A category shows on the page, but not in "edit this page", so I can't find it to delete it
Hello,
A category appears twice on a page and I'd like to remove the one which is a mistake -- a capitalized one does not link. But when I go to "edit this page", the incorrect category doesn't show up. Where is it? Page in question: Allen Kurzweil. I just want to erase it.
Thank you, Alex Dunwoodie01:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. It is under "edit this page" but for some reason it was at the very top of the page. There are some cats on the top and some on the bottom. I don't know why. - Rjd006001:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears someone added the categories twice, to the top of the page, and to the bottom. Categories always go at the very bottom, so thanks to Rjd for fixing it. Ariel♥Gold01:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Done, an editor decided to add the categories at the top and the bottom - and Rjd hadn't removed all of them when I got to it. That would be your problem. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!)01:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. A wiki is a site that uses wiki software as its operating platform. There are thousands of them. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that is run by the Wikimedia foundation, and undoubtedly the best known wiki in the world. There are sister projects such as Wiktionary (a free dictionary) and others (full list). For the answer to your question, thus, your best bet may be to ask at wikimapia, which is completely unaffiliated with Wikipedia. Alternatively, you could ask your question at the Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Miscellaneous, as they strive there to answer questions about anything (this page is for questions about using Wikipedia)--Fuhghettaboutit08:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why was a page about an artist and the albums released deleted before it was even completed
why was a page about an artist and the albums released deleted before it was even completed?
There was no advertising, just facts about a highly acclaimed artist with tons of press - i.e verifiable information.
biographical article that does not assert significance. This article was written in the same manner as a fellow artist using the same topic headings and style and similar relevance - why then was this deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosy jo (talk • contribs) 03:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see various bots coming along all the time linking to articles in other languages. How do these bots know which article corresponds to another article in that language? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask the operator of one of the bots, they would know best. It's also possible that someone populates a list and then the bot just does all the actual work. LeeboT/C04:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Newman
OK, so this question has a quick part, and a long explanation.
I'm trying to add an article for "Bob Newman" who was a singer/comedian in the 1950s. There is already an article with the name Bob Newman, but for the wrong person. There is no reference to this Bob Newman being known as Robert Newman, where there is already a disambiguation page. There isn't a lot of other information available, so I can't add a middle name or anything like that. Can you help? What should I do?
Basically, I was updating the article Hee Haw, and discussing the song "Phfft! You Were Gone." This was originally written by Susan Heather in 1952, but Bob Newman did a parody on an album in 1959, and later it was sung on albums by Archie Campbell in 1966, and Buck Owens in 1972. So I wanted to add an article on Bob Newman, who was a member of the Georgia Crackers group. I did add an article for Georgia Crackers, but I would like to link both these articles to a page with the correct Bob Newman, but I can't, since the page already exists for someone else.
Anyway, thanks for any assistance you might be able to render...
The answer assumed you want a Wikipedia page to appear in search results at Google or Yahoo. If you meant something else then please clarify what. PrimeHunter16:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article for deletion
I nominated an article for deletion because it contained a bunch of garbage. However, the editors of that article seem to like it even though it is crap and makes no sense. However, they are upset and I feel bad for them. Can I withdraw an AFD request? Pilotbob12:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might be wrong, but it looks like someone else made the request. You can't withdraw someone else's nomination, only your response. Unfortunately, doing so would go against established policy. There's nothing wrong with compassion, but don't let it cloud your judgement. - Mgm|(talk)14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm talking about the [[[Clan (Warriors]] article. Its just a bunch of nonsense from the book series and I didn't think anyone would really care if it was deleted. I was trying to get some of the crap off wikipedia. But they seem to like it for whatever stupid reason so I figured if I could cancel the request maybe I would. Pilotbob18:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a "silver surfer" new to Wikipedia. How can I correct an error in the heading of a new Editing page I am trying to create? Specifically, repetition of the word "Editing" in the heading. Can you help?
...regarding the unblock template. Once you get rejected from the first unblock template it says "This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request or add another unblock request", but the problem is that you are no longer in the "Requests for unblock" category. So what happens if you either genuinely disagree with the reason given by the rejecting admin (as they're human it's expected they'll make mistakes) or if something changes which affects your block (new evidence arising or whatever)? You can hardly go and post on ANI about it, and if you post another unblock request they'll protect your userpage, so what happens if you feel the need to ask for your block to be considered another time and no admin is watching your page? 124.176.96.6713:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't. It's part of the MediaWiki software. Unless you are talking about the title of the page, in which case you can click "move" at the top of the page (if your account is at least 4 days old) and move the page to a new title. If you can't move it, (i.e. you're too new or the page is move-protected) you may want to look into posting at requested moves. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!)14:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could try it with a userscript (WP:US), but I have no idea why you'd want to. There is nothing to correct as it's not 'wrong' to begin with. - Mgm|(talk)14:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Editing" isn't actually a part of the title, it just displays that way to let you know that you're editing the page, for instance "Editing Wikipedia:Help desk" when the actual title of the page is just "Wikipedia:Help desk". If it really bothers you I'm sure there's some clever javascript hack that could remove it for you. --VectorPotentialTalk16:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Maybe the problem is that you didn't click "Save page". That saves the page so others can see it. Before you have saved, the window always says "Editing" to show that you are in the process of editing the page. It's the same when you edit this help desk. PrimeHunter16:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to put in citations to reference a recent re-loaded article- but can't quite figure out how to use the format. Little help?15:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickPHawk (talk • contribs)
Put your website inside <ref> tags, like this <ref>http://www.example.com</ref>. It will automatically create that little number and put it in the References section. If there is no references section, put the following code at the bottom:
I was looking for a reference to "cosmic year" on the first page of the mysticism article, but I couldn't figure out how to search the document for the term "cosmic year". When I went to the side of the article and typed in the term cosmic year, it caused the whole system to go into a major search mode and just kicked me out of the document I was looking at and sent me back to the list I had used to find that mysticism article in the first place.
Once I get to your article, how do I search that document for the term "cosmic year" that I want to locate?
Mooredelira16:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Sincerely,
Richard Moore[reply]
There are several ways to go about this - as I'm only familiar with Windows, I'm hoping you're using that. Hold Ctrl and press F - this should bring up something that searches the page in almost all browsers. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!)16:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To make this clear: Wikipedia does not provide a "search within page" function, because this function is better performed by you web browser. The Wikipedia server sent th ewhole page to your computer, and the web browser is displaying it to you. therefore, you can tell the web browser on your computer to search the page locally. IF you are using Windows IE (Internet Explorer) or most other web browsers, you tell the browser to perform this local search by using the <ctrl-f> key as NASCAR FAN said, or through the menus (probably edit-->search in page.) -Arch dude00:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied. Generally, we don't link to off-site images due to copyright concerns. WP:EL would be the most relevant policy. Freely available images are prefered. That said, while images are considered less reliable than text sources, they could be used in certain situations. -- Kesh17:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I considered citing WP:EL, but since I couldn't find a section that specifically referred to using images as references, I declined to do so, and came here instead.--VectorPotentialTalk17:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. There's no specific policy, just a general consensus I've seen in discussions. Hrm. This might make a good WP:ESSAY when I get some free time... -- Kesh17:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Log in for several language Wikipedia
Do I have to create a separate account for each Language Wikipedia I wish to participate to?
Right now, yes, you must register a seperate account for each language edition. The MediaWiki developers are working on a system to allow users to use a single account for multiple editions, however. Nihiltres(t.l)18:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have entered two references in my article "Lewis Page Mercier". Whilc the numbers of the references appear in the text, clicking on them does not reveal the reference. I could not find any instructions in all the help pages on how to insert references. I used the <ref> tag. Maybe this is only for internet references, is there another tag for text references? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwolcott (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whew, it took me a few tries to clean up the disappearing-text problem that resulted from the <ref> tag in the question. When you need to type something like that, be sure to wrap it <nowiki> tags like this: <nowiki><ref></nowiki>. For more information about references, see: WP:FOOT, WP:CITE, WP:CITET, and {{Reflist}}. --Teratornis18:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any info on entering references. I entered a couple of references using the ref tag byt the numbers appeared but the reference did not. Mavbe the ref tag is only for internet references. Is there another tag for text references? Thanks your editor said there were no references in the articls but provided scant help on how to do it. the page is Lewis Page Mercier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwolcott (talk • contribs) 19:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to build on a reference to a band in an existing Wiki entry. A link had been created, calling the band the Damn Dirty Apes project, when in fact the band is called Damn Dirty Apes. I clicked on the link for damn dirty apes project and created the basic information page which I will be building on, however the band simply doesn't have the word project in it. I searched for Damn Dirty Apes, expecting to be led either to other pertinant information or a blank page to edit but instead I received a redirect to a major page, Planet of the Apes. I don't want to mess with that page, but would be incorrect if I left the band referred to as a Project when it is not. How do I create a Damn Dirty Apes page in this situation please?
Those reviews would be conducted by your WikiProject - there's no official review system for A-, B-, Start-, or Stub- classes. You might want to consider sending them to peer review, but they're not going to assign it a particular class level. Hersfold(t/a/c)21:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link on the top of this page that describes how to make new pages. But I have no idea what an autopighray is. If you're talking about some sort of profile about yourself, you shouldn't. That is not within the scope of Wikipedia as it's not encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk)20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My password does not work. checked send email password. It says it did, but nothing came through.
jrhmdtraum — Preceding comment signed as by jrhmdtraum (talk·contribs) actually added by 24.159.34.136 (talk·contribs)
I have spent the last hour reading instructions--still lost...must be me. I wanted to comment on an article I've read here. Can't seem to be able to. Could you please help me walk through this??? Thank You for any help you can provide. I'm not even sure how to submit this so that I can get an answer...hope this works!! MLBMarielbecker19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with the article, then leave a note on its talkpage (click "discussion" at the top of the article). There's no way to directly comment on the article itself. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!)19:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to comment and discuss an article, you should do so on its talkpage. Look at the row of tabs at the top of the article page. The one to the left should say article (or if you look at this one, it is project page). The tab next to it says talkpage. Click on that, then click on the + icon next to the edit this page tab to start a new discussion topic. Type your comment, and then see who replies! Hope that helps! With regards, Lradrama19:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the article? A very few articles have protected talk pages which only administrators can edit. If the article doesn't have a talk page now then just create it. PrimeHunter22:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created a page that was deleted. I would like to bring this problem to a higher authority other than the 12 year old that deleted it. How do I do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.244.216 (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Duh. It was called Blain Johnson. See the Deletion Log. It was deleted because it did not meet Wikipedias notability guidelines. It must have been about a non-notable person. You are welcome to start a Deletion Review but I would suggest not doing this unless it actually was about a notable person, and met the guidelines WP:BIO. - Rjd006000:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? While you are slugging it out to try to get your article on Wikipedia, you may wish to consider putting the article on a wiki that has fewer requirements for biographical articles than Wikipedia, for example: WikiBios. Also look on WikiIndex for wikis that are about whatever subject Blain Johnson is/was involved with. --Teratornis00:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is enough. This page concerned a 17 year old named Blain Johnson. Looking at the user's name who created the article, it is obvious that there is a very clear COI. Enough of this nonsense; this person is not notable. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk01:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And let's make one thing absolutely clear. Someone's standing within Wikipedia is not decided by their age, but their contributions to the project. Twelve might be young, but if they were chosen to be an administrator (which is the case if they can delete something), it generally shows them to be mature, level-headed and thoughtful. - Mgm|(talk)08:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
template parameters
If I'm transcluding a template and one of the parameters has a ton of non-wiki pipes and braces, how can I keep that from interfering with the wiki syntax of the template translusion? Using alternate characters isn't an option- this is a simple form of what I'm working with:
{{templatename|{{anothertemplate}}}}
and anothertemplate is pasting in some end braces. What can I do? I distintly remember this issue addressed somewhere but I don't remember. --ffroth00:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble viewing Cyrillic characters in Wikipedia. I'm using Mac OS 10.4.10, Firefox 2.0.0.8, and everything is essentially on default for display (eg. character encoding is set to UTF-8, and changing the code does not show the missing characters). If i go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic, only about half the characters show up, including 'the table showing the differences between the upright and italic/cursive Cyrillic letters', and the 'Common letters' table, while others, like 'The Early Cyrillic alphabet (and the numerical meanings of the letters)', 'Cyrillic characters in Unicode' and 'Letters of the Cyrillic alphabet' are just questions marks. Most uses of Cyrillic on various pages are like this. This is a problem i don't have with alphabets like Hebrew, Greek and Arabic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.55.239 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this link. It appears you could choose View → Character Encoding → More Encodings and then either Unicode (UTF-16) or something under East European. Respond here if that does not help. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, no it doesn't help. None of the encodings make the Cyrillic text display properly - most of them in fact destroy the display of what i can see (and UTF-16 turn the whole page into Chinese characters). It's annoying, because Safari shows the pages correctly, but i don't know how to translate their settings to Firefox, and i really don't understand the encoding process itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.55.239 (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Need to change title of article
I recently created an article but then realized that I had worded the title incorrectly.
Take a look at WP:MOVE for instructions. If you do not have an account or your account is less then five days old you would need an admin to move the page for you. To request an admin to do the move go here: WP:RM. meshach01:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting offensive content.
Resolved
I would like to delete some offensive comments someone placed on a page. I can't figure out how to do it. Is it allowed to delete commets that others have placed? It's on the page about the town of Ballycastle, Co. Mayo, Ireland.
Thank you, Dismas. That particular bit of vandalism was really disgusting and I wanted it off fast. Sorry for my clumsy attempt. It's my first time trying to edit Wikipedia. I'll spend more time researching how to do it next time.
