What concerns me most is that if IE, which is developed with Microsoft's huge investments and manpower, is still bugged and incomplete, then just HOW bugged and incomplete are the rivals? Again, no insults intended and I am in no way a Microsoft fan, but I think my concerns are obvious. Or is this just a result of a distorted view due to powerful and aggressive advertisement? 194.44.31.194 (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.31.194 (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who confused more than I enlightened, take what I say wth a pinch of salt...! Powerful advertising is (IMHO) a factor; Internet Explorer was, for a period (after the Browser wars), superior to its main rival (Netscape Navigator). Development then largely halted, and several browsers (notably Firefox, but also Opera and others) stole a march on IE. Latterly IE has been actively developed again, and has picked up some features which other browsers have had as standard for some time (e.g. tabbed browsing). The IE team have also been more involved in standards bodies - hence my surprise that IE7 didn't support SVG - a standard that's been around for a long time.

The open source development model, too, plays a part (again, IMHO) - this radically reduces development costs and potentially increases the number of developers. Or, put another way, Microsoft have to pay IE's developers, and those developers might be taken off IE development as required (as the Windows Vista launch date approached, for example). In contrast, Firefox development is open to anyone who's interested - unpaid, largely, but Firefox developers will be developing it in their spare time so pay isn't the same concern.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem;CC on CBS prime time programs

Why has there been only part CC on prime shows and are not only there but don't match the person doing the talking? I'm a hearing impaired 60 yr old which depends on CC because audio is not clear to my aid . Could you try to fix the problem for me on shows like CSI and other CBS prime shows. Thanks if problem is fixed. Chuck Schmutzer, Apache Junction AZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.47.52 (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.9 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. Algebraist 17:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Even though this is not exactly the right place, I did a quick check and found the "feedback" page at the CBS web site. Click here for their feedback page. -Arch dude (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I post my article?

I currently have an article written in my user pages, but I would like it to be officially available in Wikipedia. How do I go about moving it? Rural Telephone (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In its current form the article would be speedily deleted as spam if moved to the mainspace. Please read WP:Spam and WP:Corp for guidance. Also, your user name is in breach of the user name policy as it appears to be promotional. – ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

RSS Feed

what is an RSS feed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.203.54 (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See our article on RSS Feed. You can also ask at the reference desk, where they answer specific knowledge questions. TN‑X-Man 18:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please check my posting to see how well it follows wiki guidelines

Resolved

 – stubified and moved to The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I am excited about posting my first page onto wikipedia. I was hoping someone could check my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Talentsmart2/sandbox to see how well it fits into wikipedia's guidelines and to offer any suggestions to help me make it wiki ready. I really appreciate your help and am excited about contributing to such a great wealth of knowledge <--Talentsmart2 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it still reads like a promotional piece, the reason that it was speedily deleted yesterday. If all the promo stuff is cut out, it would not even be a stub. Please take a look at articles on other books to see how they are written. – ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the problem the first paragraph, the quote, or the table of contents? I tried to model it after the 5 dysfunctions of a team by Patrick Lencioni and cite all the areas that could be seen as promotional. Could you please advise me about the best course of action to take. I really appreciate your help.--66.253.114.35 (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See my reply on User talk:Talentsmart2. – ukexpat (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It has now been stubified and moved to The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book. Marking as resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it be uncivil of me to note that it appears Emotional Intelligence does not seem to help much with decoding Wikipedia's stupefyingly complex policies and guidelines? In a way, it's kind of sad to see someone's good-faith effort getting marked up with all those scolding template messages, but I guess that's just Wikipedia rolling forward with its customary grim efficiency. --Teratornis (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And the OP has now been blocked. I agree with Teratornis that WP policies and guidelines are stupefyingly complex - if someone had set out to design them to put off or even to entrap new editors, they could hardly have done better. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As a philosophical aside (I'm not really qualified to use the word "philosophical" but who is?), lately I've been pondering the question the question of whether Wikipedia could be simpler than it is. (Merely wishing it were simpler, as WP:CREEP seems to do, is kind of pointless if Wikipedia cannot be (much) simpler.) If what Wikipedia wants to do is unavoidably complex, maybe Wikipedia's complexity reflects the underlying complexity of the problem. As Fred Brooks explained decades ago in his No Silver Bullet paper, you can only simplify the "accidental" complexity of a system. The "essential" complexity has to remain, or you break the system. While we (probably) cannot make Wikipedia much simpler, we might do a better job of proactively informing new users of our rules before they spend hours on editing projects that were doomed from the start. Currently we make zero attempt to check whether new users understand anything at all about Wikipedia before just letting them do whatever. It's like having a ski resort where the proprietors make no attempt to steer skiers toward the runs that fit their skills. Just let the novices "be bold" with the black diamond run, why bother trying to warn them? Maybe it's just me, but I think failing to warn people of impending danger, and failing to get some indication that they understand the warning, is contrary to being civil, in a passive aggressive kind of way. --Teratornis (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I Put An Image In?

