Huh? A registered user is defined as a user with an account, and somebody with an account name clearly has an account. I don't know whether you are thinking of autoconfirmed accounts (happens after 4 days), but that doesn't change the user page link. The link was red because it went to a page which had not been created at the time. See Wikipedia:Red link. This goes for all pages and is nothing specific to user pages. The only way to avoid a red user page link in the signature, without somebody creating the user page, is to change the signature away from the default. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The custom on the help desk is to strike our errors, like this: Oops, my bad (and yes, I've had practice at this - but note, because of the way the brain forms memories, it turns out the more embarrassing our gaffes, the more firmly we will remember the accompanying lesson. I can still remember at least one word definition I missed on the Scholastic Aptitude Test decades ago). While we're on the subject of user pages, it's interesting to scroll around in Special:Listusers and note the low percentage of users who have them. Most user names appear as red links on Wikipedia. This suggests the majority of users who have created accounts have not yet gotten very far with editing on Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could some of the experienced editors please review the recent changes to this article ? I'm having a hard time working out if this is vandalism, a violation of WP:NOR or simply a good faith (but confusing) rewrite. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need some advice rather quickly. I may -- or may not -- have started an edit war in the "Controversy" section of the Joe Klein article. An anonymous editor believes that the section is biased/unbalanced. I believe (quite firmly, I might add) otherwise. I would really appreciate input from experienced editors/administrators A.S.A.P.<br. />
--Nbahn (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, based on what I have seen, this has not escalated to an edit war. Try to work out a compromise with the anonymous editor and, if the debate gets, heated, always remember not to get angry and to assume good faith. Because the other user believes the article is too critical about Klein and you believe it's fine as is, I would suggest adding some things that support Klein but remembering that most of the article shouldn't have an opinion at all. --Qmwne23502:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want any sort of a meaningful response, you're better off writing a full sentence. If you want to type that word in a search engine, use google or the search box on the left of your screen. - Mgm|(talk)08:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded image to en and commons, now want to get rid of en version.
Is there a way to delete an image I uploaded in error? Basically I have uploaded a newer version in commons and I'm not sure how to reference it specifically - the en version seems to take precedence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeoligny (talk • contribs) 10:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I edit mainly Malaysian related articles, and i notice a lot of articles on places talk about two things in one article. Eg: Muar is a town in Johor state, and is also an administrative district (named after the town/capital). Many other articles are also like this: Sandakan, Kudat, Kuantan, Raub, etc. I think there should be separate articles for the town and districts. Should i proceed to create separate articles? kawaputratorque10:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to do this as a policy, but there is no prohibition against doing this either, so you must use common sense. The articles are not so large that a split is justified by the article size guideline. However, I think you should split them. As you say, each article is really about two distinct entities, and we generally prefer not to do that. When two governmental divisions are co-extensive, we generally do have a single article, but this is not the case here. If there is an appropriate wikiproject, please discuss this at the project first. -Arch dude (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...after checking out the talk page, it seems it's been discussed what is should be redirected to. But seen as there is no clear cut consensus, I'd undo the edit, and contact WLU further. — Rudgetspeak.work17:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say no. There is no benefit from deleting the page and you haven't shared any reason that would fit the deletion policy. If you incorporated any of the text from the redirected page in the redirect target, deletion would even be illegal. --Mgm|(talk)10:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New User
I want to make a new account to expirience what a new user experiences on WIki. Is there any way that I can do this without being considered a sock puppet? ♠♦♣♥16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative account is a sockpuppet, so there's no way to avoid it. An account like that is allowed, I believe, though I can't find it at WP:SOCK#LEGIT any more. But if an account isn't creating problems, then it will not be scrutinised. The same goes for sockpuppets. x42bn6TalkMess17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that you if edit certain controversial articles, there is a chance people will call you a "sock" if they disagree with you (like evolution/creation, Israel, etc.). You can also be called a "sock" if you write extremist material. If you write on obscure topics, you will probably be ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spevw (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay to have a sockpuppet account as long as you don't abuse it by voting twice, or fake more support for an idea or viewpoint than there really is. Using an alternate account to see how newbies are treated is perfectly fine. - Mgm|(talk)10:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the button to the left, "Upload file". Once you filled in all the boxes, it should upload. If you have any other troubles, I could upload it for you. :) — Rudgetspeak.work17:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the other day i asked the problem which is as followed:
Hello, this is one poor guy, need your help badly....! coz the format of all the audio and video files is some kid "ogg" and on simple windows media player it doesnot run... we are here for study in cuba, and here the internet is fully restricted' except some sites like wikipedia... now i yearn to learn spanish, there is enough material for begginers in wikibooks' learn french catagory, but the main problem with the french is its pronunciation. here i cant download the extra codecs to listen the audio files given in content. plz do change the format,compatible to simple windows media player so that this poor guy could be able to fullfill his innocent wish. Please.....!