Yes, it can be done the same way templates stored userpage can be transcluded and the same way archived pages are shown on this page, but it's generally a bad idea. - Mgm|(talk)08:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we rarely do this because of space problems. Right-side infoboxes aren't usually wide enough to accommodate the edit links. I tried adding {{Tnavbar|Video RPG|mini=1|nodiv=1}} either before or after the title and it just doesn't look right. The best I could find was adding {{Tnavbar|Video RPG|mini=1}} after the title (i.e. without nodiv=1). —Wknight94 (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should links to redirect pages be avoided?
When someone clicks a link to a redirect page, does it take more time to load and also wastes bandwidth? I mean, should editors be encouraged not to do give such links in the first place?
With piping, there is really no reason to ever link to redirect pages (unless it was not a redirect page when it was linked to), but still it seems many editors settle for linking to redirect pages as if it makes no difference whether they link there or directly to the source. So should there be a guideline asking to avoid writing link to redirect pages whenever possible (or trying fixing every such link if you happen to edit its article anyway)? -Raybnay10:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linking via the redirect makes sense if there's ever a chance that the redirect will turn into a full-fledged article; I seem to remember that developers said that the extra server load this causes is negligible. Bypassing a redirect to link directly tends to make the most sense when the redirect is from a typo or from a 'common-misconception'-type name; otherwise, it's not really worth it, and can even be harmful in some situations. Hope that helps! --ais523 10:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I can see how it is negligible when it is done only rarely. But it seems to be done in almost every other article. I don't think most people do it to support only temporary redirect pages. They probably just do it because they think it is completely equal for a direct link. -Raybnay15:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it's just for convenience sake. It's easier to type [[Henry VIII]] instead of [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]], for example. Corvus cornix22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has written a message to me in a completely foreign language on my talkpage here and I simply can't read it. Is there any way this can be translated into English, which is what should only be found on an English Encyclopedia? Many thanks, Lradrama11:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the translation from Google:
Title - Please help
Message -
May peace and God's mercy and blessings I ask you to help the functioning of educational funds to my account as any employee has the funds and sugar
Based on that translation, I'd remove it as spam. There is a chart somewhere that helps pinpoint specific languages so you can use WP:BABEL to find a person to translate it. People are allowed to ask questions in other languages than English, there is no rule against that, but they shouldn't assume they'll get an answer. - Mgm|(talk)11:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i can't find any info or anywhere i can properly ask about this, when an article has been tagged as needing sources and then someone revamps the article and it has great sources etc - who can remove the original tags? Its just that the article Declan Bennett has undergone a recent revamp and i got it upgraded to start class but its still tagged even though everything is pretty well sourced. This is something thats always confused me actually. Thanks :D Princesskirsty11:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can remove the tags. If you have removed the tags but someone else has re-added them, you can follow the dispute resolution process which begins with discussing the tags with the person who re-added them (on the article talk page or the person's user talk page). —Wknight94 (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
aaah great, so i can just remove them then. the article reads really well for what it is so i thought it was unfair to have it still tagged. Thanks :D Princesskirsty12:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The article now has some references, which is great. They were all naked links, so I have turned them all into inline citations with proper attribution information and reference formatting. The article is, however, only spottily referenced now and the {{refimprove}} tag does not merit removal. I have added fact tags for unreferenced paragraphs as well. So yes, anyone can remove tags, but in this case, I do not agree that the article has great or complete references. Every fact in an article must be attributed to a reliable source.--Fuhghettaboutit18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
American Indians
81.145.242.7311:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Dear Sir,
My friend and i are planning a visit to America for two weeks, now i am disabled through a brain heamorage in 1979 which left me with no feeling down my right side, i can walk do my own cooking etc etc we intend to hire a large van sleeper to go around as far as we can as the country is far to big to visit a lot in two weeks, can you tell me the best route to take once we have landed, we are not interested in Las Vegas and we need the best routes to visit the US with the limited time limit we have, all help will be greatly appreciated, I realy wasnt to meet the American indians[reply]
I was reading the page soliciting donations to the WikiMedia foundation and I think it's a great idea to do so, but in reading the section about direct deposit, I'm noticing that it only posts routing and account numbers for IBAN. This is all well and good for users in the participating European nations, but I'm in the United States, where I can't take advantage of this. Would it be possible to provide ABA/Routing Numbers and account numbers for those of us in the United States to be able to donate more easily? -Dorfner15:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Dorfner[reply]
There's small text below the National Belgain Account Number that reads: For countries that do not support the IBAN system or for transactions inside Belgium. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!)15:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi my name is Liz and I am looking for a song- on a 45 ( yes there were 45 lol) jo stafford sang "shrimp boat" but on the flip or "B" side was the song I was looking for- think it was called "A Brave Man"- don't know the singer other than it was a female- can anyone help?
thank you
liz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.183.234 (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reading Wikipedia for a couple of years and I want to start contributing to the site but I'm somewhat scared since I do not want to post something that it false. I want to contribute but I do not want to get into trouble or cause more work for the other editors. Also, what type of information should be posted? For example, is it ok to post dates of up coming events or should you only post things that have happened in the past?
Hello! It's really great to have you here with us. It would be nice if you would create an account; that way all of your edits are easily attributed. I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:Introduction, and Wikipedia:Your first article. Your information should be verifiable, please read this page for more information. If you need more help, just place {{helpme}} on your talk page post here, or ask me (I'm usually around and am able to help), and someone will be along to help you. Welcome to Wikipedia! Regards, Neranei(talk)19:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'll take your questions one at a time. It's okay if you accidentally cause more work for other editors - you'll probably get a note on your talkpage explaining what you did wrong. It's also a good idea to click "Show preview" before saving your edit to make sure formatting comes out correctly. You may post anything that you feel should be posted, just make sure it is sourced, and does not violate policies like Keep a neutral point of view, Cite reliable sources, and Don't post speculation. It's fine to post information about upcoming events - see 2018 FIFA World Cup for examples - but don't post speculation. If you have any other questions, just post here again! NASCAR Fan24(radio me!)19:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has grown a lot since I first arrived, but what I did when I started can still apply today. Instead of reading everything in one go, I read the help pages in small manageable chunks and I started when I found I needed something. If you read the pages that have been suggested by the others, you'll know the bare basics. Also, keep an eye on what you create. People are bound to come in and add to it, meaning you can learn from it. Since you're an experienced reader, take an article about a similar subject (preferably a featured article) and compare it so you know what a good article of type should look like. - Mgm|(talk)19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source Card
I am doing a science project and I do not have an encyclopedia so I came to this web-site, is there any way I can find out information on this web-site to put on a source card like a written encyclopedia? please repond
thanks,
susie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.114.174 (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is something that might help: Special:Cite. You type the name of the article you want cited in the box on that page, and it gives you the information. If that isn't what you are talking about, sorry, but maybe you could be a little more specific. - Rjd006019:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is my edit not the way it previewed?
I just made my first edit of the Wiki. Being the Web manager for The Big Wu, I checked out the site and found some errors to fix. After making my (this time) small changes I previewed the edit and everything displayed fine. Next I clicked 'Save' and it took me back to The Big Wu wiki page. Now a information box that was in the upper right corner of the page is no longer there. Is this now a temporary page until someone reviews my edit or did I break the entry somehow?
No, the box is there. Whatever you did didn't affect it in any way. Keep on editing! Oh yes, and edits don't have to be approved - they take place instantly. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!)20:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't do anything wrong but just got caught in a weird coincidence on your first edit. You saved your edit [3] the same minute the infobox was moved.[4] The used template name on the page you edited is a redirect which was updated to the new location 4 minutes later.[5] This may have caused the box to temporarily not display. PrimeHunter23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can I find articles created by a specific editor?
I read two related articles which were interesting, and I noticed they created and written by the same editor. How can I search for other articles created by this user (apart from searching their contributions)? I know there is a special way to search for these, or possibly only articles created in the last month. 172.214.131.22920:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above: Here is something that might help: Special:Cite. You type the name of the article you want cited in the box on that page, and it gives you the information. If that isn't what you are talking about, sorry, but maybe you could be a little more specific. - Rjd006020:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict) It depends. You can first try warning them with the templates at WP:WARN. If they've already been given at least one warning, and one of them is a recent final warning, then report them to Administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV). Alternatively, if you suspect the account is being used only for vandalism, then you can report to AIV without a final warning - however, it is common sense to wait until they have made at least five edits and have at least two warnings before reporting a vandalism only account. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!)22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citation
I am not sure how to cite my source, I tried using the citation help but I can't figure it out. The citation is on the page for The Academy Is... I need help. Fobmcrtaipatd23:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of the page, in the left-hand pane, under "Toolbox," you should see a link called "Cite this article." Be aware, though, that most teachers won't accept Wikipedia as a direct source; instead, you should use the sources that the article uses. Good luck! GlassCobra23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Fobmcrtaipatd was asking about how to add a citation for his edit to Almost Here (The Academy Is album), not how to cite a WP article for a school asignment. He added a ref/ref, but what is missing is a {{reflist}}. A complication is that the article's one other citation uses the alternate ref/note style. To make Fobmcrtaipatd's ref work I am going to change the other citation to the ref/ref style and add the reflist. Sbowers300:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that some people might not have the fonts you have on your computer so your signature might be slightly different than what shows up on your computer. --Hdt83Chat00:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except for a few, all users here are volunteers. They are not obligated to be online or edit at any time. By the way, how did you send the message? I did not see it on his talk page. --Mark(Mschel)01:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are messages at User talk:Sesshomaru#Redirects/categories and some of them are replied at User talk:Kitty53#Categories in redirects. If you want another reply then I suggest being more clear about what it should be about. Sesshomaru asked you what you wanted in his last reply at 2.23. You made two more posts but didn't say you wanted anything, except you asked for a response. Response to what? Don't expect people to reply simply to say they saw your message. If you then reply to say the same then an infinite circle can start. You can assume they have seen it when it was on their talk page and they have edited since. PrimeHunter01:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still have no idea what you want from him (maybe a comment on a new category which you didn't tell him you created?), and I guess he doesn't either. He asked twice without getting an answer I can think of a meaningful reply to (saying thanks for giving you an idea is not a productive answer to "What would you like to know?" and "Please tell me what you want assistance with.") I would probably have stopped posting to you, like he did. Maybe it all seems clear to you but from my perspective, it looks like you posted 4 messages with no indication of what you wanted. He asked you the first two times and then apparently gave up. If you want him to say something then say what it is. We are not mind readers. PrimeHunter05:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like, you want more information about a certain topic? Why not just look up more information on Google or some other search engine? Wikipedia isn't the one-stop research shop. GlassCobra01:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
about 'notability'
I recently started 2 pages and slightly edited another page but some wiki members have raised concerns about notability.
The pages are Ola-abaza, and Ola Kamel. especially in the second case the person concerned was very widely involved in political action and is quite well-known locally. She has also appeared in numerous print media and on local TV.
In the first case, the page resembles numerous others about local artists from New Zealand and I consider it valid to include this info in a wiki. All the info is accurate. What should i do to deal with the notability concerns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 01:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first page doesn't seem to comply with the notability guidelines. No actual albums yet, article full of redlinks, and only source is a Myspace page. The second page seems more notable, but it needs to be cleaned up a bit. It's not really a matter of accuracy, nor is it a matter of "dealing with concerns", it's a matter of whether or not the subject is notable enough to have an article. GlassCobra01:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second article had a complete copy & paste of comments Ola Kamel made about herself. First, that is a copyright violation. Second, it's extremely weak as a source, as it's self-written. I removed that section, and the link to the original source. The second reference was a dead link. That leaves no citations on the article whatsoever. -- Kesh01:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You state that "All the info is accurate" but you do not provide any way for other editors to verify the info. Notability, verifiability, and reliable sources all go hand in hand. If you can find web pages that provide factual information about your subject, then those web pages can be verifiable sources for the info and will ipso facto demonstrate notability. If the subject is notable there will be web pages that you can cite as the source of the data. And the fact that your subject appears in citeable newspaper articles indicates that the subect is notable. Conversely, if you cannot find any web pages that mention your subject, then the subject must not be notable. So go find web pages about your subject, add footnotes for your info, and the existence of those footnotes will take care of notability. Sbowers301:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quote by Ola Kamel is publicly available like all such blurbs, and I have corrected the matter by adding a direct link. It is just like quoting any other politician who published the blurbs or speech publicly. I also added other links citing her work and will add more as i find it. I may also scan newspaper articles and upload them as evidence in the near future.
As for the Ola-abaza article, I added only two links and because the subject matter is a local Christchurch artist and i doubt many more citations would be found, but i would hope this doesn't doom a perfectly valid article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From your own description, it sounds like you are writing about somebody who will fail our standards of notability. There is no disgrace in not being notable yet; but we can't accomodate articles about somebody on the basis that they might be notable someday, or that they are world-famous all over Christchurch. Sorry. --Orange Mike03:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. You might look for information at the Bacteria, Genome, and Genome project articles. Thank you. GlassCobra01:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold down your Ctrl key and scroll your mouse button. You probably hit it by accident, which changes your font sizes. Scrolling up makes it bigger, scrolling down makes it smaller. -- Kesh02:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where do they get all that nonsense? Is this actually law? I've had a feeling for awhile that they just pull that stuff out of their butts but this is just the last straw.. what a ridiculous rule! I have no idea where you would actually ask this on the commons, so I'll ask here.. is that actually based in law? --ffroth02:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I'm getting rid of the Godwinned section title. Second, what they're doing is pretty common. The trouble is that Copyright laws are different from nation to nation, and an international media (such as a website) can find itself under a lawsuit from other governments. This is what's known in the profession as "covering your ass." By making sure that the upload adheres to copyright for each nation involved, it keeps the Commons out of legal hot water. -- Kesh02:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They will not do homework for you, but: 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. PrimeHunter03:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if I have information to write a page, but no clue as to how to format it?
Hello,
This is probably a dumb question...
I have been asked by the to update an English page based on a page written in Japanese.