I tried adding an image to an article, by adding a Photobucket link, but it didn't work. Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.190.157 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to upload it to Wikipedia first. Wikipedia:IMAGE#Uploading_images This might help. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But to do that you will need to create an account and be autoconfirmed (10 edits and account at least 4 days old). Also, please read the free use policy. The rules as to which images can be uploaded and used in articles are very strict. If it is an image that you have taken yourself, please consider uploading it to Commons so it is available to all the Wikimedia projects. – ukexpat (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that uploading images is one of the harder things for a new user to figure out on Wikipedia, what with all the crazy licensing stuff - don't blame us, blame those lawyers who invented the strange fiction of intellectual property sometime after the invention of movable type. I'm looking at Photobucket (wow, it makes Flickr look technologically advanced) and the terms of use are rather chilling. Some excepts:

• Except as provided within this Agreement, you may not copy, modify, translate, publish, broadcast, transmit, distribute, perform, display, or sell any Content appearing on or through the Photobucket Services.
• The Photobucket Services are for the personal use of Users and may be used for promotional purposes as well, but direct commercial endeavors may only be used if they are specifically endorsed or authorized by Photobucket.

Since we prefer our images to have the Four Freedoms, Photobucket is not looking good for us. If you would consider uploading your photos to Flickr instead of Photobucket, and license them under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, the users at Wikimedia Commons have worked out a relatively simple procedure for uploading them to Commons so Wikipedia articles can use them. See for example the Flickr photos (by other people) I have uploaded. Only a fraction of photos on Flickr are under the two licenses we can use, but that's still a lot of freely usable photos. --Teratornis (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A comment on the Fraternity of Free Masonry

How do I post a comment of a personal experience in my membership in the Fraternity of Free Masonry? I think my comment would be of great help to the membership: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.193.178 (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you cannot - that would be original research and not capable of verification by reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The above reply is about as good as correct if you are a relatively new user on Wikipedia. With enough knowledge of Wikipedia, you might be able to get around the original research problem. Your basic options include:

• Find another user-editable Web site that lets you post about your personal experience. (Perhaps MySpace, or one of the Alternative outlets.) This is by far the easiest option for someone new to Wikipedia.
• If you are really determined to try to put your personal experience on Wikipedia, in some guise, then first you must find a reliable, published source that either recounts the personal experience of yourself, or of someone else whose personal experience is very similar to yours. Then you can cite that source for whatever claims of an encyclopedic nature you want to make on Wikipedia about this subject.

Note that very few people who are new to Wikipedia would be able to perform the second option anything like quickly. Just for starters you need to click on all the blue words we linked and read the friendly manuals behind them. Also, it's one thing to post on Wikipedia; it's quite another to make your contributions stick. Wikipedia encourages everyone to be bold and try stuff, but in many cases being bold before you have read all the manuals just leads to other users removing your contributions or mercilessly editing them beyond all recognition. If you're approaching Wikipedia with a certain specific goal in mind that you formulated without much knowledge of Wikipedia, you might find Wikipedia frustrating. A more reliably gratifying approach is to read lots of manuals, spend lots of time looking at things, and then start formulating goals consistent with the nature of Wikipedia as you begin to grasp how things work here. --Teratornis (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Saving visited pages

Is there a way to save and sort through visited pages for further reference, sort of like a WIKINOTES? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcap4 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not through Wikipedia itself. You can check your browser's history for pages you've visited recently, or you can bookmark the pages you want to come back to. Hermione1980 23:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bookmarking is the preferred way for most people. I use it, but I put the ones that I really want/need to read on my userpage so I won't forget (like the table here). flaminglawyer 23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Or add them to you watchlist. Even if there have been no recent edits, all of your watchlisted pages are viewable if you click the "view and edit watchlist" link at the top of your watchlist. – ukexpat (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your user page (and any number of user subpages you may want to create) can function as your wikinotes. See for example my blatherings here: User:Teratornis/Energy. Whenever you see something you would like to work into an article, but you're not ready to do it yet, or it's not complete and you need to collect more information before taking it to article space, you can add it to your notes. This can also be useful for other users who want to examine your work. However, note that your user page is visible to the whole world, and you have to adhere to Wikipedia's rules for content (see Wikipedia:User page). --Teratornis (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is Wikimarks which does what you requested. DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