and i was suggested to download VLC players... and this i tried to do by every mean here.... but COULDN'T!
the other one was:
You should check the file info page. There is a Java program that allows playing such files directly from your browser.
plz explain this, because i didnt understand where can i catch that "file info page". and how it can help me....
Media:Example.ogg, a sample sound file that you can use to test. If the sound file you're trying to listen to is called "Example.ogg", then the info page for that file is at Image:Example.ogg. If you go to that page, you'll see a button similar to the one at right, which you can click on to play the sound file. For your convenience, I've included that button here for you to see what I'm talking about. If you click on the little blue "i" logo beneath the play button, you'll be brought to the info page for this file. I hope that helps, but please come back if you are still having trouble. Hersfold(t/a/c)18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote an article "Abortion in Russia" for List of articles about abortion by country .
I mostly use materials from Russian Wiki ru:Искусственный аборт.
I am a new user and it is very difficult for me to figure out how to post and link this article.
Can someone please post it?
Abortion in Russia
According to the Basic Law of the Russian Federation on Citizens’ Healthcare ( July 22, 1993), every woman has a right to make decisions regarding her motherhood. Abortion on demand can be performed up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, due to social reasons - up to 22 weeks, and due to medical necessity and upon the woman’s consent – at any point during pregnancy. Abortion can only be performed in licensed institutions (typically hospitals or women’s clinics) and by physicians who have specialized training.
According to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (article 123) performing abortion by a person who does not have a medical degree and specialized training, is punishable by fine up to 80,000 RU, or by fine up to 6 months income of the convicted, or by community service from 100h to 240h, or a jail term from 1 to 2 years. In cases when the illegal abortion resulted in the death of the mother or significant harm to her health, the convicted faces a jail term up to 5 years.
Despite a significant reduction of the abortion to birth ratio since mid 1990s, the countries of the former USSR maintain the highest rate of abortions in the world. In 2001, in Russia 1,320,000 children were born, while 1,800,000 abortions were performed. [2] In 2005, 1,600,00 abortions were registered in Russia; and 20% of them involved underage mothers. [3]
History
Prior to the October Revolution of 1917 the Russian law considered abortion a homicide and was punishable by a 4 to 5 year jail term with the loss of civil rights. In 1903 the punishment was reduced to 3 years. Since then a popular demand to eliminate the punishment of the mothers, and to punish only the doctors, was growing. However, the old law effectively remained in force until November 18, 1920, when the Bolshevik’s government issued a Decree on Women’s Healthcare, which provided for free and on demand abortions for the first time in the world. The legalization reduced the fatality of abortions from 4% to 0.28%. [8]
On June 27, 1936 the Stalin’s government issued a decree that prohibited abortions, while increasing financial help to mothers, families with multiple children, expanding the availability of obstetrician services and childcare facilities, more strictly enforcing child support obligations, and providing for minor changes in the divorce law. Abortion was allowed only in exceptional cases, such as a severe threat to a mother’s life or health, or upon indication of debilitating hereditary diseases of the parents. Some studies show that the rate of criminal abortions and the number of fatalities skyrocketed during this time.