However, I am a bit of a technophobe and have no clue how to layout a page for wiki. Is there someone who can write the information in for me if I email a word document somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.125.171.101 (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just did an article called "Longue Pointe" but I spelled it wrong. The article is spelled with a small "p" "Longue pointe." Can you tell me how to change the title (from small p to a capital P), without having to make a whole new article (a duplicate)?
Not necessarily. CSD A3 isn't really the best tag to apply, considering that the article is currently a valid stub, thus making the tag invalid. Asking for cleanup is preferable, unless the article doesn't pass notability, WP:MUSIC in this case, and if it doesn't, then merging should be explored as an option before outright deletion. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)06:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Public domain text
I know we are not supposed to "plagiarize" other people's work, but what about stuff in the public domain? Is it permissible to reproduce public domain documents word for word? I'm sure other people are doing it, but up to now I've been laboriously transcribing the info in such documents into my own words, but when there's a great deal of info to cover, it takes forever. I could do it 1000 times quicker with just a copy-and-paste, so I'd like to clarify the situation, thanks. Gatoclass09:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding PD material or material whose copyright has expired is perfectly all right, so yes, you can copy them word for word. You'll still want to specify the source in a reference though. Here is a list of templates to give credit from a few general sources, if your source is one of the listed you might want to add the appropriate template. henrik•talk11:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd pretty much figured it out from reading the policies, but thanks for confirming it for me. It is going to save me soooooo much work! :)
Turns out there's even a wiki template I can use to specify this particular source, so obviously it's fine to quote from it. The original text isn't always so flash, but I can always go back and tweak the articles to improve them a bit later. Thanks once again Hendrik. Gatoclass12:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
x42 is right. You should at least spend some time on copyediting so the article fulfills Wikipedia requirements if you choose to copy a PD source. - Mgm|(talk)17:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When taking material from an outside source and adding it to Wikipedia, there are three major concerns (that I can think of off the top of my head...).
Copyright infringement. Is the material licensed in such a way that it can be used on Wikipedia? Is the material old enough to have lapsed into the public domain? Is it material that cannot be copyrighted (U.S. Government publications, etc.)?
Plagiarism. Wikipedia is an academic work, and we (should) take citing our sources seriously. Unique ideas should have a citation for their source; verbatim quotes should be clearly identified as such.
Appropriateness. Large blocks of primary source material may not be suitable for reuse in Wikipedia. Even content taken from old, public-domain encyclopedias often needs substantial updating, rewriting, and formatting to fit with Wikipedia's house style.
Obviously there's no problem with copyright infringement when you're working with public domain material, but it's still important to cite your sources and critically evaluate the appropriateness and style of any content that you copy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can choose an appropriate infobox from Category:Infobox templates, though often it is easiest to find an article on a similar topic to the one you are trying to edit that has an infobox, copying the code while in edit mode, and changing the parameters to fit the article. So, for example, if you wanted to add an infobox to a musician's article, you would use this format:
Then you would fill in the parameters, i.e., add the information requested on the right side of each equal sign. You do not need to fill in each parameter; if you leave some blank they will simply not show up when saved.--Fuhghettaboutit12:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting myself
Hello there,
I have just created an entry for Group Cohesiveness (aka Cohesion)-my first contribution to Wikipedia. I am an academic and I have recently wrote an entry for a print-form encyclopedia on same topic. While I did not reproduce this entry fully in my Wikipedia entry, I do quote myself liberally. Now, I do not believe there is any problem vis-a-vis the publisher, as long as I use it for non-profit publications (such as my own articles). My question is (yes, i did look through the FAQ) is whether I am violating any Wikipedia policy here.
How do I translate the text into the Hindi Lanuage?
There is no instant translation service, though you might be able to find one online. There may be a corresponding article in the Hindi Wikipedia but that is unlikely to be a direct translation. You can see corresponding articles on the left panel. x42bn6TalkMess13:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the article now - it does appear to be somewhat non-neutral at the moment. I think I'll try to find some references to add; I'm not German, however, and know nothing personally about the subject, so would welcome other eyes. Eurodonis1 doesn't seem to be assuming good faith with his edit summaries. After I'm done, I'll leave a message for him. Kateshortforbob14:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some refs and additional information, hopefull removing some of the POV. I'd like to do some more, but I have to leave now - I'll try and do it later tonight. --Kateshortforbob16:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How to get help getting an article published on a topic that does not exist now?
Hi, did try to find any information about Kawneer that is on of the absolutely larges building and construction companies in the USA. Did not find anything. Went to their website to at least get something in, but it was rejected 2 times. I DID try to adhere to your policies and NPW and no spam, but still it got rejected. I know I saw a line where I could submit a topic and some of you Wiki Professionals, could edit it. How does that work?
You can please reply to email redacted or (here I am not sure, but my login is: wiki10peter at Wikipedia). I might be wrong, but there is information about Sony, Canon and other industry leaders, so why not the same in the building and construction industry?
Also, I did try to learn how to "write Wiki-ish" but apparently did not succeed.
What is the best way to get up to par fast?
When is it ok to have a link to a web site, because I saw A LOT of Wikipedia articles with links to external sites that wer not called spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.205.118.176 (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How to make new subtitles and subsections in an article?
I started expanding an article; the Squalodon. What I am confused about is how to make new sections for the article. Right now everything is in one area and there are no designations on the different areas of information that I covered. I want to break it up into different sections and create an outline that fits the article. I also need to know how to site my sources on wikipedia. A lot of my information came from the internet from scientists who have looked into this species. I just am not sure on how to use wikipedia. It's not making much sense to me on how to use it. If you could please point me in the right direction?
Thank you
I would like to keep the article of 'Sofia Vassilieva', my daughter, protected from vandalizing and uninformed editing. How that could that could be done?
Thank you,
Dr. Larissa Vassilieva —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherdrop1 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The protection policy dictates that articles cannot be protected preemptively. And then, semi-protection is only for heavy anonymous or new user vandalism, while full protection is to stop edit warring. Both are typically temporary. LeeboT/C18:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maranatha High School
To Whom it May Concern:
Please note that there is inaccurate information currently listed for Maranatha High School. Please make the following changes immediately:
1. Delete the sentence that says "As of 2007, over 700 students attend the school." That is a false statement.
2. Delete the last sentence that says "It also has an unflinching, unyielding, unusually strict dress code." That is a false statement.
3. On the chart, please correct the enrollment figure to "approx. 650". Also, the number of faculty is now 70, not 44. Finally, the campus size is not 5 acres...it is 10 acres.
Please refer to the school's website for further verification: www.maranatha-hs.org
Thank you.
If we can verify the school's website is up-to-date I don't think points 1 and 3 are so controversial, direct info from the source itself would be a problem. In some cases the subject is the best source of info (I prefer birthdates to come from subjects as newspapers often take outdated bios or miscalculate birthyears). Of course, point 2 is a totally different matter. To solve this, it's probably a good idea to see if this anon is indeed the Director of Development. - Mgm|(talk)21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to my site
Hullo,
I have received a message through another member of my network about linking Wikipedia pages to my own site and apparently to "stop doing it!".
My site is www.naval-history.net. It consists of many pages of well-researched history (by myself and other naval historians and authors) mainly on the Royal Navy in the 20th century, and I only link from pages that are relevant. As these pages are often incomplete or lack suitable links, I was hoping I was adding to the value of the Wikipedia project.
If I am not, could you let me know why and also if there are numerical limits to the link backs you can make?
Thank you for your response. I checked out the policy, but can't see what I am breaching. You obviously know your way about the system.
I haven't seen the original message so I'm in the dark. 1. Would this be the "System" ticking me off?, 2. An individual page author, or 3. A Group of page authors/editors? If so, how can I contact them?
Can they stop me adding links? If I disagree, who can I contact to resolve this. As I have original research material that does not exist elsewhere, it would be a shame not to make it available to Wikipedia users.
The user with the objection probably thinks you're trying to spam your site into the external links sections to get more traffic. If you want to avoid that, suggest adding the link to the talk page and discuss the addition with other editors, so their opinion counts in the final decision. You step on a lot less toes that way. - Mgm|(talk)21:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having checked out your site I have to say that it's great! Looks like proper research. I don't know why it was removed because it would be a great reference. While you're here, could I get you to release those image under GFDL (See GNU Free Documentation License for more info) and creative commons attribution 3.0 (see here so we can use them in our articles. GFDL which basically means we can use it anywhere and creative commons attribution 3.0 means we have to say we got it from your site. You don't have to but those images would help wikipedia a lot--Phoenix 15 (Talk)21:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Mr Smith has added links to his site on perhaps 25 or more pages, and has added nothing at all else to the encyclopedia, looks pretty spammy, IMO. Cheers Geologyguy21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the links improve wikipedia, great. If not, remove them. If Gordon wants a quieter life, he should probably go to the talk page and say "I have this great link http..., if anyone agrees, please add it." If the link is good, someone will add it. But if the links are good, then there's no requirement that he do things that way. Regards, Ben Aveling23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. (from WP:EL). Corvus cornix23:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question about lists
I'd like to make a lengthy list appear in 2 columns, similar to how a long references list can appear. Is there a template I can put at the top of the list/around it that will automatically format it into 2 columns? I'm almost sure I've seen this done... somewhere. I've checked out Help:List, but I can only see templates where you have to add each list item between < li > tags manually. --Kateshortforbob20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely rewrote an article about a living person and researched it thoroughly. I have uploaded the text but am having trouble with appropriate formatting and adding my links and citations. I also want to add a photo. I don't have time to study all of the pages devoted to answering these questions (these are not short, easy tutorials). Can someone format the page and add the links if I send them the master Word file with links? I am sure there are savvy users out there who know how to do this. I would appreciate any help I can get.
I am so new at this, I don't even know how to respond to your message in respose to my request for help. The article I need help with formatting is "Ian Whitcomb." When I uploaded the file (in MS Word format), my formatting and citations went away. When you respond, please tell me how to reply to your message.
Terribly sorry to inconvenience other readers; I am a writer/editor, not a computer pro.
You can continue a discussion by clicking the "edit" link at the top-right of this section, and adding your reply. I have merged the new section you have created with the previous one.
Getting rid of the grim Donation box - stupid scrolling marquee
Is there a facility for getting rid of the new Donate box "What you don't know about us". I'm buggered if I'm going to watch a jerking scrolling marquee for the next couple of months. --Tagishsimon(talk)22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ack it's on every page! Make it stop or I'll simply take a break until it's gone. Can it be limited to login page only? Or at least have a dismiss option? Benjiboi22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it takes you to donate.wikimedia.org, which explains diddly-squat about wikipedia, and specifically tells the poor innocent nothing about "us". FFS. --Tagishsimon(talk)23:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't work for me. I've tried clearing my cache and restarting Firefox but inserting either line into my monobook.css doesn't make the box go away... :( --Kurt Shaped Box23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't work here either. At least one user reported this is triggering migraines on Village Pump. Physically hurting your donors is inadvisable. • Lawrence Cohen23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Of course, the fact that it can be blocked from displaying doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't - in that form - be showing up the first place. Loganberry (Talk) 23:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't there be some kind of discussion before such an intrusive banner is included? Usually there's a [hide] link accompanying the sitenotice - why not this time? --Strangnet(t, c)23:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has to be removed. It completely distracts from reading. I can get rid of it, but normal users-readers cannot. /SvNH 23:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Ok, after refreshing their browser caches they can, too :-) /SvNH23:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-logged in users, migraines?
What about all the non-logged in people? If users are getting migraines from this, as mentioned on Technical Village Pump, could be a concern. • Lawrence Cohen23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The foundation people are probably going to kill me for this, but if there's a consensus here on en, I'm prepared to take the responsibility in adding that line of code not just to user's private .css, but to common.css. Which would mean the English Wikipedia boykotting the Foundations's fundraising, as long as they insist on this absolutely outrageous design. Fut.Perf.☼23:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and done so. Yes, I fully expect to get killed for it. No, I don't care. That scrolling thing is the most obnoxious banner ad I've ever seen. The seizure-inducing blinking ads are at least images that can be blocked. This is in the HTML source of the page. --Carnildo23:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that within a few hours the developers will have a "hide" option. I'm sure this is simply an unintended issue. But that's a great help, Krimpet, I'm sure appreciated by many! Ariel♥Gold23:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also getting migraine/nausea from this. It's absolutely ridiculous to make all the users modify their .css files, when Wikimedia should provide it with an option to close/hide. Period. Anything else is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. And well, to our editors' good health. ~Eliz81(C)23:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please just remove it. That ad is doing the opposite of its intention to get money. I understand that Wikipedia needs money but that ad is simply making visitors very irritated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.227.133 (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the code to get rid of the ad! This creates an issue now... Will I forget that it's there and thus forget to donate? That ad might have backfired on Wikimedia... Dismas|(talk)01:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's great that logged in users can now dismiss it but it's still there when I log out, with the very annoying scrolling and no dismiss option. The ability for logged in users to get rid of this crap would be a great argument at Wikipedia:Why create an account? I'm tempted to add it myself. PrimeHunter03:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Bypass your cache while logged out; the scrolling has been removed, but some people's computers will still have the scrolling version cached. (Some lucky anons even seem to have a version without the fundraiser cached.) --ais523 10:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Repeat RfA
Hi. For future reference, I applied for an RfA a short while back. I am not trying to apply again but curiosity for future reference. The page where I get redirected to when you enter your username is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Doyley which has my old details. How do I reset it to apply again? To clarify I do not want to apply again just yet, just for future reference. Thanks DoyleyTalk22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might find what you are looking for in the article about Law and Government of Missouri. If you cannot find the answer there, click here to post your question at that article's talk page. If that does not solve your problem, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They will be glad to try and answer questions about anything in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps. Hersfold(t/a/c)02:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT CAN'T BE ADDED
BART WILLOUGHBY - musician
I have attempted for the past 5 hours to make an additional edit to Bart Willoughby but it comes up saying the edit can't be added - to log out and log in again. I have done this repeatedly - nothing happens.