February 4

data collection tools

I have some ideas about factors that influence article accuracy, vandalism, and community formation around wikipedia articles/topics. I was wondering how i might gain access to data collection tools that might give me information such as: rate of edits as a fx of time for an individual page, page views as a fx of time for a page, most viewed/edited pages at any given time, bot activity, etc. I know most of the relevant data is right there in the history but I don't know how best to harvest it. Do these sorts of research tools already exist for wikipedia, or is this something that needs to be written? --Shaggorama (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone reading the Help desk just now knows exactly where to find what you need (although I've been wrong before), but you can start hunting here: WP:EIW#Research, WP:EIW#Query, and WP:EIW#Statistic. Lots of people have done lots of studies and data mining on Wikipedia's database. Maybe you can find someone who has built the tools you want, or something close enough to customize. --Teratornis (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To start with: http://www.wikirage.com/ and http://stats.grok.se/ --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also a list of Special pages which might have some links that would be of interest. (perhaps even Statistics) — Ched (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I foregot my password

i foregot my password how do i get it back i do remember my username though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.218.8 (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have registered an email address for you account, then go to Special:Userlogin and request a new password. If you haven't, you'll have to create a new account. Algebraist 01:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

thanky0u I will tri that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.218.8 (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you need to create a new account, make sure you supply an email address so you can regain any forgotten passwords in the future. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-expanding Template Parameters

A more specific question than many, but definately under the heading of "how to use WikiPedia"

Parameters do not get expanded when they are inside nowiki tags or XML-style extension tags.

Is there any sensible way to work around this? For example:

{{Template:Query|Q=rep_StockStatus}}

where the template code is:

<include nopre noesc src="https://my.domain.com/FetchData?q={{{Q}}}" />

which should expand to:

<include nopre noesc src="https://my.domain.com/FetchData?q=rep_StockStatus" />

but does not, the PHP code doesn't get parsed data, it sees https://my.domain.com/FetchData?q={{{Q}}}, which is pretty useless. Kenpem (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would bring it up at the WP:Village Pump, it's more of a technical issue with the parser rather than anything we here can answer. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 01:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't explain what you are trying to do. Where do you want to use such a template, and what effect are you trying for? Describe the goal, not the step. It stands to reason that if the MediaWiki designers blocked a certain type of parameter expansion, there probably won't be a precise way to circumvent their block. That means you may have to fall back to a completely different approach to whatever you are trying to do. Since you didn't say what you are trying to do, only the specific path you chose to do it, it's hard for anyone to say what a good workaround might be. --Teratornis (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:Version shows mw:Extension:Include is not installed on Wikipedia (and for good reason). How is this under the heading of "how to use Wikipedia"? Do you want it for another wiki using the MediaWiki software. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright question

Resolved

I have a question about File:Runescape moderators.png. It shows the icons used in the MMORPG RuneScape to identify moderators. The uploader (Zachera) specified a CC-BY 3.0 licence. My question: can this image be speedied -- it uses copyrighted works and doesn't declare fair use and places said works under a free licence -- and if so, which tag? The only fair-use related tags seem to be for images that claim fair use and don't have a rationale or for images that are completely missing licence information, neither of which apply here. Xenon54 (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Use CSD F11. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 01:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Gone. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox UK place}} slightly borked problem

Resolved

See Eorodale. Why is the Postcode District borked? The anchor has an extra pipe, but wikipedia is not even turning it into a red link. Confused. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Because postcode_area and postcode_district are linked and both need to be present. postcode_area just links whatever is in postcode_district to the article HS postcode area. To cut a long story short, just enter HS2 in postcode_district and it'll work. Nanonic (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

how to delete the page that I created?

Hi, how to delete the page that I created? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.166.99 (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Db-g7}} may be appropriate but I cannot say for sure without knowing which page is it. This is the only edit registered to your IP address. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Solving An Editing Dispute

