Jump to content

Wikipedia:New contributors' help page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mkgeary (talk | contribs) at 16:32, 20 June 2007 (Transportation Library, Northwestern University). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


 Wikipedia:New contributors' help page


What would you like to do?
Ask a question Do something
Ask a knowledge question
that you cannot find the answer to in the encyclopedia.
(e.g. Did Leonardo da Vinci build a working flying machine?)
Learn about how and where you can help Wikipedia
(information and resources on the basics needed to comprehend, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia)
Ask a question at the Teahouse about using or editing Wikipedia
that you cannot find the answer to in the Frequently Asked Questions.
(e.g. How can I fix this problem with this article?)
Create an article now
(see Your first article before you start)
Ask a question about a practical problem you have
that is not related to using or editing Wikipedia.
(e.g. I was cheated by a builder. Please Help.)
Request that other editors review your new article
 
Ways to get help
  • If you place {{helpme}} on your talk page, a helper will visit you there as soon as possible!
  • Join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel for real-time chat. New to IRC? Click here to be connected instantly!
  • The template below outlines Wikipedia's help pages and can be viewed at the bottom of most related pages.
(Click "show" on the right to expand the template)



Science in the lakes

Hi,

I have been searching your website for an answer to this particular phenomena. There seems to be not much written about it. Where and how can I find the answer to my query.

My question is --

In some lakes and water bodies in the Himalayan region in India, if you stand on the bank and clap or make a loud noise, small bubbles come out from the base of the lake. Usually it happens in lakes and very small water bodies with rocky bottoms. In most cases these have been surrounded by temples considering them as water god's way of speaking. It is a small miracle of science, but what exactly happens no one knows for sure.

There must be a scientific or geological, chemical reason to this. But nothing has been covered in Wikipedia.

Can you enlighten on this subject, as my kids are very curious to know more about it.

thank you Sangeeta Dutta New Delhi India

Asking your question at the Science Reference Desk is probably the best place; if anyone on Wikipedia knows the answer, that's where you're most likely to find them. --ais523 14:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Company profile

How do I create the company summary box on the top right side of the page for a company profile?Keeter24 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably looking for Template:Infobox Company. Peacent 03:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bohdan Zynovii Mykhailovych Khmel'nyts'kyi (Khmelnytsky)

My grandmother was a decendent from Bohdan Zynovii Mykhailovych Khmelnytsky. I need to find a way to get a family tree or some kind of family history. I don't know how to accomplish this and need MAJOR HELP. Have any Ideas? I live in the US now so trying to find out anything here is close to impossible. Any sugestions?

<email removed>

Perhaps you might helpful information at Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Should you have further questions, please try the Reference Desk. Peacent 03:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Bagert ?

I have been doing some research on a producer based in New York City named Darren Bagert. Through internet searches, I have found a variety of information, including he is a Tony Award winning producer as well as being nominated for the Tony award five times, among others.

I found he has a website InvestBroadway.com, and I contacted his office for more information on him. I am from his home town of New Orleans, thus the research.

Why would he not appear on Wikipedia? Is there a process to include his name and history on your searches? I am not really sure from the information given on the site.

Thank you for your assistance. Chris Bernard <email removed> See Help: Starting a new page and Wikipedia:Your first article ; It is worth practising and reading up about wikipedia, and welcome --Edmund Patrick 14:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure about the person you mentioned above, so please see WP:BIO and check if they meet the notability guideline. If they do, you could just create an article on him, see also Help:Starting a new page and Wikipedia:Your first article. Peacent 14:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know where a place is located on Google Maps and Google Earth. Are there steps I should take in order to add the coordinates to the Wikipedia page?

You should use Template:Geolinks-cityscale. Please see also WP:EL and WP:MOS-L. Peacent 14:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion - Licence status  ?

Hello there, I had added a public image to the technology writer Ina Fried. It says, the image will be deleted within a weeek time unless I provide them a licence status for the image. Could you help me on doing this please..

Ina Fried Wikipedia Page is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ina_Fried Ina Image that I upload is : http:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/b/b6/Elease_Ina.jpg Ina image the I found from is : http://publicaffairs.uth.tmc.edu/community/star_awards/photo2005.html

So, not to put to fine a point on this, you stole it from a website? I don't see any public release notices on that site. As a website designer and owner of a large quantity of IP, this sort of thing really annoys me, so please forgive me if my reply seems terse. In case you didn't know, all published web content is subject to IP laws, which means that it is copyrighted. If, however, that image was taken by you and you did not sign over the copyright to anyone else, then feel free to tag it as your own work and license it to Wikimedia under the GFDL. See the links in the panel at WP:COPYVIO, as well as WP:IUP. Adrian M. H. 17:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adrian, Though it sound teasing, you gave me the best answer that for what I want to know. Thanks for that. So simply what you suggesting is, I cant get a photo from a website unless there is a public release notice on it. OK, I will remove the image immediately. Thanks for your directions..

Yeah, that's it in a nutshell. Although, there are shades of grey with public release; Wikipedia exists by the code of the GFDL, so any public release images/content have to meet that because Wikipedia's content can by used by anyone for any purpose, broadly speaking. Adrian M. H. 15:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new entry

I cannot find any indication on how to create a new entry. I see no "create page" button anywhere. All I want to know is how to open the right form so I can fill in the brief text I want to create this new entry. Please don't direct me elsewhere, or answer with diversions or irrelevant responses. A simple direct answer, please.

Have a look at Help:Starting a new page. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 19:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a sort of impromptu Turing test. That, and the fact that if it was even easier for a newcomer to create a new page, we would have even more crap than we do now. Adrian M. H. 20:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Adrian said above we test you first. If you dont already have an account you need one of them aswell, which is another test =] Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where to find the "Create Page" button

I've read the Article on "Starting a new page" but could not find the "Create page" button to start with. Can you provide some step-by-step instructions?

--CBKAtTopsails 15:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a button, you just have to find some way to go to the page where the article should be and edit it. For instance, you could search for the article's name (using the search box at the left and clicking on 'Go'), then click on the link you get to the article near the top of the screen. Or you could introduce a [[link]] to it in another article and click on that link. There's also a box at Help:Creating a new page you could use if you want to. Hope that helps! --ais523 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
See the question above. It's not supposed to be too obvious. Adrian M. H. 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

page Mauro Maur

Hi,

I got the autorization to use the text that is on the new page of Mauro Maur. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione:Mauro_Maur

What can I do to improve it now?

Thank you very much.

I'm not sure OTRS tickets can apply across multiple Wikipedias but either way, the link on that Italian Wikipedia talk page doesn't seem to exist. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_bonding

Dear Sir/Madam,

Keen not to spam or self promote etc, so can you let me know if this is ok.

If so I will add lots more information on the subject matter. If not then Obviously I will not.

can i add links?

Just would like to be clear so that I do not damage the site and support it in the right way.