After the Stalin’s death, the prosecution of women for abortions was terminated on August 5, 1954. On November 23, 1955, the ban on abortions was lifted and on demand abortions in medical institution were legalized. This resulted in a significant reduction of women’s deaths during the abortion. Other consequences of this change were a significant growth of the number of abortions and what was widely perceived as discrimination against the reproductive and parental rights of fathers who had no right to interfere with the abortion decision. The new law gave women the leading position in parenthood planning, which changed the gender roles in the family and affected the Soviet society as a whole. [9]
The abortion statistic in the USSR was classified until the end of the 1980s. [10] During this period the USSR had one of the highest abortion rates in the world. The abortion rate in the USSR peaked in 1964 when 5.6 mln. abortions were performed, the highest number in Russia’s history. [11] Nevertheless, the legalization of abortions did not fully eliminate criminal abortions [E.A. Sadvokasova].
i have been watching your program and have noticed that you are looking for people to come and work for you but can not find any info on your web site could you please tell me where to find this info?
Hi. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over two million articles, and thought that we were affiliated with the organization the article was about, and comcomitantly thought this help desk was attached to that organization. If I am right, please note that this place is Wikipedia, an online free encyclopedia, and this desk is for questions about using the encyclopedia, so we have no specific information about work opportunities at a particular organization. You might try searching Google for the homesite of the organization. We do have a reference desk for asking knowledge questions, though I donlt think they will be able to help you much with a general employment inquiry at a specific company.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very few people get paid at Wikipedia. Most people who write here do it so that they can see what they write appear on the internet. Spevw (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hello for plane air asia what is the weigt of baggage ? and for more 15 kg by baggage for price for 1 kilo one more please? email <removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.83.242.123 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best answer might be from asking Air Asia. Usually if your suitcase is even 1 kg too heavy, they could force you to check it in. If checked luggage is too heavy, you have to pay a fee (most airlines). Spevw (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archive size
Greetings, anonymous help desk employee whose assistance I request. I should like to know whether there is any suggested or preferred size for talk page archives. I am under the impression that my archives are too short, and I shouldn't like to have overly numerous subpages; the only existing guidelines about archives that I am aware of provide general tips about breaking archives up thematically. Waltham, The Duke of20:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that there is a recommended size for archives. It really depends on the amount of discussion you get; maybe 32K is enough for normal users, while a quick canvass of several admin's talkpages shows a preferred archive size of about 100K. It's really up to you. NF24(radio me!)21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Article size", I've written? I'd better change this. Anyway, my first two archives are 114K and 125K respectively; pretty longer than I remembered, actually.
Nothing particularly useful there. I guess I shall try and keep the size of my archives around 100-125K, as they are not supposed to be edited (so there will be no size problem there) and it seems to me to be a good size for research purposes.
In any case, this Index I had barely noticed before. It is, to use a word I do not utter often, awesome. I am certain that it will help me find information about various things more easily.
The Editor's index is still under construction. The author will move it to the project (Wikipedia:) namespace when he "finishes," and we will also add links to it from various entry points into the Wikipedia help, to make it more obvious. I agree that the Editor's index deserves superlatives, both for its own usefulness, and for the underlying body of information it represents. That body of information, by the way, is the continuously mutating answer to the question: "How do we recruit millions of volunteers from every nation, background, and point of view, persuade them to work together to produce the largest encyclopedia in history, and make sure they know what to do in every editing situation that comes up more than once?" --Teratornis (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I archive my talk page by month. Some people do it every 50 discussions, some do it every x kb. There is no right or wrong answer, but if you are worried about creating too much subpages, just use the method that uses least of them. - Mgm|(talk)10:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that it is only to be expected that all these thousands of editors archive their talk pages differently, so it is hard for a unified standard to exist (even between bots). The problem is, Mgm, that if I do follow your advice, I shall have to create a single archive that will probably reach a Megabyte in size if given enough time, as few very long discussions have been held in my talk page so far (a situation that is now changing, nonetheless, with many new short messages).