Could you explain what is happening or where I should seek assistance.
Thank you
briann kearney —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woonun (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, I'd really encourage you to take a tour through the help pages first, as the edits you've made are really not in the format of the WP:MOS, or in wiki language. I'd like to suggest some pages for you to review: Cite your sources, Manual of style, Layout guide, First article, Article development and How to edit. Finally, be sure you are not copying and pasting text from another website or source, as that's a violation of the copyright policy. I've reverted the page to an earlier version, because you added information that is not related to the article, such as the entire contents of the characters box below editing boxes, etc. Please review some of the basics, to learn how Wikipedia works, and I'm sure you'll find things much less confusing after that :) Cheers! Ariel♥Gold03:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to make contributions to, say, the Spanish wikipedia using a username created for the English wikipedia, or must I create a new Spanish language username to do that?
There are plans to allow usernames to cross different-language wikis in future, but for the time being, you will need to create a separate account for each language. (If you set the accounts to the same name and email address, they will be easier to combine automatically if and when the global username project ever finishes being implemented.) --ais523 10:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
you need to register with new or the same name on Spanish wikipedia with different or the same pass waord. I do it on both Japanese and English languade Wikipedia. --Namazu-tron10:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NEW ENTRY
I wish to make an entry for the Durrell School of Corfu. Could you explain the first steps - I have written the first section of text but it does not feel right. Could you please direct me to the idiot proof instruction page.
I came across SCIF, a dab page which had been replaced with an article about a football team by a new editor. [6] I restored the dab page with the intention of creating SCIF Kyiv for the football club that had replaced it. I'm wondering if this was wrong - should I be preserving the name of the editor who originally added the football club information in the new article, and if so, how? --Kateshortforbob12:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no perfect solution to your problem. You could move SCIF to SCIF Kyiv, then go back and re-create the dab page, but then the dab page would be missing its edit history. Or you could do what you first thought, and revert the edits to the dab page and paste the content about the football team into a new page at SCIF Kyiv, but the new user's edits won't be in SCIF Kyiv's edit history. When I have come across this problem before, I have used the second option but made sure to link back to the page where the content was originally added in the edit summary, such as "Creating page from content added to SCIF". That way someone looking at the history of SCIF Kyiv would be able to trace the content back to the edits at SCIF. There should be some magic administrator tool that would fix this type of problem, something like a reverse history merge (a history un-merge?), but I don't think such a thing exists. jwillbur00:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protected pages are only editable by established users or in the case of full protection, admins. Why would you want to create a page that is protected from the very beginning? Dismas|(talk)13:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just created a new page for my organization, the Center for Domestic Preparedness. I can see page when I'm logged in, but if I search for Center for Domestic Preparedness, nothing appears.
Also, does Wikipedia allow you to upload images with your page?
You created it at your user pageUser:Centerfordomesticpreparedness. User pages are not part of the encyclopedia and not included in normal searches. In addition, it takes time for the search index to update with a new page. A Wikipedia article should be at Center for Domestic Preparedness but as Geologyguy says, your page has problems. And I strongly dislike that seeing the external link requires download and installation of a program. I'm not going to do that. PrimeHunter14:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[[Category:Museums in Florida]]
[[Category:Broward County, Florida]]
so you would probably also want to add:
[[Category:Brevard County, Florida]]
to the bottom of: Category:Museums in Brevard County, Florida. If this all sounds too confusing, someone else can make the category for you, if you ask here. You should make it yourself if you want to learn how to make subcategories, but if you only want to make just this one, and you don't need to figure out all the details, I or someone else can make it for you. --Teratornis15:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but I did not find any articles specifically about these museums (my search was not exhaustive, so I might have missed something). Do you plan to start such articles? I think they should have no difficulty satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria, since presumably lots of reliable sources have written about the museums at the Kennedy Space Center. Actually, I'm rather surprised that we don't already have articles about these museums, so maybe I missed something in my quick search. --Teratornis16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to create Categories of multiple categories that share articles. eg a category of films starring MR A and directed by Mr B - comparing the category "films starring MR A" with the category "films directed by MR B" and making a new category of articles in both categories. Chendy15:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you describe is "category intersection," a feature that we don't have on Wikipedia, but lotsof people want. See the Editor's index entry: WP:EIW#Cat, scroll down to the subheading "Intersection of two categories:", and read the links there. Also read the "General information" links under WP:EIW#Cat, especially WP:CAT and WP:SUBCAT. Do you want to intersect two categories for your own one-off viewing, or do you want to actually create a new category representing the intersection of two existing categories? --Teratornis15:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again all, I have uploaded the image Skew_bridge.jpg and I got a bot warning me about it. I'm pretty sure that the image is free as it is very old and is posted on many webpages. What license should I use? Thanks DoyleyTalk15:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
I uploaded Image:Custom mudvayne logo.JPG and wish to use it in a userbox that is currently on my userpage but has no picture. when i tried inserting it, a link to the image was put in the space for the picture. what am i doing wrong?the juggreserection16:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can log in and add the {{db-author}} tag to the image page. Only administrators are able to delete pages. Note that the tag will probably be ignored unless you add it while logged in under the account used to upload the image. Hersfold(t/a/c)17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Translating existing English articles to other languages
Hi, I've tried to search for ways to expand current English articles to Chinese. However, all of the searches on Wikipedia are for information on ways to translating Chinese articles into English. Can someone point me to the right direction as to how I can do this? Thanks! Jameson L. Tai17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried looking on the Chinese Wikipedia for information on translating other languages to Chinese? It's unlikely for any individual Wikipedia to focus on another language the way you're describing. The focus is on bringing material to this Wikipedia, because the English speakers who come here are more capable of doing that. LeeboT/C17:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help! I've created a page that is with incorrectly capitalized
Would it be possible to get the text of the copyedit tag changed?
"This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling."
'and/or' isn't really valid so it's kind of funny to see it in a statement regarding copy editing. Simply using "or" sufficiently indicates that any combination of grammar, style, cohesion, tone, and spelling need to be addressed. Either that or it should be changed to "and/exclusive or" but even that is implied by a simple "or" while avoiding the awkwardness of reading "and/exclusive or".
I'm setting up my own wiki for the first time. I want my "Editing help" link to automatically redirect to wikipedia's own Editing help page, which will of course be external to my site.
I tried to set it up as a regular redirect link, but all it does is display the page; it doesn't load the external page into the browser. In other words it doesn't redirect. I tried the suggestions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purge without success.
1. What should I be doing to make the redirection work?
2. Is there a forum or something somewhere for people who want to learn the software under the hood?
Unfortunately you can't do redirects to other websites. All I can say is to use a soft redirect (though I don't know if the templates comes default, and if it accepts URL's) or create the page with only a link. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!)20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Same situation there. In fact, the page about soft redirects says without a soft redirect there would be no "'Redirected from [foo]' message on the page when you get to the destination, so there would be nothing to click on to take you back to the redirect page..." but such message doesn't appear there anyway. Svanslyck22:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you click on "soft redirect" above, just under the title in grey text it says "(Redirected from WP:SRD)". That's what they are talking about. - BanyanTree05:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how references work but it seems that the entire Kot massacre article is copied directly from the reference link. I'm not sure if the author of the Wiki article is the same as the author of the linked article though. How do you add a plagiarism tag?
'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.50.91.70 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the material copyrighted? It's from the Library of Congress. I think it's just plagiarized, so instead of blanking out the article, I just removed the copied content. If someone can confirm the copyright status, that would be helpful. LeeboT/C20:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the lead paragraph didn't come from the LOC too, it probably could stay. But since the LOC didn't note copyright info on those sections --> better safe than sorry with copyright stuff. - Rjd006021:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help with an entry for Medal of Honor winner
Hi,
I'm new to this, but I made an effort to edit the wikipedia entry for Capt. Joe R. Hooper, Medal of Honor winner.
I wanted to correctly list all of his decorations and badges. I have seen on other wikipedia pages for medal of honor winners more elaborate graphics and images. I found the correct listing of Capt. Hooper's awards, citations and badges, but do not know how to add graphics. I would like to see a graphics listing of decorations like those seen on the pages of Chesty Puller and other decorated military persons.
I don't know how to edit the title of Capt. Hooper's entry, but I wish it said Cpt. Joe R. Hooper versus just Joe Hooper (Soldier).
Capt. Hooper is the most decorated soldier of the Vietnam war.
I just added an article “Air Force Space & Missile Museum" & I want to add a redirect from “Air Force Space and Missile Museum”. I want to be sure I am doing this correctly so I will outline the steps I am going to take before I actually do it.
Correct, except for step 2, add #REDIRECT [[Air Force Space & Missile Museum]] (be sure to include the brackets). After that, click save! - Rjd006020:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a useful tool. I was more looking for something that would search all of the en project, including page histories (specified by a certain date) for a specific string of text. Don't know if something like that exists. There would be a lot of data to scan. Into The FrayT/C21:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. Ariel♥Gold22:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been fixed. You can do it yourself by going into the page history tab at the top and revert the erroneous edits. Thanks for alerting people. Woodym55522:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was vandalism and has since been reverted. Note that the article has been semi-protected, so you will not be able to revert it (by going into "history" at the top of the page and clicking "undo" then "save") until 24 October 2007 (an hour and 13 minutes). NASCAR Fan24(radio me!)22:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Start by not writing everything in capital letters. On the internet that is considered rude because it signifies shouting. Since you are referring to stories, it seems you are talking about getting in the news, which is not what Wikipedia is for. How to work with Wikipedia and your account is explained in the help files. You should probably start with Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs) 07:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything where the font is highlighted in blue like the Wikipedia:Tutorial is, means that it is a wikilink. If you click on it, it will take you to a new page. The same goes for all the links that are in the welcome on i put on your talk page. Hope this helps. Woodym55513:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Medco Slogan
The entry for Medco's slogan is outdated. It has recently been changed to 'Medco, at the heart of health'. I am an employee of Medco and the slogan change be verified at www.medco.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salsa80 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My browser (IE6) has trouble displaying a map at Pomeranian_Voivodeship#Counties.2C_administrative_division. If the browser window is more than a certain width, the map does not display - there is just a big blank. If the browser window is less than a certain width, the map displays fine. It seems as if the preceding image (of the Sea Towers) slightly overlaps the map, it prevents it from displaying at all.
I can't repro this with IE 6. I tried various window sizes and font sizes. Maybe you can be more specific as to the settings and sizes you are using. — Sebastian08:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17" flat screen; res 1024x768. Text size medium in IE. With maximised window, the problem occurs. I need to bring a side in about half an inch to get the map displaying. The problem occurs when the bottom of the box around the Sea Towers image is below the line under the "Counties, administrative division" heading, as you can see in the screen shot. Nurg21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. Also try Compton scattering. Woodym55508:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Font has changed
Wikipedia's font has changed!
I think it is 'Antique Olive' and it's particularly unpleasant to read.
I haven't changed anything myself and would like to go back to the default font.
Wikipedia hasn't changed anything, and unless you also have an account, you're not able to modify your CSS either. Try checking your browser's display settings - If you use Firefox, this can be done under Tools -> Options... -> Content -> Fonts and colors. In Internet Explorer, this can be done in Tools -> Internet Options... -> Fonts.... I hope this helps. Hersfold(t/a/c)14:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears my account has been hacked, probably due to a recent announcement of intention to edit an article about Rush Limbaugh concerning a recent controversial event. As it was at the time, the article was blatantly partisan and took Limbaugh's side. Now when I try to log in, I'm told my password is wrong (it isn't) and I'm asked to type words as they appear on the screen, again and again. I've had to do this in the past, so it's nothing new to me, but the number of times I'm being asked to type words makes me think this is some kind of endless loop I was placed in. How can I fix this and get my account back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.18.227 (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those words are CAPTCHAs and are in place to stop automated linkspamming. Are you sure your username and password are properly capitalized? Did you try to request a new password? If your account is compromised, how could it have happened? Did you forget to logout of a public computer? - Mgm|(talk)09:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might find what you are looking for in the article about Othello. If you cannot find the answer there, click here to post your question at that article's talk page. If that does not solve your problem, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They will be glad to try and answer questions about anything in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps. Hersfold(t/a/c)14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found an article on person X, for which most of the references are also by person X. Is there a template to flag this, that says something like "most of the references in this article are generated by the subject"? I've looked in Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles and I can see a couple which are close, but not quite right. p.s. In case you're wondering, X is Loren Coleman. Peter Ballard12:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two things to consider here: 1) Is notability established by an independant source? 2) Are the things covered by references from X non-controversial? If for example, Loren is the source for the statement "my favorite food is spaghetti." there's no point in questioning its source. If however, the statement is "I'm the most successful Z in the history of my hometown." that would require outside sourcing. _ Mgm|(talk)12:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are the COI tag for the article and the uw-coi tag for the editor's talkpage (both of those, of course, should be in double curved brackets). If somebody hasn't already done so, I'll add them soon. --Orange Mike16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Movie Quotes
I'm having a disagreement with another user over a 'quotes' section on movie article. The other user has added a quotes section with random quotes from the movie. Do quote sections belong on a movie article if the quotes are just selected favorites of a user? --Endless Dan12:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should get together on the article's talkpage and discuss some quotes which could go into the article. Share your views and opinions and review each quote, so you don't get a random list of quotes building up on the article. That's what I'd do. Lradrama12:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea actually. Although what I meant with the discussion is that inferior quotes and unsuitable ones would be ironed out so the section didn't get too big, if you get me? But all the same, you have a good idea there. Lradrama12:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently made edits to several pages. I was not logged in at the time as I had forgotten my user name and password which I have since recovered. The edits included links to photographs of historic aircraft two of which are the only surviving examples of their kind. Via a BOT edit all of my edits were removed including the factual changes made to the articles. While I can see possibly some justification to removing the external links even thought they were links to photographs that would add to the user's knowledge and experience, the removal of the factual content by using the Speedy Deletion Process seems totally unjustified. The factual changes are well documented and have even been included on other Wikipedia web pages by different contributors. I linked to at least one Wikipedia article when I added the content. I attempted to contact the admin who deleted my material but I have apparently been blocked. While I don't believe it is Wikipedia's intent to present historically inaccurate information, apparently an administrator does not want the material included and apparently does not want to discuss the matter given my inability to either email him or post a message to him. By blanking my revision he left intact historically inaccurate information on the purchase and use by the Kingdom of Siam (Thailand) of the Curtiss Hawk III aircraft. In the reverted form of the article it appeqrs China was the only operator of the Hawk III which is inaccurate. Thailand purchased and built Hawk III aircraft and used them in the French-Thai war of 1940-421 Further he removed links to photos of the only surviving example of that aircraft as well as links to photos of the oldest surviving Chance Vought and the only one of its kind left. While the addition of the content (concerning Thailand's manufacturing and use of several historical lines of aircraft). While I had hoped to contribute meaningful material to Wikipedia, it now appears the arbitrary action of one administrator will prevent that. Since the administrator apparently refuses to permit me to discuss the issue, is there anything I can do other than accept his revisionist history?