I recently came across a dispute between two sides pushing two different edits. This dispute has been going on off-and-on for over a year, and certain editors involved in it are making it hostile, as well as making it suicide for a new person to join in. I am interested in that matter being disputed, but hesitant to actually get involved directly for that very reason. So, I was wondering, is there some place where this dispute can be posted and someone on staff or something can just flat-out say what should be done, without any extra discussion? Accusations and flames are flying around, and a lot of people are saying things about the matter I recognize as false just to spite people from the opposing side. General consensus and the Wikipedia guidelines point to a certain answer in the dispute, but just editing the article will prove pointless without something or someone that says that is the right edit. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is consistent edit warring over the content, submit a request for page protection to stop the edit warring. Instead of, or in addition to, that, if the editors are actively creating a hostile environment for others, I would go with an alert at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (possibly the Incidents subpage). Admins will be able to take a look and see if anything there merits sanctions on the users involved. If that doesn't resolve anything, you may want to consider asking the disputants to engage in mediation, without yourself taking sides. Some other pages you might want to try are Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. But only do one of these several suggestions at a time -- don't do them all at once! =) Powers ^T 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're new to this type of situation at Wikipedia, sometimes Dispute Resolution is a valuable read. It covers many of the items that LtPowers mentions. While it may not relate to this particular dispute (given the length of time), sometimes A third opinion can help diffuse a situation before it gets escalated beyond control. — Ched (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC) (fix link)05:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that won't work. In the past, people have tried stuff like that, from what I've read, and the ones who do end up suffering. I just want someone they can't argue with to speak up and say "This is how the article should be", so that the article can be fixed and anyone who tries to mess with it will get into trouble. That should stop all the fighting. But is there no place like that? WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that no one person has the authority to say "this is how the article should be." It is supposed to take a consensus of users to settle an edit war. By the way, which article is the problem at? Can't really help out in an editing dispute without knowing the explicit details...Someguy1221 (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to say. I am still new here, and during the time this dispute has been going on, a certain user inparticular has made it a habit of attacking people who join in or bring up the dispute again. My biggest fear is this user getting involved and making some outrageous accusation that will get me banned, like so many others. I will post the answer to your question on your talk page, but please do not post on that article or any of those disputes. Any discussion is destroyed the minute that user shows up, it seems. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous accusations do not get people banned. Bad behavior does. If you have something more than generalities, and want administrators to look into possible behavioral troubles, you may want to start a thread at WP:ANI. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

error in article !!!

richard nixon after he died was flown to california in sam 27000 , NOT sam 26000 as indicated in the article regarding the death and funeral of richard nixon. I am an air force one history buff. thanks you guys are a great for research Kevin Brooks <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.179.216 (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? – ukexpat (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sociophysics

This is a comment and not a question. A request is being made for a well researched article on 'Sociophysics'(SP) : the mention of SP under Econophysics does not constitute an article . Paypal payment is a process I cannot pursue as my country is not listed on the scroll. I hope things are clearer now.---ijaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autistic49 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• What has paypal got to do with it? You don't need to pay to contribute or to request an article. Payment might improve the chances of someone writing an article quickly, but so do BARNSTARs - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

from draft to publishing

Hallo, I am new at the english wiki-pages. I finished a draft, and I don't know how to "publish" the articel. Can anybody help me? Thanks and best regards--Fishtownjam (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The draft has to be moved to the mainspace, but you can only do that if your account is autoconfirmed - 10 edits and at least 4 days old. However at the moment the draft looks like a copy and paste from http://www.chill-on.com/index.php (and other pages on the site) and therefore a copyright violation and would be speedily deleted as Wikipedia cannot accept copyright material (unless it is specifically released by the copyright owner as described in WP:IOWN). In fact it should probably be deleted as a copyvio from you userspace too. – ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sociophysics

I want to communicate directly with the two gentlemen who responded to what I posted yesterday but I cannot , inspite of my efforts. Could either of them help; should they be suitably inclined? This indeed is a question!! --ijaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autistic49 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Your question is still on this page. Each editor has a talk page (usually linked in their signature) where you can leave them personal messages. The links for the people who have responded to you are User talk:Orangemike, User talk:Teratornis and me (I know nothing about the subject, so I can't help) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

script that compares the edits of 2 editors

where's that script that compares the edits of 2 editors to look for common interests etc.? Tks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalk? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

RADIO Question

what is RADIO swill I have too get another radio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.53.75 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your question is unclear. In any event this Help Desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. The Reference Desk folks may be able to help you if you phrase your question more clearly. – ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sir Rabindranath Tagore

I worked as an RAF man in Bally, on the Barrakpore Road, in 1974. A large and beautiful white building stood on the east side of the road, west bank of the Hooghly, just a mile or so towards the city. I also worked in this building, and was told that it had been owned by Sir Rabindranath Tagore. I should like to insert this as a comment on the appropriate page about Tagore and to ask if anyonecan confirm this for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bs306hy (talk • contribs) 14:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless the building is notable in his life story, it seems like a bit of trivia not suitable for the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with an image copyright issue

This is something I should have known a very long time ago. But would someone mind talking me through the most correct and efficient way to deal with the following image: Newey.jpg on Glen Newey. Including not biting the newbie, not wasting other editors' time etc. etc. Thanks very much. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've marked it as deletable (no copyright information) using Twinkle. Algebraist 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. So, if I see nothing at all about copyright on the image page, then I tag for deletion. Not having Twinkle, what template do I apply? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

TW puts {{di-no license|date=current date goes here}} on the image page, {{deletable image-caption|1=date seven days in the future goes here}} in the caption on all articles using the image, and {{subst:Di-no license-notice|name of file here, without :File: prefix}} on the uploader's talk page. It's best if messages are left in all three places, so I recommend getting TW if you're going to this a lot. Algebraist 16:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know TW's useful, but there can be firewall issues. I take it I can apply those templates without it though, and it will just be more tedious. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Wikipedia article appear when I google the subject?