And thinking of it in terms of numbers, I don't think I shall end up with that many archives after all, even in the long run, at the current rate: 2.5 archives per year. I hope.
Interesting background on the Index, Teratornis; I had been wondering why it was in User namespace, even though there are a couple of other useful pages linked to from official tutorials and introductions that are also located in user space. I couldn't agree more, of course, as far as its usefulness and documenting value are concerned. The Wikipedia community is truly vast, and more or less chaotic, and after at least two years of plain observation and one year of direct involvement (including several months of active exploring), there are still several dark nooks and crannies that I know nothing about.
Still, I believe it should be noted that the Index's role is supplementary; the Department directory is more than capable of giving a good overview of the community's organisation, as well as directing editors to the places they are most often looking for (even if sometimes indirectly). My only concern is that it also lists a couple of inactive pages, like the FA Help Desk, which I think had better be removed—if a page serves no purpose, why on Earth send editors there? Waltham, The Duke of22:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
screwed up on posting info
Hi Wikipedia,
I updated an entry for Nicholas Longworth but I screwed up and entered my name in the entry. Can you please tell me how to get my name off of the page?
Good day, I am a newly appointed admin in the Tagalog Wikibooks which has a very great community - none! Our community their is dead that's why I am going to ask this here. How do you change the text special pages so that I can translate them to the local langauge? Thanks a lot! -- FelipeAira 23:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
LaTeX (produced with <math> tags), depending on your preferences, usually produces images containing mathematical symbols, but not the characters of the mathematical symbols. Since headers contain text (and not images), the symbol is excluded from the section title in the TOC. To make phi visible in the TOC, I replaced the math tags with φ, the typographical symbol. Similarly, you'd want to replace with α, with δ, etc. Since the typographical representation of these symbols is not as pretty as LaTeX, may I suggest not including the symbols in the section headers (based on that reason)? If you do want them included, however, using characters is the way to do it. GracenotesT§00:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A question about what constitutes 'promotion'
My name is Ian Rowland. There is a Wikipedia page about me. I did not create this, ask for this to be created, or have anything to do with the fact that it exists. At the moment it is a stub, and some of the information on it is out of date. Is it all right for me to add extra information and also correct factual or out of date errors? I am concerned that someone might consider this to be self-promotion, which I do understand is not allowed. Although I do have a website that has one trading section, I am not seeking to promote it or to advertise anything. I just thought that since someone has created a site about me, I would like it to be more than a stub and to have accurate, up to date information. Is this allowed? ManYossasarian22 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Autobiography, and particularly this section. Basically, add and correct the really uncontroversial facts, note the rest on the discussion page, and be sure to engage in discussion with any other editors - hopefully you'll be able to provide the facts, they can provide the neutrality, and you won't have to stay a stub. :) - IMSoP (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your replies. 'IMSoP'suggests I should 'note the rest on the discussion page'. So I went and looked up how to get to the discussion page, and it said I click on the 'Discussion' tab. I went back to the page about me and did this, and I got to a page that told me the page about me was a Stub, twice, and didn't seem to provide any input field or any space where I could type anything - at least as far as I could see. IMSoP also says, 'be sure to engage in discussion with any other editors', but I haven't the faintest idea how to 'be sure' of this, or how to comply with this suggestion or directive. How would I know if this discussion were taking place? And where?