It may have been a mistake if the administrator in question is unfamiliar with the subject matter in question, because admins don't delete material for the sheer fun of it. Material usually gets deleted because it violated copyright or because it is vandalism. It may have been a misunderstanding, and if you think this is the case, you'll need to contact the admin in question and discuss the matter. I'm sure he'll be happy to help. If you've been blocked, get another account to do this. If not, you could provide links to the pages you edited here, and we could see what the problem is. Regarding the BOT edits, Bots only revert if vandalism is obvious, for example, if vulgar words have been included, large portions of text have been deleted, etc. If the Bot is malfunctioning, admins will have to be notified. Hope that helps. Lradrama14:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thankyou for that. With the first edit, I can see nothing wrong with what you did. Unless the information you provided was false, it shouldn't have been reverted.
However, can you explain why you removed the external links section in the second example? That type of removal of content is easy to mistake for vandalism. Many people would have revrted that under removal of content.
I did not remove the external links section in the second example. In fact none had existed until I added the external links section to the article. The administrator who removed all my posts removed that section too. The external link I provided was to a copy of a photograph of the the only remaining V93S Corsair. It is also the oldest remaining Chance Vought aircraft existing.
"In 1978, a V-93S in the Royal Thai Aviation Museum was the oldest Vought aircraft in existence."
"The V-93S was a modified model of the Vought O3U-6."
Note the admin chose to leave all referrences to the Chinese O3Us in the article while removing mine and as well as other posts other using the Speedy Removal Process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 14:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for accusing you of removing the external links section, it was my mistake, no worries at all. Now then, I think when the admin so the work Products at the top of the page, he/she instantly removed the link because of the negative connotations of that word when associated with external links. If the website is a promotional website, i.e. that is a product for sale and is being advertised, it is classed as a spam link. Links to websites which advertise / sell products are not allowed. If you can find another picture that would be better. Or, even better, do you have a picture of the plane that you created / photographed yourself? Because if you do, we can upload it onto the website and put it onto the article. You don't need an external link that way, because everyone will see it on the article. How about that? Lradrama14:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if another Wikipedian could continue to help this user because I'm going to have to leave my computer now. If he/she replies and someone could help, that would be brilliant. Thankyou,Lradrama15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no physical products for sale on the webs links that were deleted. Both museums presently shown are free to the public. If products are a concern why hasn't the admin removed the other links to museum aircraft including those from private museums? Warbird Alley is definitely a commercial enterpise but they are linked to a number of aircraft descriptions in Wikipedia. Then there is the Temora Aviation Museum, also a commercial venture. They not only have links on a number of historic aircraft pages but they also have their own Wikipedia page complete with a link to their website. Why didn't the admin see fit remove them when he deleted the links I provided? Are there two sets of rules here? Why did the admin see fit to removed factual information I provided that was not related to an external link?. Apparently the admin who used the speedy deletion process to remove my posts didn't even read them. While I assumed Wikipedia supported the inclusion of factual information apparently that is not the case given my recent experience. Admins apparently can do no wrong. Admins apparently can refuse to discuss a removal. Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to operate? While I have considerable factual knowledge including the resources to back up what I say regarding Thailand and aviation in Thailand (see the two links to supporting references), apparently the admins are free to delete posts without as much as reading them and they do this with impunity. What is the point of trying to contribute when someone with admin privileges can simply wipe out your work leaving the editor with no real recourse? If Wikipedia is intent on creating quality content this is not the way to go about it. It i really frustrating to see an admin given the authority of god who is unwilling to even discuss a deletion.
The Wikipedia policy on vandalism is as follows though you already know it.
"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.
Committing blatant vandalism violates Wikipedia policy. If you find that another user has vandalized Wikipedia, you should revert the changes and warn the user (see below for specific instructions). Users who vandalize Wikipedia repeatedly, despite warnings to stop, should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and administrators may block them."
What is the difference between an ordinary wallflower vandal and an administrator who decides to attack content using the speedy delete process with no basis for doing so? I suspect I am wasting my time bring up these issues since a it appears the lowly contributor is always at fault. I would have hoped someone would take it seriously. If I repost the material what is to stop the same admin from wiping out the material again? Apparently nothing. There ought to be required etiquite for administrator but apprently that is not the case at Wikipedia. It appears to be a matter of always justifying what an admin has done. Regardless of what the admin believes, Thailand did in fact employ the aircraft I mentioned. Thailand di in fact manufacture under license the aircraft I mentioned. Thailand did in fact use the aircraft I mentioned during the French-Thai war. Thailand did in fact purchase and manufacture Curtiss Hawk III aircraft. China was not the only country using this type as the admin believes. Apparently this admin thought the dissemination of those facts to be so critical that he used the Speedy Delete process to remove them before readers could see them. What a waste of my time trying to add content when an admin can without even reading the content delete it. I wouldn't feel so aggrieved if this admin had allowed me to discuss the deletion but apparently he has decided to isolate himslf. I could not sned an email nor could I post to his talk page as he suggests. What would stop the same admin from deleting my posts again should I restore the information? NYerkes15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to look at what happened, but be aware that the long diatribe casting all 1350 administrators in a negative light when you disagree with the actions of 1 of them is likely not helping your case. Succinct descriptions and attempts to contact the admin in question would help. LeeboT/C15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)If you readded the information and then he deleted it again, then that would be the beginnings of an edit war and no-one wants one of those. Where have you tried to discuss this with the admin concerned? Have you tried talking to User:El_C on his User talk:El_C or indeed on the talk pages of the articles concerned. I don't think that the admin was acting with impunity or that he intended to offend you. I think he was trying to protect the integrity of wikipedia. You say that you have sources to back up your information, could you state on the talk page of the article, the text that you want added and the reference for that text. Then other users can see what they think about the addition and whether it is accurate.
The speedy deletion process that you talk about is the revert system that is open to use by all editors. Try and open up dialogue on the talk page concerned and try to Assume good faith. I am sure that no-one means to offend. Woodym55516:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section break
I did not readd anything period. I do not want an edit war. I did not intend to cast dispersions on all the admins. However, it appeared the last contact here was attempting to justify what this admin did to the exclusion of looking at the facts. At one point I was hastily accused of deleting the Extenal Links Section. The person did apologize after I pointed out it was the admin who did so. But then the conversation again again turned to defending the admin's behavior. It appeared to me that rather than working to resolve the issue the person was more interested in defending the admin. As to contacting the admin in question. I attempted to do so first by email (my attempt to email was rejected) then by posting to his talk page which I was also unable to do. It was only after those attempts that I posted here. I had a nice email and post prepared asking him to reconsider. The more this continues the more it appears I am being judged as the only at fault party here. If I can't contact the admin by email or post to his talk page what recourse do I have? I don't have his phone number and I am not a mind reader. NYerkes16:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you haven't readded anything. You have done the right thing by asking for help. With regards to the external links, i made that mistake when i looked at it, it is easy to misread a diff. Try to contact him on his talk page. Why could you not post to his talk page the first time?. What error message came up? It is not protected so you should be able to edit it. I think everyone is trying to help you and trying to decipher what is going on. I don't think anyone has blamed you here for anything. If you weren't logged in you probably couldn't email him. Try and stay logged in. Please try and keep an open mind, i am sure that dialogue will reslove this situation. Woodym55516:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be anything preventing you from leaving a note on his talk page with this account. Also, your IP address, the one you contributed to and the one El C left a message for, has never been blocked. So there should be no reason you can't leave El C a message. Tell him his conduct is under discussion at least. LeeboT/C16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since El C was already contacted regarding my posts is there any need for me to do so? Reading what was posted on El C's talk page it appears that there is a consensus that the deletion of my posts using the Speedy deletion process was just and proper. I Since El C is now aware of the posts I made here it further seems that he has no problem with some commercial websites such as WarBirdAlley.com, Motorbooks.com, WWW.K5054.com (supports the site through advertising),etc. since they remain as external links on many of Wikipedia's aviation articles. Apparently operating under a double standard is acceptable practice among administrators. There was a referrence made to new users not understanding how Wikipedia works. I am to understand that part of how Wikipedia works is for Admins to circle the wagons when one admin's behavior is questioned? That is what appears to have taken place here. Is this how Wikipedia really works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 02:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't understand what you keep referring to as "speedy deletion". Speedy deletion refers to the criteria for speedy deletion, which are rules which allow administrators to delete certain articles without discussion. No article was deleted, so please stop insinuating that that happened. I looked at the discussion at User talk:El C and it's all about how you couldn't contact him, not about the actual issue. Talk to him. LeeboT/C02:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So an administrator removing all posts of user is an acceptable practice? An administrator operating under 2 sets of rules is an acceptable practice? I was able to contact El C this time. It will be interesting to see what the response will be. NYerkes02:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As suspected, EL C did not address my concerns but deflected by accusing me of misbehavior. I did as mentioned attempt to contact him unsuccessfully yesterday. It was only after finding I was unable to contact him did I resort to posting on the help desk. Yet he accuses me of posting here first when I did in fact attempt to contact via 2 resources. His failure to address my concerns regarding the posting of factual information specific to each article I edited suggests he will continue to delete any posts I make as he did before. Apparently he continues to believe he should remove certain posts since the others remain which blatantly contain advertising continue to exist despite my specifically informing him of their existence and content. Those sites are blatantly commercial yet he chooses to ignore their links and in at least one instance their creation of a Wikipedia article about their enterprise. Why doesn't he just use his powers to ban me since by deleting my posts and implying by failing to address the issue of the deletion of my factual information from several articles he will continue to do so he effectively accomplishes that end. What is my recourse now? Am I expected to simply stop adding factual content? NYerkes03:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, your contributions for this account, and your IP show you did not discuss any issue with anyone prior to bringing it here. This is not the place to discuss content disputes, or issues you have with other editors, this is the a place to get help using Wikipedia, and I would urge you to either discuss your problems calmly with El_C, and listen to what he has to say, or take the issue to WP:AN. I read El_C's response, and it seems to be quite explanatory. Additionally, please do not assume that all reverts are done by a bot, unless they say "bot" in the name, they are just simply done by editors trying to abide by policies and guidelines. Please have a little good faith with other editors. I realize that Wikipedia can be a pretty confusing place if you're not familiar with it, but if you take a little time and review some of the policies and guidelines, it may help you get a better idea of what the decisions are based upon. As for your content dispute, I would really encourage you to go to the article's talk page, make a section there explaining why you wish to include the information that was removed, explain why it helps the context of the article, and allow the community to discuss it and come to a consensus about it. This would be a very helpful thing to do, as well as a way to get other opinions. I do understand your frustration, truly, but I would encourage you to perhaps go about this a bit differently. Ariel♥Gold03:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I was unable to either email or post to EL C user page yesterday I began looking for other resources. I read this on Jimbo Wales page, "The best thing to do, if you have a complaint, is to start with the help desk.". That is my reason for posting here. While you won't find a record of my contact since none was successfully completed yesterday I did in fact make the attempts. Even today my initial attempts to contact him were not successful. I kept getting a notice that there was a posting conflict whne not other posts had been added. Rather than attempting to insert after the last post (one regarding a graphic) as I had previously done I move up a post and was able to insert at that location. Next time have problems posting I will do a screen save since it appears the veracity of what I stated is questioned. If you follow the thread you will note I deliberately did not use El C's user name in my post. That was instigated by a a response to my post. I was asked to post examples of the deletions which I did. Early off it was suggested that my poss were deleted bacause of an appearance of vandalism (However, can you explain why you removed the external links section in the second example? That type of removal of content is easy to mistake for vandalism. Many people would have revrted that under removal of content). When it was pointed out this particular administrator removed the external links section then is was no longer considered vandalism or even something appearing to be vandalism there was an apology made to me for the suggestion I had done so. I did not want to use EL C's user name out of respect. In fact I did not specifically use EL C's user name until long after others had done so. Yet I now stand accused by El C of doing just that. Had I been able to contact him directly in my earlier attempts perhaps things would be resolved. It now appears a resolution other than a de facto ban of any of my posts is unlikely. NYerkes04:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflicts are not always obvious, it is likely that someone was replying to a thread farther up on the page, and you were not aware of it. When this happens, your edit will be in a bottom window, and you can simply copy it into the new edit conflict window. I'm not questioning your truthfulness, as you imply, I'm simply explaining that there are a number of reasons for edit conflicts, and they are not always something you'd notice. And please realize that you are not being accused of doing anything, nobody is doubting you, but this is a content dispute, and I would honestly encourage you to take this issue to the article's talk page, to get additional input if you have doubts about the edits made. Or simply make your changes again under your user name, and provide your explanation for changes in the edit summary box so there is no misunderstanding as to your edits. I encourage you to have some faith in other editors, don't assume the worst, and don't assume anyone is "banning your posts" as you've stated many times, as that is most definitely not the issue. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold04:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will take it to the article talk page. However, the removal of all posts I made by using a Bot (Cydebot, I did check) appears to indicate a blanket banning by an editor of all posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would need to see some diffs to know what the edits were, but you can go visit User:Cydebot to see what that bot does. However, that bot is not associated with, El_C, and it has been approved by Wikipedia to do specific tasks. Bots do not answer to any administrator to "blanket ban" users, and are not used in that way. I realize how it could look to you, and you can discuss possible mistakes on the bot owner's talk page. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold04:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Lladrama did earlier, you misread the diff. Cydebot was changing a category per the WP:CFD page and did not revert your edits. El_C has used the revert tool that anyone can use in the article history. Woodym55509:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do
Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
Do not
Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
My point is that using terms like "speedy deletion" and "bots" incorrectly paints a picture of something different than what happened, because those terms have exact definitions and they mean something specific. El C used the rollback tool to revert your edit. He did not "speedy delete something with a bot". It's misleading because of the terminology you're using. I agree that that's not the way the rollback tool should be used, but please stop using the wrong terminology to make this sound like it's something much more drastically abusive. LeeboT/C13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I used the wrong terminology. I am relatively new here and did not expect to have my posts reverted without regard to content. I have tried to take a crash course in Wikipedia rules after I discovered the removal of my posts but apparently my effort is insufficient. While I would love to participate in adding content, such as the factual material I added regarding Thailand's production, ownership and usage of particular types of military aircraft, at this point I can see no useful purpose in it since my work can be reverted on the whim of an administrator who doesn't feel it necessary to look at the content if he believes a violation of some policy has occurred in any portion of a post. Wikipedia will do just as well without my participation or anyone else he decides isn't appropriate. I can assure you that what was said in the article on the revert tool is true. "Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor." A slap in the face is exactly what it feels like. NYerkes15:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly understandable for you to feel that way. As I said, the rollback tool shouldn't be used that way. Even the undo function (available to all editors) shouldn't be used that way. If he thought your links were inappropriate, he could have left an edit summary like "removing inappropriate links per Wikipedia:External links guidelines". Unfortunately, that didn't happen. LeeboT/C15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As i commented on El_C's talk page, i understand that you are an inexperienced user and that you will not understand the terminology. I agree that he should not have rolled back you edits likt that without talking to you and that the use of the tools can lead to this situation. I think that El_C was doing his best to protect wikipedia from vandalism and false edits that undermine the accuracy and veracity of the encyclopedia. All work on wikipedia can be edited, it is an open encyclopedia. Look at the note at the bottom: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. It was inappropriate for him to have removed those edits without discussion. Now, what you can do is discuss this with him on his talk page. He has replied to you post there. Please try not to be perturbed and disheartened by these events. Woodym55515:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, when I noticed as you pointed out the discussion going in circles which in opinion meant my remedies were exhausted I sent a email to Jimbo Wales. Whether he reads the letter or not is up to him. His procedure requires that attempts to remedy the situation be exhausted before contacting him. This has been going nowhere for sometime now. In the letter to Mr. Wales I answered EL_C's leading question which he could have just as easily answered himself. I do not block the registry data on any of the over 1000 generic domains I own. I own the photographs. I own the domain. I do not use that domain for commercial purposes though at this point I might as well. I am building another non-commercial website to document the reconstruction of a 13th century Buddhist temple that was destroyed during an ancient war with Burma. Though I am not Buddhist, I was asked to photograph and shoot video of the project by the Abbot of the temple who has become a friend. The temple has a fascinating history particularly the disposition of the original Buddha image. Most of the image is gone but in the late 1800s the face plates were discovered buried near the site. Today they rest in a government museum. The original image was called the Buddha of 1000 bolts because the plates were fastened not welded. I have as yet unedited documentation of the original 10 meter tall bronze Buddha image and the reproduction that was cast including the techniques used to make the moulds and smelt the bronze. In addition to those two I have other domains that are commercial and photos from those are not linked to Wikipedia. For the record good generic domains have built in traffic due to natural type in. Such is the case with that domain. I do believe the individual photos I linked to are relevant and added to the users experience. I have also been shown photographs of what I determined was an engine from a WWII Japanese KI-27 that was found in the jungle of Northern Thailand. A little research revealed it was likely the mount of a Thai pilot who was shot down during WWII. I am trying to get approval to retrieve the engine and look for the remains of the aircraft and pilot. Thais as do people in most other cultures find comfort when the location of a deceased loved one's body is known. If approval comes I will be photographing and shooting video to document the expedition.
From what I read of the rules, linking to photographs where the owner does not want to give up the copyright is acceptable if the material enhances the user experience. I do not want to give up my copyrights though any written copy I provide is free for the taking as was the case with the deleted material. That said, watch what happens when I put that information on EL_C's talk page. I will likely be further insulted and will likely hear a justification for deleting all my posts whether linked photos or otherwise. I enjoy telling people about my adopted home Thailand whether for free or for profit. I can add copy and articles without the addition of photographs if Wikipedia decides visual material isn't important if it produced by an editor who does not wish to give up his copyright but even the written copy is likely to be viewed as suspect since I own a number of domains and websites and have already been identified at least by this particular individual as a vandal even though that was not my intent and in fact may not have been my action. Meanwhile for reasons unknown, other organizations such as Motor Books and the Double Star Group both of which are commercial websites one of which is purely so are permitted to continue to extensively link to Wikipedia unimpeded.
That said, nothing further will be gained by discussing this. If Lord EL_C decides I am a vandal as appears to be the case Wikipedia can do just as well with my contributions or anyone else's contribution he deems unworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 04:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another section break
Not only that, he doesn't even bother to address when asked to do so the removal of verifiable factual material not related to any link. Instead he wants to engage on the links issue. The links could have been easily removed separately. However what was done was something entirely different. Non redundent verifiable factual content not linked to anything was also removed using the revert tool. It now appears after the revert for example that China was the only buyer and user of Curtiss Hawk III aircraft. Thailand not only bought them they built many under license. The Hawk II and Hawk III both were used by Thailand during the French-Thai war. Now it appears only China used Hawk III aircraft in combat and even that fact does not contain references. Thailand holds the only surviving Hawk III in the world. One of the alleged inappropriate links was to a copy of a photograph of that aircraft. Another removal of factual material concerned the pre WWII Corsairs. The link to the photograph, again of the only surviving example and coincidently, at least according to a Chaince Vought website, the oldest Chance Vought aircraft in existence could have been easily removed. Instead the article was reverted removing the unlinked verifiable factual text too. Apparently there is some good reason the public should not know these facts since no one is willing to address their removal or at least address the inappropriate removal. Maybe I am misreading material again since I am new but apparently EL_C spends a great deal of time every day reverting articles after they have been edited. I suspect he does so in a similar manner to they way he did the reverts to my edits though I have only my experience to suggest that. Reposting the material will likely only result in the same action since no one will explain why the added non-linked verifiable factual material is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 15:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that "no one will explain" the other issues (I assume you're referring to me and the others trying to help) is because this issue is so convoluted and drawn out that it's very difficult to determine exactly what happened. Instead of a succint description of what was added and how it was removed, I've read pages of rhetorical questions related to administrator conduct that don't seem to logically flow with what happened. LeeboT/C16:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What El_C does, is called recent changes patrol. He looks vandalism edits in the recent changes log. I think we can discern that your "factual edits" i.e. not the addition of the link, were reverted incorrectly. If you would care to reinsert them, that would be a help to the encyclopedia. This is not the place to discuss the accuracy though, of the material that you want to insert in the article. We are not experts in that subject. The best place to discuss that would be on the article talk page. If you were to reference the material that you added to the external link, or to another source, then editors would not rollback your edits. If they do, then discuss it on their talk page. Is it not now time to move on, and to put your obvious writing talents towards building an encyclopedia? Woodym55516:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Throughout the entire process of RC patrol, it is important to remember not to bite the newbies. Far from being a monolithic horde of vandals, trolls, and spammers, the available evidence seems to indicate that newcomers write most of Wikipedia's content.[1]
If you see a new user or IP address contributing, welcome them if you're so inclined, and include a pointer or two of feedback about how they can make their contributions even better. Most will gladly welcome the support.
It is also important to assume good faith as much as possible, or, minimally to assume incompetence instead of malice. For example, remember not everyone is as computer literate as you; some people will accidentally blank or damage pages when attempting to cut and paste material from Wikipedia. Others may not understand that, yes, their changes really are visible to the entire world.
"Recent Changes Patrollers must maintain a level of respect for fellow editors."
Apparently EL_C doesn't see it that way. It must be too much fun insulting new users and feeling the power that comes with being an administrator. I hope all administrators don't act that way.
Now this has descended into mud-slinging. This is not the proper forum for this. If you have a problem with the admin concerned, take it up with him on his talk page. Discuss it, i.e. have a two way conversation. I see that he is still waiting for your reply. The help desk is not the place for slandering reputations. Woodym55501:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seem that insulting and slandering me and other new users is OK but not OK for him? I am told to move on. He is free to continue acting in a heavy handed manner despite apparent policy or if you want to be technical, suggestions that such behavior is inappropriate. Can he do no wrong? Is that the case? Since my entire posts we wiped out due to linking, help me understand what is permissible. Am I to understand that linking to individual photographs that would enhance a user's experience ie. pictures of the only surviving Hawk III, V93S Corsair and other very rare but not totally unique aircraft not permitted? At what point are links permissible? What about photos with intact copyrights? It appears from what I read that links to material that enhances a users experience are supposed to be permitted. I noticed the links to commercial sites I pointed out to EL_C remain even after he acknowledged them as part of the message. One in fact has no redeeming content whatever. The Motor Books site is strictly advertising and includes the company's Ebay page. That behavior makes it appear he does not act on an neutral basis which I thought administrators are supposed to do. NYerkes02:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said that you should move this discussion to the admins talk page. You have not brought up these concerns with him. How can he act on problems that he has not been made aware of? I am not condoning his actions nor am i condoning yours. He can do wrong as much as the next person. El_C does not resort to name calling and personal attacks though, which is what this has degenerated into. He reverts what he sees as vandalism. I implore you to DISCUSS this with him on his talk page and highlight the problems that you have with his actions. In terms of links, earlier i mentioned inserting it and referencing the addition. This is becoming a rather circular discussion. Woodym55502:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woody if you noticed I did attempt to discuss this with him. He made a flip answer about the links I mentioned. He has yet to act on any of them including the aforementioned Motor Books link which is pure advertising. He wants to engage only on his terms. I can't change that. EL_C does not resort to personal attacks? As aptly pointed out in the revert article, "Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor." Whatever his intention may have been as the revert article pointed out it is insulting i.e. effectively a personal attack. However judging from his other posts when someone challenges his actions he believes himself to be infallible. For the record I am not infallible as already evidenced here by several admissions of personal error in this post. Apparently insulting new users is not a serious offense. EL_C can continue the practice unimpeded. What I read in another section you pointed out to me is that new users contribute significantly to the project and should not be driven away by heavy handed action. However, in practice it appears to be more important to protect an administrator who may be acting outside the guidelines. In practice new users should expect to be attacked by some administrators and should just keep their mouths shut and move on. Inappropriate behavior by an administrator is acceptable because he is an administrator and has a hard job. If I am missing something here please tell me. NYerkes03:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are still judging all admins by your one interaction with this user. In fact, you are judging this user on this one action. If you read one of my earlier posts i did note that he is awaiting your response to his admitedly leading question. New users do contribute significantly to the project and that is the whole point of the bite essay. No-one is trying to protect the administrator, no-one has taken sides here. You are still to discuss the problems with his conduct, with him. In practice your last three posts are identical. I understand that you feel aggrieved by his reversions. Yes, they went against the spirit of the Wiki guidelines.
No-one has tried to hush this up. Everyone who has responded to you has asked you to talk on his talk page about this, you have, once, to which El_C is awaiting you response. You should discuss it with him on his talk page and not here. Then, you should move on. It is easy for things on wikipedia to be blown up out of proportion. I suggest you discuss it there and then move on. I think this discussion has been exhausted here. We are going in circles. I hope you continue to edit wikipedia and that you enjoy your time on wikipedia from now on. Woodym55503:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, when I noticed as you pointed out the discussion going in circles which in opinion meant my remedies were exhausted I sent a email to Jimbo Wales. Whether he reads the letter or not is up to him. His procedure requires that attempts to remedy the situation be exhausted before contacting him. This has been going nowhere for sometime now. In the letter to Mr. Wales I answered EL_C's leading question which he could have just as easily answered himself. I do not block the registry data on any of the over 1000 generic domains I own. I own the photographs. I own the domain. I do not use that domain for commercial purposes though at this point I might as well. I am building another non-commercial website to document the reconstruction of a 13th century Buddhist temple that was destroyed during an ancient war with Burma. Though I am not Buddhist, I was asked to photograph and shoot video of the project by the Abbot of the temple who has become a friend. The temple has a fascinating history particularly the disposition of the original Buddha image. Most of the image is gone but in the late 1800s the face plates were discovered buried near the site. Today they rest in a government museum. The original image was called the Buddha of 1000 bolts because the plates were fastened not welded. I have as yet unedited documentation of the original 10 meter tall bronze Buddha image and the reproduction that was cast including the techniques used to make the moulds and smelt the bronze. In addition to those two I have other domains that are commercial and photos from those are not linked to Wikipedia. For the record good generic domains have built in traffic due to natural type in. Such is the case with that domain. I do believe the individual photos I linked to are relevant and added to the users experience. I have also been shown photographs of what I determined was an engine from a WWII Japanese KI-27 that was found in the jungle of Northern Thailand. A little research revealed it was likely the mount of a Thai pilot who was shot down during WWII. I am trying to get approval to retrieve the engine and look for the remains of the aircraft and pilot. Thais as do people in most other cultures find comfort when the location of a deceased loved one's body is known. If approval comes I will be photographing and shooting video to document the expedition.