Kind regards

gareth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futureglass (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the log at your link (you don't need use URLs, by the way) that article was a copyright violation, so it got nuked. See WP:WMD for more info. For link info, see WP:EL and WP:NOT Adrian M. H. 19:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

Is there a way to get a template to help set up one's user page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluestar301 (talk • contribs).

No, but if you find a nice user page out there, you might be able to ask permission to use it as quick guideline. If you need help, it might be best to contact a user who can do some of the markup for you. Or you can build it gradually. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding lists of people

If you go to a small school, are you allowed to add a list of the teachers at the school to the page about it in wikipedia?166.87.255.132 15:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the key people in the infobox, in my opinion. Lists should be used very judiciously in articles, particularly if the information is not in itself noteworthy or of very much value to the article. Adrian M. H. 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, every country has its own laws regarding to what lists of names can be published. And I don't know which country's laws apply when you publish on Wikipedia. The laws of the country the author lives in??? The laws of the country of Wikipedia's publisher??? Lova Falk 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not allowed to give legal advice, but wikipedia is under US law. Some countries have extraterritorial laws, so that a libel on a web site overseas can still be prosecuted. However I would expect the name of a teacher at a school to be public knowledge. GB 22:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding the Pring-Wilson murder case in Cambridge

I would like to write a piece about the Pring-Wilson murder case. I have one problem with the way the case was covered. I can present both sides, I don't believe that these two opposite positions are in any way "equal". My own background involves reinacting self-defense situations for the purposes of teaching martial arts. Nobody with any background in self defense has ever written a piece about this case. How do I interject this expertise into the case without producing a "bias"? If I do this, it will be the first time anyone with martial arts or self-defense expertise has ever commented on the case.

Ursa98 18:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the case, or with your writing ability, so you will have to decide for yourself whether it meets the key criteria (including notability and verifiability) and whether you can write about it effectively. Writing with neutrality and factual accuracy comes easier to some than to others. What I can recommend is that you develop the article – any article – either offline or in a drafts sub-page, which gives valuable time to attend to difficult articles. Adrian M. H. 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's an assertion of notability for Alexander Pring-Wilson at the Notable non-graduate alumni of Harvard article. The redlink is a good place to start anyway. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems: Editing and Creating Pages

Whenever I try to create a new page or click the "edit this page" tab, a download window pops up asking me whether to open or save a file called "index.php". When I open it, a program pops up (Printmaster 16), and when I save it, it saves, but nothing happens. What is index.php? If I cannot get around this, how do I create a page? Basically, What do I do? nd2010 03:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the FAQ at WP:VPT: If you are asked to download a file (index.php) when trying to edit, or your browser launches an image editor when trying to edit, disable "Use external editor" on your MediaWiki user preferences. On the most recent version of MediaWiki (as of 21-May-2007), this is found under the "Editing" tab. Hope that helps! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I NEED SCHOLARSHIP FROM YOUR SCHOOL

I am a Nigerian,who wish to study more in your college and i am also a science trained person.please,how do i go about it. I also want to know if your school give scholarship to does who are not a citizen of U.S.A

Wikipedia is not a school nor a University - it is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. See Wikipedia and Wikipedia:About. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May be unless trying Wikiversity. --Brand спойт 18:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

{{helpme}}

Okay I seriously need help. I just got started like 2 days ago, and need help already. I don't want to make an article and its going to be a spam page. I went to my files to look around for help, but it seems that everyone is in troblue. Many users are blocked indefinly and its sicking. So whoever this going to, can you help me? Please do because I'd like to start articles without it becoming spam pages. Thank you. Please reply QUICKLY!!!! So I can get started. 

I am signeddarkness.

Thanks for listening. Signeddarkness 15:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)signeddarkness June 6,2007[reply]

Are You familiar with the edit this page button at the top of most page? Lmc169 15:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create a new article?

how do you post an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimiintheskywithdiamonds (talk • contribs) 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid unnecessary repetition, see the same question a couple of sections above this. There are also some links on your talk page which you should read first. Adrian M. H. 16:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My page "Swamprocket" has been considered for speedy deletion. I am not sure why this is happening. Is there a way to determine why the page is unacceptable. Thank you. Swamprocket 23:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the message I left on the discussion section at Swamprocket? Just click on the 'discussion' tab; I left you a link to the notability criteria that the article doesn't seem to meet, the conflict of interest guidelines, and a few words of advice. -23:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

submitting an article

Is there an easy way to submit an article? I really do not understand all this template business. I rwealise automation keeps costs down, but it can alos harm accessibility Regards Bernie Dowling email Removed email to prevent spamming— Preceding unsigned comment added by Berniedee (talk • contribs) 03:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a welcome message on your talk page that should help you out a lot with your questions. To directly answer your question, though, you don't need a template or any automation (other than your computer!) to start an article. There's a good set of instructions at Help:Starting a new page. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you find creating a page complex, you can go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, give them information, and if it fulfills our guidelines and policies, they will create it for you. -- ReyBrujo 03:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Homosexuals in Infoboxes

How should homosexual partners be dealt with in infoboxes? Obviously for homosexuals married in jurisdictions in which this is legal, partners should be listed as "spouse" as any heterosexual spouse would be listed. But the question concerns how to deal with unmarried homosexuals. Should partners be listed as "partner" or "spouse" or not at all? It seems to me spouse would be highly inappropriate since that implies a legal wedding and a reader might come to the false conclusion based on the infobox that the couple was legally married. On the other hand, we don't include partners of heterosexual couples in infoboxes (e.g. Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins), so why should we for homosexuals? After all the status as "partner" could change at any moment and requires no legal process (such as divorce). While I'm personally against listing anyone not legally married for the reasons listed above, this has caused considerable debate on the Charles Nelson Riley page. I believe most of the respondents there were from the homosexual Wikipedia group and that group may not be an accurate microcosm of Wikipedia. So I'm wanting to know whether there is an established policy on this matter. (This has nothing to do with being anti-homosexual or homophobic but rather trying to consistently and accurately reflect societal and legal reality at this stage in time.) Thanks. Talmage 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take that up with WP:LBGT. Miranda 03:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with doing so as I mentioned above is that most of the members of this group are sympathetic to the homosexual movement and thus might not reflect mainstream Wikipedia. I am not saying their efforts are not in good faith, but that their beliefs are more biased towards promoting homosexual issues than most Wikipedians. Is there another place where this discussion can take place? Thanks. Talmage 04:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, it is not my intent to exclude WP:LBGT from this discussion, but rather to incorporate the opinions of a wider range of people, not just a group of people who by and large are interested in promoting homosexual causes. Talmage 04:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If unmarried partners are not normally included by established consensus, then that is a clear reason not to include any such, regardless of sexual orientation, which should not influence it (positively or negatively). Two reasons: firstly, consistency between articles is important and valued by the community (any WikiProject members would be able to appreciate that point) and secondly, and more importantly, mentioning homosexual partners without mentioning heterosexual partners may be considered to be as biased as if it were vise versa. Fairness and common sense needs either all unmarried partners to be listed regardless of sexual orientation, or none at all. If there is no prior consensus for including or excluding all unmarried partners, you might want to initiate a discussion. I can think of reasons for and against. Adrian M. H. 18:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

translation

how can i translate articles into my native language?Paribus 12:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online translators exist but are seldom not the best translations in the world. There may be other articles on other language Wikipedias for that article (they are available on the left, below the toolbox). For example, waste container (English) and fr:poubelle (French). But they are not direct translations - each language Wikipedia works more-or-less independently. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia on CD?