I don't know if this is the sort of arena where anything less than a glowing encomium meets with splenetic invective, but I have to say this, my first taste of trying to deal with Wikipedia and its community, has not been a very happy one. Consider the simplicity of my aim: to correct some out of date misinformation that someone has posted about me. I am as web-savvy as the next guy, but it took me half an hour just to find out the designated appropriate place to raise my initial question. Does nobody think that a simple 'Ask your question here' link or tab would be a nice idea? As opposed to page after linked page after linked page of 'Rules about things you can't do' and 'Things you can't ask about at least not here'. Aslo, although I'm grateful that two people have replied, I don't think I'm really any further forward. (a) the advice I've been given doesn't seem to work unless further gnostic secrets are disclosed unto me [the discussion tab I'm told to use doesn't take me to an input field] and (b) I'm just referred to even more rules and regulations. I've no wish to complain or make unwelcome noises, and I'm prepared for the typical 'Hey, if you don't like the way we do things here, get lost' response that characterises some areas of the internet. Nonetheless, in case anyone cares, that's been my initial taste of Wikipedia. Perhaps future experience will be happier for all parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManYossasarian22 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can click the '+' tab (best for a new section) or "edit this page" at top of Talk:Ian Rowland. Wikipedia has a lot of bad experiences with people who write inappropriately about themselves, so there are rules about that. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little green and red numbers on your watchlist?
I was looking at my watchlist the other day and saw a little green number with a plus beside it (something like a +2,134) then further on I saw a another number, except in red with a minus beside it (-123 etc). My question is what they are for? Thanks! Fattyjwoods (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an indication of how much text was added or removed from the article. The number corresponds to the number of bytes - usually the number of characters, but not always, particularly when a template is involved. This page provides more explanation, as well as directions on how to change it if you like. Hersfold(t/a/c)05:14, 9 December 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.
Sorry. I'm sure this must be a common problem, but I can't seem to find the solution.
I uploaded a photo provided to me by Dr. Edwin D Kilbourne for a biographical page which I am writing. (I've been gradually extending it as I get more facts of interest.)
Dr Kilbourne provided me with the photo with the understanding that it would be uploaded onto wikipedia, and I have done so. It seems that I must now get further permission from him, either putting it in the public domain or else allowing its use under GNU or related licensing scheme. I will do so.
But how do I get the info box reference to image:EdwinDKilbourne.png to actually link to the photo......???????
RighterofWrongs 06:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
See Help:Image for examples. However, rather than make a plain link to the image, you should use one of the infoboxes for people, such as {{infobox person}} (or something more specific). You could study similar biography articles about people in the same field as your subject. --Teratornis (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask your rationale for wanting to move it back? Anecdotally, bad trip is the common name for the phenomenon, while psychedelic crisis is not. Google seems to confirm in spades, returning 968 results for the latter and 136,000 results for the former (other searches limited usage to drugs to avoid sentences about traveling, still return massive results). Accordingly, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), bad trip seems to be the better title. In any event, you can request a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I am going against the naming convention than I will drop the matter. My intention is to use the formal rather than the colloquial term for the experience, just like we list a certain city as "New York" rather than "The Big Apple". Haiduc (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. When rendered in my browser (Opera 9.02) using the 'Recommended for modern browsers' Math setting (Special:Preferences), the last three pis look identical and are rendered as .png images. The first is a text (Unicode?) pi. (Note that it is not the standard HTML π character: π.) To clarify the question for subsequent readers, we're at the difference between the following (LaTeX code → rendered pi):
For the lazy, I'll just mention that these are spaces of different sizes. Since they are at the end of the formula, they have no effect TeX-wise, but since MediaWiki is not too eager to compile them in unicode, they can be used to force PNG rendering. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we are missing something. On my system, the one with the \, (small space) is thinner and lower. I have no idea why. This is clearer if you put it, say, like this: . -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editing Wikipedia page about my father, Alexander Ulanovsky. Tried to edit it, but my corrections disappeared together with the original text. (Maya Ulanovskaya, E-mail address: <email removed>)
For your own protection, please do not post your email address on highly visible pages such as this. The text you attempted to add to the article is already in its history so there is no need to post it here. Normally, one would not add the text of a rewrite below the existing article as you did, but replace the existing text with the new. In your case, however, you should suggest the text of any changes to the article's talk page, (which is here), because you have a conflict of interest in editing the article. Every suggestion should be backed up by identification of reliable sources which verify the change (your rewrite contained no sources whatever). I do not know what happened on your second edit, but somehow you blanked the article's text entirely. I have reverted the article back to its preexisting state.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to place the hiding div for my userboxes on my userpage, but there is one section that refuses to work. I would appreciate it if someone had a look at it.