From what I read of the rules, linking to photographs where the owner does not want to give up the copyright is acceptable if the material enhances the user experience. I do not want to give up my copyrights though any written copy I provide is free for the taking as was the case with the deleted material. That said, watch what happens when I put that information on EL_C's talk page. I will likely be further insulted and will likely hear a justification for deleting all my posts whether linked photos or otherwise. I enjoy telling people about my adopted home Thailand whether for free or for profit. I can add copy and articles without the addition of photographs if Wikipedia decides visual material isn't important if it produced by an editor who does not wish to give up his copyright but even the written copy is likely to be viewed as suspect since I own a number of domains and websites and have already been identified at least by this particular individual as a vandal even though that was not my intent and in fact may not have been my action. Meanwhile for reasons unknown, other organizations such as Motor Books and the Double Star Group both of which are commercial entities one of which purely so are permitted to continue to extensively link to Wikipedia unimpeded.
That said, nothing further will be gained by discussing this. If Lord EL_C decides I am a vandal as appears to be the case Wikipedia can do just as well with my contributions or anyone else's contribution he deems unworthy.NYerkes04:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot figure out why I can see the word "Image" above the photo inside the infobox on Jesse Hutch. There is also some writing below it that I don't know where it is coming from. Can somebody else please take a look? - Rjd006014:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My logo use meets all of Wikis criteria, but when I load it and add the rationale into the 'subject' box, I keep getting warnings asking me to put the rationale in the image 'description' but I don't know where that is??? Any help gratefully received.
Thanks, Alkazzi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkazzi (talk • contribs) 15:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could just check the "Ignore warnings" box until it's uploaded and the page exists. Then we can help you format it. LeeboT/C15:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Nick Albu and I tried to create an account call nickalbu, but the system replied that it is too close to an existing account called nick.albu. I don't know if I created this in the past. I tried to have the change password email sent to me but I did not receive it.
How can I find out if this account is mine? Is there other information in there I can use to confirm?
No, the only method used to obtain a lost password is the email. You can try going through the process at Wikipedia:Request an account to get a new account - since the nick.albu account doesn't have that many contributions, it should be acceptable. I hope this helps! Hersfold(t/a/c)16:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
No, if i understand correctly he wants to move the article that he created in his userspace to mainspace. So the first response seemed adequate. Use the move tab at the top of the page. It needs checking though for the use of weasel words and also the advertising nature of its prose. Woodym55521:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I think you're right (based on his userpage). But couldn't he just create a new article via copy/paste? He seems to be the only contributor to the page. Best, --Bfigura(talk)21:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can do either, though move is preferred as it preserves GFDL though as you say he is the only contributor so it is preserving the author, just not when the author made the edits. Woodym55521:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's now a moot point. The material in question was a copyvio. Another editor speedied the article created, and had tagged the userpage in question too. (I should have picked that up earlier). --Bfigura(talk)21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently created a new article on DIFFA, previewed, and saved, however I cannot locate this article. Suggestions? Bryan554Bryan55419:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw the article on Diffa the African village. The DIFFA I created was about a nonprofit agency. Does it not differentiate between lower and upper caps? Also, there are multiple red links to DIFFA which I clicked on to create.Bryan55419:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to authenticate my email and I've requested a confirmation email multiple times and have not yet received the email. Help???
(sonya tormoen 20:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
Women's lacrosse has not been edited since 21 September and I don't see anything I would call profanity. Are you referring to "in men's lacrosse, full-body contact is an essential part of the game"? That appears to be largely correct. I don't know the game but Lacrosse says " In men's lacrosse, players wear protective equipment on their heads, shoulders, arms, and hands, as body-checking is an integral part of the game". PrimeHunter21:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
October 25
Error in decompression of file dump
Earlier today I downloaded enwiki-latest-pages-articles.xml.bz2, and was attempting to decompress it. I did not have enough free space on my computer, so the file continued to decompress until free disk space ran out, and then stopped (how large is it anyways?). When it stopped, hower, it did not give me any of my disk space back, and only a small amount returned when I restart my computer. My question is, what happened, and how to I get those gigabytes back? (if it makes a difference, I'm running OSX) 66.191.6.16200:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically a question about how the bipz2 program operates on an Apple computer. Please ask such questions on the Computer Reference desk. Here at the Help desk we try to answer questions about how to use Wikipedia, not how your computer works. However, from a user perspective this distinction is fairly subtle, so I will attempt to answer anyway: We don't want to scare you away, after all. When you download a file from any web site that has the ".bz2" extension, your web browser running on a UNIX-like OS (such as OSX) will invoke the appropriate decompression program, whose name is bunzip2. On your computer, the result in a "disk full" situation will be whatever bunzip2 does on disk full, in conjunction with whatever your OS does on disk full, in conjunction with whatever your web browser does when it runs a helper program that cannot complete its task. As you have just found out by experiment, your particular combination of browser/OS/bunzip2 reacts to a disk full by dieing and leaving you with a partially uncompressed file that occupies a lot of disk space. -Arch dude01:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It works fine. Type for example [[Image:Iamba logo (Lo).jpg|200px]] to display it (I'm not doing it here when it's fair use but preview worked fine). See more at Help:Images. PrimeHunter01:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whow do I change my Usermane?
Can you please instruct me on how to change my USERNAME? Then name 'Fury Anderson' that I currently have for Wikipedia, I would like to change it to something else. Please send me the direct link where I can change it. Thank you in advance.
Since this is your only edit, and since username changes cannot be initiated without help from a bureaucrat, your best bet is to log out and simply register a new one. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Default field to serach box
I'd like to suggest making the default field to the search box, so like google, when you start typing, it is automatically placed into the search field. I think this would improve the efficiency of wikipedia users.
Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.241.156 (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a possible suggestion, but the developers who make our software aren't likely to see it here. If you create an account at Bugzilla and post your suggestion there, they'll be able to respond to you much more easily. Hersfold(t/a/c)03:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir,
Yesterday, on 24th october 07 I could access one article named How to solve a problem_ article. I an how lost the contact and could not find the article I liked the contents i could read. Please help me to access it again.
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.210.210 (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My account, Mightyfastpig, appears to have been deleted. It isn't just a wrong password. The account itself no longer exists. When I check the pages I've edited recently, my changes are still there, but my account links to a missing page.
You created an account, but you have not created a user page for yourself. Your accont is perfectly usable as it is, and you have a "talk" page because someone created it when they wrot a message to you. You are not required to create the user page, but until you do, your user name will show up as a red link in edit summaries. If you Prefer a blue link, simply click on this link (User:Mightyfastpig) and add any thing you like (e.g., "Hi, I'm a user.") Most users add more content, and some user pages are quite elaborate. -Arch dude10:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the Page of Greater Nepal (Bishal Nepal)
Dear sir,
I post the article about Bishal Nepal, Greater Nepal, which is the historical truth, I posted so many article in wikipedia all are running but why you delete this article which is totally truth and facts.
Regards
Rabin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabinbaral (talk • contribs) 08:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the administrator who deleted it, the entry was a copyright violation. Please do not copy material directly from other sources, but use your own words. - Mgm|(talk)10:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do I reference a text to my article. I need to know how to get the little number next to a quote and then how to put a reference at the bottom of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartolomas214 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used the template and ended with this
Levinson, P. (2004), Cellphone: The Story of the World's Most Mobile Medium and How It Has Transformed Everything!, New York: Routledge
To make the references appear at the bottom in a references section you should use < ref > and < / ref > around the citation template (without spaces) and add either {{reflist}} or < references / > (again without spaces) to the bottom of the article. - Mgm|(talk)09:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome! The best thing to do is to sign up for an account in the top right corner of your screen, read the Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial and just start. Don't forget to search Wikipedia first. We've got over 2 million article and you don't want to create a new article on a subject we're already covering. - Mgm|(talk)10:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can I go about changing the title of a page? I have had a search, and cannot find how. The only method I can think of is re-creating the page and having the other page (with the incorrect title) deleted. KennedyBaird10:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've just created an account for the purpose of creating a reference to a notable New Zealand children's writer. I note that a number of NZ children's writers are already listed (some are my friends, some acquaintances and some I do not know). Some are far more notable that my own subject, while others listed I would regard as of equal note to my subject. On that basis I regard my subject to be of sufficient note to be in Wikipedia. My problem is that I am the NZ children's writer in question, and your guidelines preclude me creating my own reference. May I please submit my bibliography and let one of your people be the judge?
Respectfully
Ged Maybury
(you may Google me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookafar (talk • contribs) 11:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of an ambitious push to get things fixed up to 2007 before the new year comes. Please let me know, and also if I should post this question elsewhere. Guroadrunner11:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can, it's a browser issue. When you click on a box, and a list of previous search terms appears, you can hover your mouse over the entries you want to remove from your search history and press [delete]. Hersfold(t/a/c)15:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
I noticed a strange comma issue. If I cut & paste a line from MS Word with a comma ( ’ ) it did not bring up the article in the Wikipedia Search Engine. When I typed the same line directly into search block, the article came up. I noticed that the comma looked different ( ' ) when I typed directly into Wikipedia search.
The article that I original entered was “Mel Fisher's Treasure Museum”. As a work around, I placed a redirect with the other type of comma “Mel Fisher’s Treasure Museum” & the redirect worked. Was this a good approach, or is there a better way to handle this type of comma issue? FieldMarine14:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean apostrophe, but yes, there are different kinds and I don't think it's feasible to make redirects for all of them. Not sure if there's really a way to resolve it. LeeboT/C14:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft Word has a feature called "auto correct" which replaces some characters with others: to make simple spelling corrections (eg. try typing "teh " in Word); to allow simple keyboard sequences to create special characters such a emoticons; to improve the appearence of the text particularly when printed; and, some would say, to simply drive the user up the wall. One of the things it does is to change straight quotes and apostrophes to the curved versions that you often see in books. Astronaut14:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hold down CTRL and then press F. Type in the phrase you wish to search, and make sure you're at the top of the page and then click "Direction" - Down. But I don't know whether this only works on Internet Explorer! Good luck, anyway. RudgetContributions15:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means the Reference desk archives as well. As far as I know, there isn't really a way outside of manually searching each archive the way Rudget is describing. LeeboT/C15:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can do it using Google, with the search term inurl:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_Desk; for instance, google:inurl:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_Desk snail searches for Reference Desk threads (including in the archives) about snails. (You have to click the repeat the search with the omitted results included link to get more than 2 results when using this method.) The same method works for many other project pages, too. --ais523 17:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocking
We are trying to upload information about our school, the programs, curriculum and two administrators keep deleting the information as well as "tagging" our company. I've requested the administrators inform us of what copy is deemed commercial and they have not responded. The information is simply factual about our programs and history and in no way is commercial. Is there a way to block these individuals? 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empire2216 (talk • contribs)
I am one of the people who has been listing your articles for deletion (though I am not an administrator.) In my opinion the article was entirely an advertisement, and the admin who deleted it clearly agreed with me. The problem is that you, as an employee/owner of the company, have a conflict of interest when it comes to writing an article about it. Further, your article was HUGELY long, and cited no sources to attest to the company's notability. None of these things are deletion issues of course, though they do draw the attention of other editors! The principal problem is one of advertisement. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk to me)15:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, looking at the deleted version. It includes stuff like student testamonials and promotional language. It also appears to contain huge sections of directly copied and pasted text. It's not written like an encyclopedia article. LeeboT/C16:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i want to add one image to the page of Nagarjun(Hindi Poet). i have photograph of Nagarjuna Poet. Please tell me, how to add that photo to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.30.174.15 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before you can upload an image you need to create an account. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits. To create an account now click this link
If you want to add an existing image to an article, type [[Image:File name.jpg|center|Optional caption.]] to the article – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, center with the alignment of the image on the page and Optional caption with the caption, which of course, is optional. See our picture tutorial for more information.
If you want to upload an image from your computer, to put in an article, you must find out what license the image is licensed under. If you know your image is licensed under a free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons, where all projects have access to the image. If you are unsure what license your image is licensed under, see the file upload wizard for more information. Also, please read Wikipedia's image use policy, because if you upload the image under a false license, you may be blocked.
On the left in each row, alpha with tonos; on the right, alpha with oxia. Top row is Code2000, bottom row is Tahoma.