Hello! I'm new here and I need some help. I remember that one time I was on Wikipedia and found an article about downloading an ISO of a number of articles that can go on a CD so that one can browse Wikipedia without using the internets. Today, I was looking for the same article and cannot find it anywhere. Can you please point me in the correct direction? Thank you!    DangerousNerd    talk    contribs    email   20:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might WikipediaOnDVD.com be what you're looking for? Or else there is 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection and Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection. Hope that helps! — QuantumEleven 11:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating pages that can be found ?

I've just created a stub; new page about a person. The page was created with address in the form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FirstName_LastName

FirstName_LastName has an underscore between FirstName and LastName

Search engines cannot find the page unless the query is in the form FirstName_LastName, with the underscore.

I used this form because I have seen it used on other wikipedia pages and thought it rather common.

What can I do to get search engines to find the page when people just type the name in the form FirstName LastName ?

UPDATE: Well - I guess the problem only happens when I start the process using the Wikipedia search in my MSIE browser - you know the one in the upper right corner where you can choose which search engine you want. After that, I get to a Wikipedia page that says I can search FirstName+LastName if I want. I click on that, and do not get the result I'm looking for. BUT IF I use the search window to the left on this page - NO PROBLEM!

-- Rogerfgay

MSIE's Wikipedia search support is somewhat broken, as far as I know. Google and the internal MediaWiki search both have no problem. (Underscore and space in the name of a page are equivalent; underscore is used in a URL because you can't have a space in a URL.) --ais523 11:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Under the listing of Jewish actors, you fail to include Marvin Kaplan. Marvin Kaplan was born in 1924 and was in the TV program "Meet Millie" in the early 1950's as well as other.16:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)24.149.185.157≥ Daniel Roth

Is it OK to replace a stub article which is too specific for the entry with a much more appropriate article?

I am a Wikipedia newbie! The Wikipedia entry for "Comedy Workshop" is a stub which refers to one comedy club with the name "Comedy Workshop". However this is a generic description of a type of training in which I have wide experience and expertise (see www.virginmirth.co.uk ). I would like to write an article about comedy workshops - can I go ahead and replace this stub? Should I list the original stub contents at the end of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ais523 (talk • contribs) 12:16, June 8, 2007 (UTC)

You could try renaming the current article to Comedy Workshop (club) (or requesting that the article is renamed for you if your account's less than 4 days old), and writing a new article where the current one is. However, wouldn't Comedy workshop with a lowercase w be more appropriate for your article? (You can start it by clicking on that link). It would help to use an {{otheruses4}} template (click on that link for an explanation) on top of each article so that people who find one but want the other one can move between them easily. --ais523 16:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

New article/ references / toe walking

Hi I created a new page regarding Toe Walking and was listed as not having references? I do have references on my page and I also went in and added in links to the references via footnotes. What can I do to correct my page?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tivon (talk • contribs) 18:32, June 8, 2007 (UTC)

It helps us to help you if you provide links and sign your comments, but I found Toe walking easily enough through your contribs. I changed the tag to a more appropriate one, which you could easily do yourself. WP:TM. With most maintenance tags, any editor can remove, change or add them as long as their choices are reasonable and accurate. This particular tag remained unchanged because the editor who added it would not have felt the need to monitor the page in light of the way in which we use tags. Adrian M. H. 13:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using info from personal copyrighted website

Hi My website at "http://www.panamafishingandcatching.com/" is copyrighted by me. Can I use excerpts from my web page to edit/add to articles that are stubs? Regards= Capt. Tony Herndon (E-Mail removed for security purposes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarpontony (talk • contribs) 20:51, June 8, 2007 (UTC)

No, you cannot do that until you go through the process of COPYREQ, which details the process of informing the Foundation that you have permission. Any reasonable suspicion of copyright infringement will normally result in the material being removed on sight, and simply having permission is not enough unless proof is provided through Copyreq. Adrian M. H. 13:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Email removed for security reasons Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that this could in fact be easier for wiki editors who also own web sources: simply state in your web page (which you control) that certain material (e.g. "this" page) is freely granted to the Public Domain. That would satisfy me. However, for most purposes it's sufficient to merely cite your web page as a reference. Encyclopedia articles should in general be more obejective and factual than we expect personal or corporate web pages to be, so you probably don't want to lift the whole text even if it were public domain. The way I write in an article is different than the way I write in User Space (such as this help page). Pete St.John 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing Flag of Rhode Island with my version

I cleaned up the current Image:Flag of Rhode Island.svg, to Image:Flag_of_Rhode_Island_(2).svg (I made the anchor symmetrical, cleaned up the lettering, got rid of the in-image border, etc.). I think that this is a definitie improvement, and I would like to have this new version replace the old. How would I go about doing that?

Thanks, and please reply on my talk page! Murraybuckley 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed images on this page, and will answer on talk. tiZom(2¢) 01:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article submission

During the Second World War the British asked America to come in on the British side. The U.S.A. said they would remain neutral and sold weapons to both sides. Then the Japanese attacked Pearl harbour forcing America into the war; on the British & their alias side. The British and their alias had been fighting Germany, Italy & Japan. The British used every man possible to fight this left very few to develop technology so the British government gave all the technology to America so they could develop it; no money was asked or paid. In 1943 the British and Canadians attacked Northern France held by the Germans thousands died on the beach but it gave the British the knowledge of how to do it and win. In 1944 this time with America’s participation and the very important knowledge learned in 1943. They secretly built two harbours that could be assembled off the coast of France and laid a pipe line from England to France so that they could support the men who landed on the beaches with fuel, food, weapons and reinforcements’. The Marble harbours and pipe line wear a great feat of engineering all built in Britain without the enemy’s knowledge and mostly by girls. Things get changed by people who are good at writing but poor in knowledge. Today we see many movies about things that are just fiction, but in reality there were many things that did happen that were far greater than the films and books of today. I sometimes wonder how much of history is really true. In memory of the men who gave their lives so we could live in peace.