Here is the code that has broken:
<div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="padding:0;border-style:none;">
<div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="border-style:none;padding:0;">
<div class="NavHead" style="background:#EDF1F1;text-align:left;text-style:normal">
About my [[house|location]] and [[Time zones|time]]
</div><div class="NavContent" style="">
{{User EU}}
{{User EU citizen}}
{{Proud EU}}
{{User UK}}
{{user United Kingdom}}
{{user British citizen}}
{{User England}}
{{User Essex}}
{{User Wivenhoe}}
{{User time zone|UTC|clock}}
{{User dst 1}}
{{user date}}
{{User:HokieRNB/userboxes/visit|Chile}}
{{User:UserBox/User Earthling}}
{{User Earthling3}}
{{User:EVula/Userboxes/countries visited|8}}
</div></div></div></div>
can't edit page to include uploaded image thumbnail
I uploaded a photo of brian cherney no problem Brian-Cherney_in_2007.jpg (200 × 240 pixels, file size: 18 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
I have not been able to edit his page to include my photo as a thumbnail.
The page now looks like this below. instead of the image there is this text followed by the original article.
I have a lot of images of Canadian composers. Help me here please, and I can contribute a lot.
Thanks.
Stingdin
Brian Cherney (born 1942, Peterborough, Ontario) is a Canadian composer currently residing in Montréal, Quebec. He studied at the University of Toronto where he was a pupil of John Weinzweig. In 1972 he joined the Faculty of Music at McGill University, where he has taught analysis and composition for over thirty years. His pieces, often characterized by carefully calculated formal trajectories and a rich harmonic language, give the impression of a quiet intensity, usually featuring "stillness" in some manner. His works have been played throughout North America, Europe, and elsewhere. Cherney maintains an active career as a composer, teacher and author; his book Harry Somers (1975, U of T Press) remains one of the most important and detailed works of reference on this composer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingdin (talk • contribs) 13:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a helpful mood today, so instead of shuttling you over to the Reference Desk, I'll answer here. You really should ask these questions over there, though.
In a question just below, the unstated nation turned out to be India. Many people who ask questions on the Help desk do not follow the suggestions in How To Ask Questions The Smart Way by Eric Steven Raymond, such as to include all information necessary to disambiguate the question. Then again, most of these reference-type questions are answerable from a search of Wikipedia and/or the Web, and Mr. Raymond of course urges would-be questioners to search before asking. While Mr. Raymond's general tone is a bit more hectoring than we strive for on Wikipedia, a critical thinker would overlook the tone and grasp the valuable lessons Mr. Raymond has to offer. Knowing how to get answers to tough questions does, in fact, have substantial value, both practical and (often) monetary. --Teratornis (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now a days in disposal of solid wastes we use four of five boxes for sorting various type of the wates. What are these colours and what are there use, I mean how these different colour boxes are used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.93.140 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might find what you are looking for in the article about India. 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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I volunteered in the 1992 campaign of Boxer for Senate. The reason I did was the book she co-authored with Nicole Boxer, "Strangers in the Senate." It was a heart rending story of how women from the House wanted to meet and confer with Senators on the Clarence Thomas nomination during Anita Hill testimony.
The Congresswomen from the House of Representatives were refused entrance. The book describes the event from Boxer's perspective.
Our article mentions this briefly in the section U.S. Representative. If you think there should be more information there, just click the 'edit' link at the top of the section and add your own text. See WP:EDIT for more information on editing Wikipedia. Algebraist18:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Help Me.