I've noticed that sometimes the distinction between separate Unicode characters sometimes gets lots on Wikipedia pages (or more generally, pages using the MediaWiki software). For example, U+03AC (Greek small letter alpha with tonos) and U+1F71 (Greek small letter alpha with oxia) are supposed to be different characters, and in some fonts they have different glyphs. But if you enter ά in an attempt to get the letter with the oxia, what appears is ά, which is the exact same character as ά (ά). Other distinctions that get lost are between U+00B7 (middle dot: ·) and U+2022 (bullet: •), between U+2329 (left pointing angle bracket: 〈) and U+3008 (left angle bracket in the CJK range 〈), and between the two right angle brackets corresponding to them. Is there any way to fix this or work around it? Is this something to report as a bug to Bugzilla? Should I be asking this/bringing this up somewhere else? —Angr17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... having asked this question I seem to have answered it. The difference does show up properly if you type in the Unicode entities. What makes the contrast disappear is entering the characters directly. If I copy-n-paste U+1F71 into the edit box thus: ά, what gets saved is U+03AC ά. Likewise if I copy-n-paste U+2329 〈 into the edit box, it gets converted to U+3008 〈. (The bullet and middle dot really do seem to be kept separate.) Anyway, I guess I know how to avoid the problem now. —Angr17:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure U+03AC (Greek small letter alpha with tonos) and U+1F71 (Greek small letter alpha with oxia) are supposed to be different characters? This mailing list thread and page 5 of the section from unicode.org suggest these are supposed to be the same. Then Unicode normalization, specifically Unicode equivalence#Canonical Equivalence would merge them together. Also, when I copy and paste U+00B7 (middle dot: · or ·) and U+2022 (bullet: • or •) into a Wikipedia editbox they do not get merged, and it does not appear they should be, see page 4 here. Stefán20:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are definitely fonts in which U+03AC and U+1F71 are visibly different, because in some fonts the Modern Greek tonos is vertical, but the Ancient Greek oxia is always slanted like an acute accent. Code2000 and Tahoma are such fonts (see image). You're right about middle dot and bullet not merging; I was mistaken about that, and said so in my second post. But the angle brackets definitely merge. —Angr20:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, sorry I missed the part of your second post where you mention that the bullet point is indeed kept separate. Here is a nice discussion about the tonos/oxia issue. It seems that the official position is that the fonts which render the tonos with a dot are simply wrong and lazy and in particular are unsuitable for displaying polytonic text. Avoiding the issue by entering the &codepoints is not the official standard so I guess we should expect that there will at some point come a bot (Curpsbot reborn?) which will substitute the &codepoints with the actual character and then the normalization will kick in. The proper solution is probably to ensure that Template:Polytonic does not list any font which renders the tonos with a dot. I would probably say that Code2000 is acceptable because eventhough that font renders the tonos differently from an oxia at least they are both acute accents. Tahoma is definitely off limits, as the page I linked to mentions. Stefán21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But what about the angle brackets? I just had to change the article Bracket to use the &codepoints so that the angle brackets there display properly. —Angr21:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, the bracket issue is even worse. The candidates are U+003c (<), U+2329 (〈), U+3008 (〈), U+27E8 (⟨) and U+2039 (‹). The first of these is the "less than sign" so that is probably out for wikipedia purposes, the second of these looks promising but Unicode has made it canonically equivalent with the thrid and their notes have a remark that this canonical equivalence has made this character roughly useless since the third comes from the CJK range and it's size is therefore too large too fit with latin or mathematical text. So I guess I would vote for using the fourth with mathematics (it is defined as "MATHEMATICAL LEFT ANGLE BRACKET") even though it may be poorly available in fonts since it has only recently been introduced and the fifth "SINGLE LEFT-POINTING ANGLE QUOTATION MARK" for denoting dialog and orthography in linguistics. Note I based this reply in part on a section of "Unicode Explained"by Jukka K. Korpela found by googling "2329 unicode" Stefán21:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Search Title
How come the search is case sensitive. I just posted an article and unless i put the exact case of the title, it wont show up. is there any way to change that so its not case sensitive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwhitt01 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia search is not case sentitive but it hasn't indexed the new article The NewsMarket yet. When it does, the article will show up in a search on newsmarket and other capitalizations. When you click enter or "Go" in the search box, Wikipedia goes directly to an article without searching if it has the same capitalization, so it works before search is updated. PrimeHunter19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
block anonymous edits from my ip address
I would like you to block anonymous edits from my school's ip address.
The correct place to ask would be the Administrators' noticeboard, but you'll have to give more of a detailed reason than that: is there a lot of vandalism from that IP? Does the school's IP staff agree with that? Is the IP frequently hit by autoblocks? If you can come up with a detailed explanation as to why, then by all means make a request there. --ais523 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I know this is a really dumb questions, but I simply can't find the answer. I want to copy verbatim an entry in Wikipedia to my web site. How do I reference the entry? What text do I use to show it came from Wikipedia? Please keep in mind that I am a techno-dummy and the answer is probably on the site someplace, but for the life of me I can't figure it out since it's probably written in some sort of techno-code.
As far as I can tell, I followed the directions properly but I still don't see my contribution
added.
I put in 'Simon Longmore' and 'Vancouver Academy of Dramatic Arts' pages and still nothing.
Is there a certain amount of time I need to wait to see it come up, or is there some necessary action I need to be taking?
Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissybug66 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your image of Simon Longmore is here. There is also a biography on that image page. Although there is no Simon Longmore article. You can create the S.L. article by clicking on that red link for his name and adding the biography there. Then you can add a link to the image in the biography. See Help:Images for more on adding images to articles. I didn't look but I'm assuming the same thing is going on with the other image you mention. Dismas|(talk)21:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Simon Longmore image looks like it was scanned from a book or magazine (notice the text included in the image and the metadata). Astronaut04:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Tale Etched in Blood and Hard Black Pencil - Deletion
Can someone explain why this page was deleted? It got a speedy deletion notice while I was in the middle of adding to it, then it was deleted even though the speedy deletion notice says that this would not happen if contested.
Parslad21:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside whether the deletion on the stated basis was proper or not, I think your best course of action is to politely ask the deleting administrator, whose talk page is here, to explain or reconsider his deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit22:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had already done that. Is it not sensible to take into account the time lapsed between creating an article and deleting it? The speedy deletion notice was placed on this article about 10 minutes after it was created, I was making a cup of coffee! Is this normal practice? Parslad22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way. I am an administrator, and personally I would not have deleted that article under the circumstances unless I had proof it was a hoax, you were a banned user, etc. or that the text was a copyright violation, i.e., that the text you listed from the back page was a verbatim copy (which did strike me as a possibility). However, please understand that reversing other administrators' actions is not done lightly. What I will do is provide the text to you in a subpage. Work on the article there until you are ready to post and please note the copyright issue, if it is applicable. I would aslo suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Notability as well as Wikipedia:Notability (books) which I am the majority writer of. Basically, keep in mind that you should be citing to reliable sources which verify the facts in the article. I will post to your talk page in a moment.--Fuhghettaboutit22:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too would not have deleted it, although I would have removed the back page blurb. As far as avoiding this king of in thing in the future goes, I always slap an {{underconstruction}} template on articles I am just starting. Nobody has tagged any of my tat with a speedy deletion tag for an awful long time, so it must work! And if you forget to remove the tag, a bot will come along and remove it after a couple of days. Worth a try, Angus McLellan(Talk)00:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
October 26
Dancarney keeps messing with my page
Dancarney is being an abusive user who is trying to delete a page that contains relevant information about and artist as well as their music. I dont dispute that the Neutrality can be disputed, but his insistance that the page be taken off or drastically changing information is unfounded. The page is for a reggaeton group "Yo Yais". Please advise me as to how to proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.77.210 (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it's not "your page" per WP:OWN, if you don't want other people to edit your work then don't post it here. Secondly, they are not being abusive. They have the right to tag pages as spam, non-notable, biased, etc. I would try abiding by the tags and remove the spam (as the article is very spammy right now) and rewrite it from a neutral point of view instead of just removing them without any discussion. NF24(radio me!Editor review)00:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might also try talking directly to Dancarney. He can explain to you his (good) reasons for his edits and can advise you as to how to improve it so that it won't be deleted. Sbowers305:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I read the section [9], I noticed it said "any editor" may perform this task. Yet the phrase, "closing admin." appears to mean an administrator. Administrators are supposed to be chosen by another process, don't they? Which is it? Who can close a deletion discussion, and what qualifications must that person meet?--Libertyguy02:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me assure you that it is not you. That section is so schizophrenically written I imagine it would be impossible to make heads or tails of it if you are not already intimately familiar with these processes. My response to you below defines some of these deletion processes. Read that first. As to your question: Only administrators can delete articles, so only administrators can close any deletion process resulting in deletion. Generally, articles tagged for speedy deletion are reviewed by administrators who either delete the article as tagged, delete based on a different criteria than the one supplied in the tag, or "decline to speedy" for various reasons and remove the tag; there is no formal "closure". See my response to you below for how it plays out when non-admins remove speedy tags. Prod tags can be removed by anyone, though it is bad form to remove without explanation. Like speedy deletion, there is no closure per se; a prodded article is either deleted, or its tag is removed at some point by someone. Finally, with respect to articles that have had a deletion debate at articles for deletion, which is what the section you cite to was actually speaking about, if an article is to be kept, either because there is consensus to keep, or because there is no consensus which defaults to keep, editors in good standing can perform such closure of the debate. However, an editor who participated in the subject article's debate, or who is involved in editing the subject article, should never do so. Finally, administrators are chosen at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit03:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Way too much information about administrators is here: WP:EIW#Admin. You might start by reading WP:ADMIN, which describes what administrators do, and how they got to be administrators. Yes, a "closing admin" in WP:GD#Closure refers to an administrator, and the previous task which "any editor" can do refers to moving the day's list of deletion discussions from the active page to the /Old page. Once you read about administrators, that section should make more sense, although the process is complicated as Fuhghettaboutit notes. --Teratornis03:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to how confused that section is, reading it again, I'm **fairly** certain it is referring to closing debates, and not moving /Old. Doesn't really matter but it definitely need a rewrite.--Fuhghettaboutit04:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated Deletion Prods
If a speedy deletion prod is removed, can it be replaced again later? Can an article be nominated for deletion after a speedy deletion prod is removed?--Libertyguy02:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what you mean by "speedy deletion prod". As you have some mixed up terms here, first some terminology. Speedy deletion refers to articles that are deleted speedily. The list of critria is set forth at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. The proposed deletion (prod) process shares some similarities to speedy deletion, insofar as it is deletion without debate on the merits of the article (such as is done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion), but otherwise, it is not a form of speedy deletion as prodded articles are not subject to deletion until five days after they are tagged. Speedy deletion templates should not be removed by the article's creator or another involved party, but they can be removed by any user if improperly applied. In practice, those other than admins removing such tags, who are not well established users, and where the speedy tag is not clearly improper, are likely to be warned if they do so. By contrast, anyone, including the article creator, can remove a prod tag and it should not be replaced. As to the second part of your question, articles can be nominated for deletion at AfD if speedy deletion is declined, or if a prod is removed. It is also not uncommon for articles which have survived an AfD to be renominated a second, third or even fourth time. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit02:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marking a page as a blatant ad, how to? F5 Networks for example.
Can someone go thru the steps to mark a page for deletion?
F5 Networks page is blatant advertisement.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.75.222 (talk • contribs)
Or if the page doesn't need to be deleted: add the template {{ad}} to the top of the page, and comment in the article's talk page on why you've done so. Best, --Bfigura(talk)04:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
just joined and already blocked?
Hello, I just joined this site for the first time a few hours ago.
I've been browsing thru on and off since and I was about to take
a crack at testing some editing in the sandbox, and I now see a
message that my account is "blocked". May I ask why? I feel like
I just got a ticket for speeding without ever having driven a car
before:) Kind Regards,Mrrose1304:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it said something like "database locked" or "unable to edit" it may have been due to an edit conflict or the database not allowing changes to be made while it catches up to recent edits. (Or was this block on another account?) Best, --Bfigura(talk)04:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(via edit conflict) It's a little hard to say, since I assume that with your account blocked you created this one to ask the question. I would like to point out that technically this is a big no-no as (1) it counts as a block-evading sock puppet, and (2) there is an established process for appealing a block, and this isn't it. If that doesn't help, the least you could do is say what username you were blocked under, since then it would be possible to work out why you were blocked (as it should be mentioned in your block log, and usually on a message on your talk page). Confusing Manifestation04:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, such quick replies...cool site. I saw I was blocked when I went to the sandbox page, but that message is gone now and it appears I can try some experimenting now, not sure what happened. I have not read about appealing blocks, and a "block-evading sock puppet" only sounds like Kermit the Frog's retarded cousin that never made the Muppet Show to me right now:) Bare with me as I'm still learning this site. Thanks for the help, Mrrose1304:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a great analogy (and I admit I'm annoyed I didn't think of the possibility of testing a block notice in the sandbox, and hence not assuming good faith, thanks Rjd). I'm not so sure I'm ok with the "bare with me" bit though - we've hardly met! Confusing Manifestation05:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot my login!!
I created an account years ago and would like to still use that account, and unfortunately I have forgotten the password! And I checked all the email addresses I think I could have used (except for the domain that I had that expired!) Is there another way to reset my account password?
Displaying Images and the some rights reservered commons license
I have two questions,
1. While there is a clear explanation of the image upload process using the tool bar, I cannot readily find an explanation of how to include the commons license. I have used the link on the creative commons website to create the code. Is there a tool bar button that allows for the insertion of that code?
2. Is it permissible to cite reference material obtained online to support my copy edit or must I go to hard copy?
1)The upload page has a pulldown menu to select the copyright tag to apply. 2) It depends on what you're trying to support but in general it is acceptable to have online sources. Just make sure it's a reliable site. You don't want to cite a bunch of cranks or someone without any experience in the field he's talking about. - Mgm|(talk)07:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does one contact a writter to let him/her know that thier page is totally wrong!?
I was looking up Peter Steel who was in a band called Type O Negitive, they gave me a pic of him, but ALL the information, up to the stats on birth and such was that of Glenn Danzig. You can look up Glenn Danzig and compare. So what do I do?
Cptannebonny07:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case an editor replaced the previous content with the information from Glenn Danzig's page. I have changed it back and I'll also leave a note asking the editor to be more careful in future. Thanks for letting us know.
In future, you can be bold and attempt it yourself. If you click on the "history" tab at the top of each article, you will be able to see a log of all the edits to the page. If you check the Peter Steele history (here) you will note that MrsSimson (talk·contribs) made some misleading changes today (this page shows the pages before and after MrsSimson made the changes). I have changed it back by clicking on the last good version (20:33, 23 October 2007 Logical Defense) and clicking the "edit this page" tab, then saving the page. This is called reverting. Rockpocket07:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, an editor decided to add the categories at the top and the bottom - and Rjd hadn't removed all of them when I got to it. That would be your problem. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 01:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Resolved