I would like to submit this article to the Wikipeadia how do I do it? From Peter Howatson E-mail <rm for privacy>

Generally speaking, the first thing to do is activate an account. Then you take the time to familiarise yourself with the basics and some of the most important policies and guidelines, often found on a welcome template on your talk page. But in this instance, what you have posted here would likely be deleted if it were to be uploaded, not least because it would merely be a content fork that duplicates existing (and better) articles. Content forks usually go to Articles for deletion. Adrian M. H. 13:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pictures

How do I add a picture to a page--Tdjzcsdrpf 00:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, see Help:Image#Linking ;) Peacent 01:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploaded

Dear Sir,

I have uploaded an Image called Ajay Hulamani.jpg in wikipedia. but when i am searching it is not showing the image. so how to search tell me?Presidentajay

You should probably include the image in at least one article; see Help:Image. Images don't show up in the search here on Wikipedia. If you just want to upload an image without it being used in an article, Wikipedia is probably the wrong project; you could upload it to the Wikimedia Commons (images on that project can be used here on Wikipedia too). --ais523 12:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree. You can search for images, but need to adjust your user preferences to do so: Under My Preferences at the top of the page, click the "Search" tab, and select the categories you want when searching. The Wikipedia search engine isn't the best, but it should help you in the future. In addition, you need to be sure that the image wasn't deleted for some reason (i.e. no copyright information given, copyrighted image, etc). Near as I can tell, your image is still there Image:Ajay Hulamani.jpg. — BQZip01 — talk 19:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Warning

I got a warning for editing a page on Joyce Carol Oates because I put up two yet unpublished titles. These titles, however, were the titles for her forthcoming publications. I don't understand why it was considered vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.199.214 (talk) 09:13, June 11, 2007 (UTC)

  • Wow, that warning seems a bit harsh for edits which were good-faith and quite possibly not even incorrect. I suggest that you contact the user who gave you the warning on User talk:RedSpruce to ask them why they warned you for your edits. If you can provide a source for them, that would be even more helpful. Hope that helps! --ais523 13:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's more appropriate to wait until the books have been released to include them in the list of works. If you have a source that reflects that these titles are indeed pending release, it would be best to include this information somewhere in the body of the article. Additionally, it appears that most of your previous edits are acts of vandalism, so it seems understandable to me that the editor who warned you would assume these edits were also acts of vandalism. Please take the warning seriously and contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner. Such help is greatly appreciated! LaraLoveT/C 14:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur. Your edit seems fine, albeit possibly incorrect, but not vandalism. To prevent this to yourself (and others too) in the future, please get yourself a user name. It takes all of about a minute. — BQZip01 — talk 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating One's Own Page

I apologize if I missed this elsewhere, or misinterpreted what I read; I have been reading an awful lot of intro material recently, so it's possible.

I believe I read that a company is not to create its own entry, nor have consultants, etc. do so. I work for a small nonprofit (you might be able to guess the name from my user name) and would like an entry, particularly since some of our advocates have noticed, and we hope to offer edits for, some errors on your "Medicare" entry. I thought it would be sensible for people to know where these edits come from. I already referenced the name in our user-blurb, so a link exists, but being very new and unsure, I wasn't about to write anything without checking in.

Thanks in advance for your help.

CenterForMedicareAdvocacy 20:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is a very important and strongly-supported guideline, so you are right to avoid conflict of interest. Also relevant is notability, or otherwise, because if it is not notable enough when measured against Wikipedia's minimum criteria, it does not deserve an article. See WP:CORP for that one. Your honesty and openness is very welcome, I have to say. With regard to editing other articles, your edits may be subject to a bit more scrutiny from interested editors, but verify everything with reliable independent sources and stick to NPOV and there should be no significant issues. Perhaps you could provide me with some info about the company and I might be able to tell you if it meets WP:CORP. Adrian M. H. 20:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick feedback. In what forum should I pass along some info about our organization? Here? Your talk page?

CenterForMedicareAdvocacy 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well leave it here. Adrian M. H. 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again - and sorry about the delay. Here we are, in brief:

The Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc. is a national non‑profit, non-partisan organization that provides education, advocacy, and legal assistance to help elders and people with disabilities obtain Medicare and necessary health care. The Center was established in 1986. We focus on the needs of Medicare beneficiaries, people with chronic conditions, and those in need of long‑term care. The organization is involved in writing, education, and advocacy activities of importance to Medicare beneficiaries nationwide. The Center's central office is in Connecticut, with offices in Washington, DC and throughout the country.

The Center is staffed by attorneys, nurses, legal assistants, and information management specialists. A complete explanation of the organization's publications, products, and services is available upon request and on the products and services page of this site.

Each year, the Center represents thousands of individuals in appeals of Medicare denials. The work of the Center includes responding to approximately 7000 telephone and email inquiries each year. We also write extensively about Medicare and related topics, produce a wide array of electronic and hard copy educational materials, advocate in administrative, judicial, and legislative forums, including testifying on multiple occasions before congressional committees, and pursue Medicare coverage for individuals and for dually eligible beneficiaries (individuals who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid). In addition, the organization provides legal training and support nationwide as well as for Connecticut's state health insurance and assistance program (SHIP program), known in Connecticut as CHOICES. We also author and edit the Medicare Handbook, and our advocates are quoted regularly in articles in papers across the country on issues of Medicare and healthcare.

I have just run the organisation through a couple of web searches, which gives a rough picture of a subject's notability. Good examples of secondary sources would be http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=71759 and http://www.pbs.org/now/science/stein.html, while an example of a source to avoid would be http://www.kypa.net/drupal/node/295, per WP:CORP#Primary criterion. It looks like it is notable enough, particularly if you have access to any non-trivial newspaper reports to add to online sources. In this case, I think you would benefit from working on the article in a sub-page of your user space, which will allow other editors to assist you. That will avoid the risk of SD. Adrian M. H. 20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks AGAIN...

I will put something together and post it on my user page - once I figure out where : )

Any recommendations on a page to model after?

I suggest you put the page at, say, User:CenterForMedicareAdvocacy/temp (this is a subpage of your userpage). Once you are done, I guess you can put it at Center For Medicare Advocacy when you are ready. As for a page to model after, you could try something that is somewhat barely linked (Red Cross?), or you can just read Help:Starting a new page and Wikipedia:Your first article. If you create the page, I might be able to help you with the basic essentials of the article. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immigrating to Canada

Are there time difference between the various provinces after what period you can apply for permanent residence? If so, what are the various requirements? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.106.110 (talk • contribs).

This page is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. For general real-life queries like, "Why is the sky blue" or, "What is the capital of France", you should go to the Reference Desk. For your question, I would go to the Miscellaneous Reference Desk. Click here to add a new question there. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

created a new page that doesn't show up on the search engine?

I created a page for the Hospital Universitario San Ignacio. If i click the link on the category "teaching hospitals" or on the page "Hospitals in Colombia", i can access it. but if i look for it through the search tool, it says no such page exists. I don't get what i'm missing, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreji (talk • contribs)

It takes a little while. From Wikipedia:Searching: For reasons of efficiency and priority, very recent changes are not always immediately taken into account in searches. So, just wait a little bit; it'll be there. WODUP 05:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
student from India. I have  passed my pre unversity in science with 90% now i want to do engineering but no sufficient funds. What i do

rosa

Adding a page for a person when one exists for person of same name?