I recently contributed an article on Stonecroft Ministries. However, when I google the subject "Stonecroft Ministries," the Wikipedia article does not show up in the list of results. Why? What can I do to correct this issue?

16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Share the gospel (talk)

It does. If you surrounded your search term with inverted commas, it appears on the second page of the results (at least, it does for me). Please note that getting an article onto Google results is not the aim of Wikipedia..._Gb^T/c 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has now been speedily deleted as overly promotional. – ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to cleanly expand a {{reflist}}?

I would like to be able to generate a convenient listing of references from an article in wiki markup. With some templates you can apply a "subst", but it produces an "ugly" markup for this template (still uses css). There are two issues I'd like to address:

• The reflist should produce clean wiki markup (not css interspersed with wiki markup).
• I need to be able to grab a reference list from an existing article without saving to that page.

Can anyone offer any advice? ←Spidern→ 18:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt this is easily possible. The most likely people to know for sure are the regulars at WP:VPT. Algebraist 19:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

{{reflist}} is just a wrapper for <references /> that applies formatting. The footnotes system uses the Cite.php extension to the MediaWiki software <references /> is the extension tag that causes the software to generate the list of references. <references /> will be as clean as it gets, but it might not get you what you want. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

printing Wikipedia articles

When printing articles from Wikipedia random pages do not print-e.g. Philo did not print page 10 of 11. If I return to the printer and request page 10 alone, it still doesn't print-only the header and footer appear.66.167.14.252 (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What software are you using to print the articles? Algebraist 18:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

::Damn! I swear I looked through that stuff for an hour, but then again, I can lose my car keys on the coffee table ... lol. Thanks Algebraist, I appreciate that. It's exactly what I was looking for. (now about those keys ...) ;) — Ched (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

MoS person

Back a couple months ago when I was getting started here, I remembered reading something about lists and tables should be written in paragraph or prose form if possible. I've been back through a bunch of the MoS as best I can, but can't find this particular item. I suppose that it could be something that's been revised, but I believe it's more that I can't find it. The guideline basically was saying that if you have a list of items or comparisons - it is better to write this up in a paragraph rather than an bulleted or numbered list. Does anyone have any idea what I digging for here? And could you point me to the page/section? Thanks. — Ched (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has 'Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs.' Algebraist 19:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn! I swear I looked through that stuff for an hour, but then again, I can lose my car keys on the coffee table ... lol. Thanks Algebraist, I appreciate that. It's exactly what I was looking for. (now about those keys ...) ;) — Ched (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why look through things when your browser has a perfectly good find feature? Algebraist 21:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved a Page, new redirect not redirecting

I moved John Ball Park to John Ball Zoological Garden after asking if there was any complaints on the move, not hearing any complaints for almost a year (I forgot about the move after I got permission to do it.) But the page is at the new spot, fixed the one double redirect I knew about, but the new redirect at the old article is not redirecting. Is there something I did wrong or does the page move have to be approved? BeckyAnne(talk) 19:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's odd. Purging and null-editing didn't fix it, but a dummy edit did. Algebraist 20:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the same problem as WP:VPT#Redirects not working, which no-one seems to understand yet. Algebraist 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I change the name of my account?

Hi,

The name of my company starts with a lowercase 'i' and the second letter is an uppercase 'D'. When I created my wikipedia account, I didn't realize it was case sensitive. How can I correct this?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idirect (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Three things:
  • 1, we do not allow companies or representatives to edit Wikipedia. See WP:COI.
  • 2, Wikipedia will always capitalise the first letter of your username. This is technical and cannot be changed (except in your signature, in preferences at the very top right).
  • 3, you may as well start a new account - this one has only two edits.  GARDEN  21:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Creating a new entry

I'd like to create a completely new page. I don't see anything on Wikipedia on how to do it. Shouldn't this be at the very beginning of any tutorial? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.179.217 (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, 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.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. Algebraist 21:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wind Mill - Electrical Power Generation

I want to know the complete details about how the electrical power is generated from the turbine of the Wind mill, and how the power is used for charging Batteries ?