How do I start a stub for a person that has the same name as someone who already has a page under that name?

That is, they are two different people, with the same name.

Thanks!

Consider naming the new article with a suffix. For example, if John Doe is the name of an actor and a businessman, then you have a couple of options.
I suggest you use the second method, and then go to the first method if both articles are referenced often. The full process is described at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. If you still need help, then leave another message here or contact me. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diane

Hello,

My name is Chris Labadie and I met Diane your CEO at the beach this past weekend. She had asked me to stop by and grab her card, but before I could she had disappeared. Could someone please give her my message and have her call me.

Thank you,

Christopher B. Labadie CRPC® Manager | Financial Advisor

Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. (personal details removed)

Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. offers financial advisory services, investments, insurance and annuity products. RiverSourceSM products are offered by affiliates of Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., Member NASD and SIPC.

You have somehow posted to the wrong website, I think. Adrian M. H. 16:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may create your user page and post an appropriate notification. --Brand спойт 11:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
personal details removed! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who edited a certain paragraph last?

In an article with a very long revision history I want to know who is responsible for a certain paragraph/sentence, or who edited that paragraph/sentence last. In a VCS like svn this is easily possible with the blame command. I didn't find anything useful in meta:Help:Tracking_changes. If I have to wade through hundreds of diffs I go nuts.

X-Post: de:WP:FzW, WP:HD (Interwiki links do not work.) -- 77.10.20.15 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section edits create automated edit summaries from the section heading, to which editors are encouraged to append their own summary, such as you can see in this page's history. Page edits do not leave specific section details, which restricts you to comparing diffs. Adrian M. H. 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to correct spelling in Page Name

Exsisting page name David toguri I want to change to David Toguri

Hi there, please see the Moving an article page for information on changing the name of an article Andyreply 18:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find the 'notability guidelines'

Seeing a red link in an article I was reading I created a page that explained the topic in question.

It wasn't a very complex topic and the page is short.

When I logged on today I saw that someone had tagged the page: "The subject of the article does not appear to satisfy the notability guidelines. It does not address the importance of the subject matter."

Now, I've had a good root around but I cannot find these 'notability guidelines', nor any other explanation of this message.

The sole objection that I can see to the article is that it could be deemed closer to a dictionary entry than an encylopaedic one.

I would like to find these 'notability guidelines' since I certainly don't want to waste my time typing in information that gets 'speedily deleted'. Quandon 18:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, notability guidelines can be found on WP:Notability. Andyreply 18:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Unfortunately, I can't see how they really apply to the subject (stamp stock book) in question. These are artifacts that are used by hundreds of thousands of people and have been for many decades. They are mentioned in countless magazines and books on philately. In the overall scheme of things they're of no great importance but it isn't immediately obvious what they are from context so I thought 'filling in the link' would be a good idea. And yet someone seems to have gone to the trouble to find the article and decide that it's inn appropriate for here. Although a further editor has dissented the view expressed in the tag, I'm still unclear of how to apply the guidelines in such a case. Quandon 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one went to any trouble to find it; it would have been seen by one of many RC patrollers (of which I am one, although I have not seen this particular article). This article fails to demonstrate its notability and is unverified, two key criteria that are quite closely linked. You say that they are "mentioned in countless magazines and books on philately", so you could cite some of these sources if they offer relevant facts. Adrian M. H. 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would be 'relevant' facts? Is the objection to the article that someone does not believe these things exist, or exist in such small quantity that they are not noteworthy? What exaqctly am I supposed to be proving here? I'm sorry to seem dense, but this is rather like adding an article on 'fuel pump' because there was a red link in an article on engines and then finding someone wants it deleted. I'm really rather confused as to what the problem is. You only need to put the article name into google to find 1.5 million entries. I'm quite happy to add information to this project but I'm not going to jump through hoops justifying adding an article on a well known and completely non-contentious(in context) item to get rid of a red link. Quandon 20:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I still don't understand what 'notable' means in this context. A unresolved link is present in an extant article. Surely it would be a good idea to add a note to explain what the author of that article seemed to think was sufficiently relevant to be worth adding a link to. Quandon 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You, as the philately expert, are best placed to assess which facts are relevant. Right now you have written hardly any facts at all – you just have a sub-stub there. There must be something more that can be included, as long as it passes WP:V/WP:ATT. If you have read the main notability guideline, then you will be aware that subjects are deemed notable if they have been covered in a non-trivial manner by independent reliable sources. It is that simple, with no "hoops" involved. A red link is not an open invite to write an article about anything; red links exist because (a) one editor thought that there might be an article about that subject at some point in the future (or that there should be) or (b) there is an article but they didn't use the correct title. Red links do not normally take account of WP:N, etc. Adrian M. H. 20:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entry may well be small, but my motive for including it was that it was mentioned in another article and I simply wanted to ensure that anyone reading the article would not be left wondering what a 'stock book' was. I'm afraid that you are quite wrong when you say that there is no 'jumping through hoops' involved. For some reason that is not clear to me someone looked at the article and took a personal dislike to it. For that reason it was tagged for speedy deletion. Because of that action, I have two choices: I can either do nothing and risk the article disappearing thus, by a tiny amount, reducing the usefulness of the encyclopaedia, or I can spend hours searhing through potentially hundreds of magazines trying to find one that actually defines what a stockbook is. These things are an everyday fact of life to philatalists. They may be mentioned in virtually every stamp magazine published, and there may be thousands of pages of adverts for them, but they are not habitualy defined. So to guarantee the continued inclusion of the article I would need to add potentially several hours work to the two minutes it took to intitially produce it. As to adding further information; what? why? Apart from a list of manufacturers, prices, and materials used in construction there is very little to say. I could add a couple of paragraphs of waffle but that seems a poor way to ensure that an article is allowed to remain.
Of course, this particular article is not the point. The point is that I do not understand the application of the notability criteria. It seems that what is being said is that any article can be tagged for speedy deletion at the whim of anyone looking at it if it does not actually list sources confirming what it says. This may be sensible for something that is contentious (such as asserting a new flaw in the general theory of relativity), of suspect (such as the assertion of the existance of some bizarre animal or plant), but would increase the workload in producing some small entries by several orders of magnitude. Quandon 08:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save yourself some time (and heartache) and simply make these terms a wiktionary entry: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Stamp+stock+book&go=Go — BQZip01 — talk 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That might work but I suspect that, short as it is, if I put that entry into wiktionary it would be truncated, or even deleted as 'encyclopaedic'. Quandon 11:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know "New contributor's help page" is not the right place for a discussion, but frankly I don't understand what could be wrong with including Stamp stock book. Wikipedia is not an ordinary printed encyclopedia, and it has (almost) unlimited room for articles, also for odd articles. Just as Quandon says, there might be a user who wonders what a stamp stock book is, and then it's good if s/he can click on a link and get the information. I really don't understand the questioning of this article. Instead I would have said to Quandon: "Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for creating Stamp stock book! Could you maybe expand the article and use some references?"
PS (a newcomer question): What is the right place to discuss the notability principle? Lova Falk 12:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been misled by an improper speedy deletion tag. There are various speedy deletion criteria. There is only one notability related (section A7) and it is sharply limited to people, groups, companies and web content which does not apply to this article. So as notability goes, it can be deleted as non-notable, but only after debate at WP:AFD (or through WP:PROD]]). That having been said, all content on Wikipedia must be verified because it is an encyclopedia (a tertiary source). Thus, it doesn't matter how obvious it appears to you; all content must be sourced.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what that is saying is that unless I (or someone else) is prepared to spend many hours searching through publications until every fact asserted in the article has a source attached then it will eventually be deleted. Now, I have just looked up a couple of 'obvious' items: wrenches and pliers. Both of these have articles several screens in length, but I can see no reference to any external source that backs up the things said about them. How do I go about getting the articles deleted or the appropriate sources added? (Yes, I am joking, but the point remains: a great many articles appear here without and explicit reference to external sources.)
What I want to determine is, under what circumstances will creating or adding to an article be the work of a few minutes, simple entering the information, and under what circumstances will it be a major undertaking involving ensuring that all facts asserted have sources specified. Quandon 12:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, poor articles exist, and they should not, so your comment might as well have been intended seriously. Per WP:V – one of the links that have already been provided – if you find any such articles that have no (or insufficient) refs, tag them. You seem to be taking an inappropriate SD nom personally. Don't because it's no big deal. The editor who placed it was probably concerned by the fact that an intrinsically difficult subject (object descriptions tend to be difficult re: WP:N) was lacking in the establishment of notability, which some subjects naturally have to work harder at than others. If you're still not getting WP:N, there's not much more that anyone can say. I doubt if this article would go to AFD, but you might want to have a look there to see what we have to deal with and how it works. Adrian M. H. 13:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't that I'm taking it personaly. As I said earlier, this particular article is of no great importance. I can see what the notability criteria are saying. They seem perfectly reasonable. What is a problem is knowing when someone is going to make the jump from "must be notable" to "must have proof of notability explicitly stated in the article". There is also the illogicality of requiring some specific evidence of notability to justify the inclusion of an article in general without requiring that every fact asserted within the article is similarly justified. Possibly I'm making too much of this because the tag I was alerted to in my talk page was requesting summary deletion. Had it been for whatever the 'paedia equivalent of Wictionary's 'request for verification', it would have presented a very different picture. As someone has stated that the tag was incorrect, and I can now see several very large articles for very common objects that are tagged as 'has no references', I think I'm beginning to get the picture.Quandon 15:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent> If I may throw my two cent in here, I noticed while looking for a new stub tag for the article that there already seems to be an article about this subject at Stamp album. I'm no expert, but a picture of a "stock book style" album is included in the gallery at the bottom of the page. I'm going to set up a merge proposal. This article will make a good additional section to the existing article because that style isn't mentioned in the article outside of that image's caption. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, all the pictures at the bottom of the article illustrate stockbooks rather than the traditional album, and one incorrectly describes a stockbock as a hingeless album (whilst a stockbook is a type of album without hinges that is not what the term is ever understood to mean). Only the picture at the top of the article showing the Machins is what is normally refered to as an album.Quandon 15:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changing title, upgrading article

(Sorry about the repeat, but I forgot to add the tilde at the end of the previous questions.)

What hoops do I have to jump through to change the search term for my entry from "Richard Doyle (rights advocate)" to "Richard Doyle (Men's rights advocate)"?

Also, in view of the importance of gender issues and the paucity of pro-male articles, how do I upgrade the importance of the article appearing in the above-referenced section?

Thanks for any help

RFD Dog Easy 18:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just signed the previous question. I cleaned it up anyway to avoid miss-aimed replies. You have no control over search terms. All articles are of equal standing (apart from the obvious quality differences). Normally, you would move a page to rename it, but in this case, I think that it would be inappropriate per NPOV. Adrian M. H. 18:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, having now seen the article in question, it has some NPOV issues and you have given undue weight to the quantity of external links. Have a look through the policies and guidelines that are listed on your talk page. Adrian M. H. 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTIONS: What is an NPOV and where is my "talk page?"

Not sure who wrote these. Please sign your posts.
To answer your question, read WP:NPOV. If you are logged in, a link to your talk page is in the upper right hand corner of your browser window under my talk. — BQZip01 — talk 20:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article creation

how do i write a new article??? a brand new one??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryannacoleman (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the answers to the same question above (there are at least three iterations of this question). There is a welcome template on your talk page that answers the question as well. Adrian M. H. 20:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New contributor

Hi, I'm a new contributer and my contribution was deleted as self promotion. that's sad as I took 2 days learning how to do it, including uploading the picture and adding the caption. Is there another way to write it so that it is accpetable as currently i am the only one who sings and pole dance. Thank you for your attention.

Mingassuziewong 10:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement service, so a self-promotion shouldn't happen. That is going to be hard to avoid if you are the only one who does something. Looking at your add, you basically shouldn't bold something unless it pertains to the subject in the opening sentence. In addition (and realize I am a bit sleep deprived right now, so read up on Wikipedia policies), I think it would simply be better to describe the "fusion" you perform as a subheading, but expand it to include more detail (5-6 sentences). At the end, reference your website, but don't mention your name. This way, you add to our collective knowledge, but at the same time, you don't overtly advertise yourself. If someone is interested in reading the link, then it points to your website as another source for more info. You also have to justify your pictures and their usage.
You are toeing a VERY fine line here and you jumped clean across it when you added your name and not much info.
If you want to have more info about you personally, put that in your user page. Spruce it up as you see fit (take mine as an example) — BQZip01 — talk 11:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating anew article for a person

I would like to submitte an article about an eminent authority of Sanskit Tantra Sadhana, where I would like submitte in follwing form Chapter wise: 1) Personal (Biographical Scatch) ---- Earlier Age 

                                  --- Middle Age
                                ----- Last Age

2) Work 3) His deciples 4) Photographes 5) His litrature in brief 6) Places associted with him 7) Details of institutios & Organisation running with his name & principle

-- Sunil Upadhyaya

Shouldn't be a problem. See previous posts on how to start a new page. You may also want to read WP:BIO and WP:MoS to make sure you conform with all of the rules pertaining to your topic. — BQZip01 — talk 11:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I work for a company that deals with energy efficiency. I was hoping to add some articles about various energy efficiency topics like energy efficiency certficates. Although, all these articles will be neutral and WILL NOT be advertisements, I was wondering if I could link our organization in the external links section, since we have large resources of information on our siteEfficiency84 17:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Efficiency84 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to work with the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy to ensure you're not duplicating effort on the articles. As far as links to your company's site, I suggest you not do it, as that could be a conflict of interest - instead, suggest the link on the talk page of the article, and let another editor make the determination and add (or not add) the link. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for that information!Efficiency84
To keep Wikipedia free of commercial content, many editors (me included) take a strict approach to external links. If the organisation in question is of a not-for-profit, non-commercial nature, whose website contains useful editorial (not advertorial) content that is directly relevant to a specific article's subject matter, and features few or no commercial advertisements, then it is probably suitable. WP:EL is not quite strict enough on the face of it, but WP:NOT is applicable. Adrian M. H. 17:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. The organization I work for is a non-profit. I started a discussion at the energy portal. If I suggest any links, they will be exclusively to informational pages, and not advocacy or homepages. Efficiency84

novice questions

On Talk, do the questions and talk show up on the posted page?

Is there someone who can help me with a page so I comply with the Wikipedia rules and expectations?

Jefferyds 13:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q1: Not sure what you're asking.
Q2: Yes, plenty of people, but it would take a long time and a lot of discussion unless we know which article and/or which policies/guidelines you want to know about. Adrian M. H. 14:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q1: Yes. You ask a question, make a comment etc. and people read it, then respond - all on the same page. The talk pages are called "Talk:[name of article]". eg. "Wikipedia" and "Talk:Wikipedia".

Q2: You could start here: [1] for policies and advice, if you really want to know. But to be honest, newcomers aren't really expected to comply with all the rules and regulations right from the start. Make a mistake, we won't snow you under in criticism. Coming from a neutral point of view, not stealing copyright, generally being nice and writing articles in a reasonably formal "encyclopedic" tone are probably the most important. Most people learn things ad hoc as they go.martianlostinspace 16:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation?

An administrator sent me here. I think a disambiguation page is the right thing when there are several articles with the same name, right? And there should be no favoritsm unless one article is of a world famous person and the other article is very obscure, right?

Even with a world famous person, like President Clinton, Clinton is a disambiguation page, not a redirect to Mr. Clinton or Mrs. Clinton, even though the towns called Clinton are very small.

If the person is only known in one country and that article is a year newer than an article about a very old city that is not a small town, then disambiguation is the neutral thing, right? SRMach5B 04:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, disambiguation pages are appropriate. If you are referring to Obama, then yes (in my opinion) it should lead to a disambiguation page, as it currently does. LaraLoveT/C 05:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artist

Hi, I contributed the article on a French painter, which seems to have been used since by a number of people outside Wikipedia, so to an extant it has served its purpose. I think the article would be enhanced by an image from one or two of his paintings. Problem is, he died in 1956 so as far as I understand his work is protected by copyright until 2026. Someone has advised me that the use of an image would be outside this restriction and would constitute 'legitimate usage'. What's the solution?

You are looking at fair use standards. The Supreme Court's standards for claiming a painting as being fair use are:
  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
For example, see here for an example of someone citing fair use to include the work of a painter which is still under copyright. --Haemo 03:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they didn't quite do that right; the tag is accurate, but there is not clear explanation for each inclusion of the work, which is required. You need to write that up too. --Haemo 03:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit or cite contrary facts

I've never joined in here, so though the act of editing is not difficult, the protocol to follow is foggy for me.

I've found an entry with something, "A", stated as being the case. I have read elsewhere that "A" is not the case, but "B" is. I don't have outside expertise to know which is true but I would like to enter the second possibility into the the Wiki text. What should I do? It seems very odd for me to just go to the existing page and replace A with B especially, without an explanation of where the new information comes from.

Thanks 63.195.57.186 02:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mention it on the talk page for the article. That's the best way -- it might be a mistake, it might be vandalism, or you might be mistaken and the talk page knows that you're wrong. Either way, the resident posters there should be able to help you out. If it's a factual problem, add a {{fact}} tag to it, to encourage someone to cite it. --Haemo 02:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to resolve content removal dispute

I have been editing the John From Cincinnati page and added a fan site to the external links section. It has been deleted multiple times arbitrarily with no explanation. I've posted a question to the talk page with not response.

I've checked pages for other similar tv series and they all include fan sites in the external links section. The repeated deletions (by the same person) without explanation strike me as vandalism.

Is there a standard for tv series somewhere? I've only used other shows on wikipedia as an example and thought that was good enough. If not a standard is there some sort of authority figure at wikipedia who can arbitrate?

Is there anything else I can do. I'm a big fan of the show and hope to continue editing it's page. The fan site is an extension of the show and think a link to it is relevant.

Please advise on what I can do - or let me know if I'm completely in the wrong here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tmarvelous (talk • contribs).

It's probably best to discuss the matter with the person who's deleting the link on their User talk page (User talk:their username). If you do decide to reinstate the link, write 'see talk' in your edit summary. You might also want to see the dispute resolution policy for what to do in a dispute. Hope that helps! --ais523 15:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Hi there! You can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television or Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. The external links page states that a fan site can be added if it is notable, is useful, and is well established (no excessive advertisement, recognized, etc). However, it also states that you should add the link in an open directory, and then add the open directory link in the article, to prevent everyone from adding their own links. -- ReyBrujo 15:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on Math Articles

Why are there articles on trigonometry and calculus, but no articles on Algebra I and II? 24.218.240.65 16:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article would be Algebra. Wikipedia doesn't arbitrarily split up its articles the same way mathematics textbooks do; instead, long articles like Algebra contain links to more specific articles about parts of the subject. --ais523 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks :) 24.218.240.65 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though Wikipedia should have articles on the topics in these modules, such as simultaneous equations (off the top of my head). x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biography page section heading "Trivia"

In the page for Kliment Voroshilov there's a section with content about the eponymic use of his surname for various Soviet military terms (e.g. awards, vehicles, etc.). Its section heading is Trivia. In other pages (can't recall which...), I've seen similar material under the heading Miscellaneous—or, along the lines of "In literature/the media/other genres" in other contexts, thought to improvise "In the nomenclature" . I realize such would be the "bold" solution that would eventually (?) be treated more appropriately by a more knowledgeable editor, but I'm reluctant to create a possibly inappropriate precedent that might lead to unforeseen, deleterious iterations. (Better to become that "more knowledgeable editor" myself! :-) So I checked the WP MOS section on headings in hopes of finding a list of standard headings for such purposes, but didn't turn up anything of the sort. Where else might I look, and what would you suggest? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 20:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its absence from the list of standard appendices is a deliberate omission, because we should avoid trivia sections. The rationale behind this consensus is that any such material that is fit for inclusion should be integrated elsewhere in the text, rather than have a separate section that can encourage cruft-like non-encyclopædic material. I would not really expect to see any trivia in a biography. Adrian M. H. 20:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crap. I was about to type that, but not as eloquently. Thanks for sparing me the grief. — BQZip01 — talk 20:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is I believe, on this page, a separate section is merited for this material—so I'm seeking guidance on the appropriate heading to substitute for the present, inappropriate Trivia. Perhaps to expand as a See also list? -- Deborahjay 20:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updated: Done (with expanded content), as See also section heading. -- Deborahjay 21:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably opt for Eponyms in this instance. Adrian M. H. 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

password

I just "logged on" as a new user. Then went thru the security codes 3 times, noticing that my password was not recognized. Please email it to me. Please do not "list" the email address below! It is for you to respond to only.

Carmen (E-Mail removed for security purposes)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.232.180.117 (talk • contribs)

Can you remember what username you have? By the way, since this is a public page, I have removed the e-mail address you provided to reduce spam. Tra (Talk) 22:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite guidelines?

Is there a page or a guide to rewriting articles? I am looking to rewrite an article and can't seem to locate any clear set of guidelines for doing so (as in, protocols to follow, not grammar and such). Ex: I ran across people saying to work on the rewrite on your own user subpage, while the subpage article hints (but does not tell you exactly how) to use a talk subpage. SarcasticDwarf 17:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must not rewrite articles on talk pages; they are for discussing (and sometimes proposing) content. If you want to make significant or wholesale changes, you can do it offline or in a sub-page of user space. Up to you which you choose. Adrian M. H. 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to keep up a change

Hello, I deleted the line: (But the Berliners also used "Berliner" as the word for "jelly doughnut".) within the article "John F. Kennedy". That was no vandalism, but a correction. I made a comment to substantiate the change. But a bot reverted it.

Now, if I’m not logged in, the original version containing the mentioned line is there. But when I’m logged in, I see my corrected version, which means, I can’t delete this line.

What can I do to delete the line?

A second question: What do the colours of usernames mean? Why do I have a red username?

Katharina01 08:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must be your browser. Try clearing the cache, because the line you deleted is gone. Also, a bot didn't revert your change - no one did.
Also, the red usernames mean you haven't made a user page yet - click on it, and write a short bio of yourself -- see user pages for more info. --Haemo 08:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have an article typed in Gurbani Lipi, but your articles are typed in Gurmukhi. How can i send it to you ? I see some mistakes in your pages. I want to correct them how can i do it ?

Hackers????

Hello,

I wanted to ask another question, concerning my comment "how to keep up a change.

Here the original (a copy of the preview):

Hello, I deleted the line: (But the Berliners also used "Berliner" as the word for "jelly doughnut".) within the article "John F. Kennedy". That was no vandalism, but a correction. I made a comment to substantiate the change. But a bot reverted it.

Now, if I’m not logged in, the original version containing the mentioned line is there. But when I’m logged in, I see my corrected version, which means, I can’t delete this line.

What can I do to delete the line?

A second question: What do the colours of usernames mean? Why do I have a red username?

Katharina01 08:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It must be your browser. Try clearing the cache, because the line you deleted is gone. Also, a bot didn't revert your change - no one did. Also, the red usernames mean you haven't made a user page yet - click on it, and write a short bio of yourself -- see user pages for more info. --Haemo 08:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Haemo,

I cleared the cache of internet browser and tried firefox and opera, all with the same result: the line is still there, when I´m not logged in. When I´m logged in, it´s gone.

I had a note in my watchlist that said, that a bot had reversed my change. On some antibotlist I made a comment. There is a note in my watchlist I don´t understand: (diff) (hist) . . John F. Kennedy‎; 07:42 . . (-390) . . 76.80.211.235 (Talk) (→Memorials 2nd to last removal of uncited work, not blanking.)

The problem is: If the change is only visible for logged-in users, then its useless for most users.

I am new, this is my first action, thank you for helping. Katharina01 10:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Before sending it, I checked an internet dictionary and then checked again with internet explorer about the line, where I found that the line was gone!

This made my question obsolete, so I canceled it.

Now I see this absurd line in my original "how to make a change" - comment:

"i have an article typed in Gurbani Lipi, but your articles are typed in Gurmukhi. How can i send it to you ? I see some mistakes in your pages. I want to correct them how can i do it ?"

I did not send this line!-

My computer has been hacked, but I set up the system new.

Is it possible, that there is a hackerproblem again? I´m beginning do be really worried!

Katharina01 10:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment:

Checking with the internet explorer while logged in was nonsense. Now, after having checked out, I observed that the line is still gone, so the question is still relevant.

But the question, whether there is a hackerproblem, is relevant as well, because I didn´t send the absurd line.

Katharina01 10:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

Hello,

The amendment to „hackers“ contains a mistake. I correct it: Checking with the internet explorer while logged in with the internet explorer was nonsense. Now, after having logged out and checked again, I observed that the line is still THERE, so the question is still relevant.

Katharina01 11:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MartinBot/AntiVandalBot didn't revert you, it reverted the person who edited the article after you, for comparison, your edit, and the bot's edit--VectorPotentialTalk 11:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I am logged in with the internet browser, and the line is not there.

At the same time I have firefox open, with firefox, I’m not logged in, and the line is there.

I don’t understand that!

Since the line is not there while I’m logged in, I can’t delete it! But as soon as I log out, clear the cache and restart the computer, the line reappears. So every user, who is not logged in, sees the line, and that is exactly what I wanted to stop.

What this is doing in my comment “How to keep up a change” I don’t understand either:

"i have an article typed in Gurbani Lipi, but your articles are typed in Gurmukhi. How can i send it to you ? I see some mistakes in your pages. I want to correct them how can i do it ?"

I really didn’t send it!

Thank you for the welcome!

Katharina01 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I own an historic 18th century public house in the vicinity of Chiswick House and Hogarth House,in Chiswick, UK. I added the pub's email address as an external link, on the basis that the pub is an integral part of the historical fabric of the area and visitors might appreciate being told this and finding that they can eat and have some locally-brewed ale (Fullers) after their visit. However, another contributor has, on three occasions, removed the links I added. I would like to know if this user has special powers which allows him/her to do this, or is it simply a self-important person who has assumed ownership of the sites and allows only external references which they approve of.

Here is wiki, not a Property Agency, we have a full power to delete it as soon as possible. Chanueting 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user who deleted the links is an Administrator but that is irrelevant. Any user may delete that link as it is inappropriate. Please see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Please also see WP:SPAM and WP:COI.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation Library, Northwestern University

My entry was tagged because it didn't quote a source and because it supposedly read like an advertisement.

I rewrote the entire article. It is substantially the same in content and presentation as the Wikepedia site for the Transportation Library UC Berkeley, which is not tagged.

I signed the article, I didn't know of any other way to quote a source - I am the source.

How can I get the tags removed? Please let me hear from you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_contributors%27_help_page&oldid=139455996"