Hello. I want to create many articles of Chinese famous people but the references that I have are in Spanish or in Chinese. What must I do? I'm awaiting your orders. Merry Christmas. Frankedjsjs (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas to you to! Chinese and Spanish references are acceptable, make sure to use {{Zh icon}} and {{Es icon}} for Chinese and Spanish links, respectively. However please try to include as many English links as possible, and make sure they are reliable and can verify and claims. Best, — Rudgetspeak.work18:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This question has come up before on the Help desk; to look for past discussions, try this search: Search Help desk for: censoring images. Wikipedia claims to be not censored, which is true in some contexts, but the cynic in me can't help pointing out that for an uncensored project, Wikipedia deletes an awful lot of material. Evidently Wikipedia is not censored, except when it decides to be. In any case, those who wish to censor material from Wikipedia differently than Wikipedia does should look into organizing their own Collaborative filtering project. Wikipedia's vast trove of information is spawning a number of third-party projects to search, filter, and otherwise process Wikipedia's content to meet special needs. --Teratornis (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's rumoured to live in Lapland, in the United Kingdom and the United States. But please make sure next time you ask a question here, it's about using Wikipedia. Best, — Rudgetspeak.work18:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to create a page for wikipedia on a publishing company that have been in business for 12 years. How can i make a page?... so that when it is searched for it is able to display their information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastersunny6 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that Wikipedia deletes thousands of articles for failing to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I don't mean to be harsh, but if you need to ask how to create a new article, the odds are that you don't yet know enough about Wikipedia to know how to write an article which will "stick." This does not mean you should not try, but the more you know about Wikipedia editing, the more chance your article has of surviving. Whatever you do, be sure to save a copy of your article on your own computer. We don't want you to end up like this. You might want to try writing about this company first on Wikicompany, which has far more lenient policies for articles about corporations (Wikicompany wants an article about every legally incorporated company in the world, whereas Wikipedia only wants articles about companies notable enough to have been already written about in several reliable sources that are independent of the companies themselves). --Teratornis (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing userpage & talk page background and border colour
How do you change your user page & talk page background colour and border colour, to a blue background below.
I've copied the text which you've placed onto my talk page both pages are displaying a Blue background which i want, thank you Rudget and PrimeHunter for the help. SKYNET X5000 (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm traveling to San Perdo Sula on Dec. 18th and will be traveling via bus to Managua and Granada. I'm interested in a map that shows the towns/cities in Honduras and Nicaragua. I like to sports fish and would like to learn about sport fishing. I'm also interested is retiring in Nicaragua - I like to be around the water close to fishing opportunities. My girl friend is from San Perdo Sula and her daughter lives in Granda and is getting married on January 5th. How do I find a map and any info on sport fishing and where I should look for property and retirement would be appreciated.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't really a travel guide, so we don't have maps of the kind you're looking for. All of our maps are strictly encyclopedic and generally show only the location of the country in relation to the rest of the world. You can try looking at our articles on San Pedro Sula, Managua, Granada, Honduras, and Nicaragua, but I'm afraid you won't find much. I'd suggest talking to a travel agent, tour guide, or a realtor in one of those areas. Hersfold(t/a/c)21:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is minor but disturbing, and I would have changed it myself if I could have.
The Stub states that Xavier House Publishing was Established in Feb 2007. This is a false statement. Xavier House Publishing has been around since 2004. I'm not sure where the author got 2007 from. If they had done a minimum of research (by checking bn.com or amazon.com) they would have discovered Xavier House's first book, Free Kentucky, was released in October-2006, a full 5 months before they state that Xavier House Publishing came into existence.
I would appreciate if this was corrected. I would have been more than happy to do it myself, but I could not get the editing page to work.
I recently changed my email address associated with my user name and while waiting for a confirmation email, which I didn't receive, I attempted to get a password retrieval email. I have requested it twice with no such luck. I am assuming it is because of my changing the email address associated. How can I resolve this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.51.96 (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that changing the email address takes a few minutes to 'stick', but quite often failure to receive confirmation is due to to strict spam filters. Some spam filters don't just drop the email in the trash bin, but just not pass it on at all. What email provider do you use? - Mgm|(talk)23:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would linking to some of my own articles be an appropriate edit?
Hello. I am a freelance journalist in the metro D.C. area, and I published several articles on Halliburton and its work in Iraq starting back in 2002-2003, reporting accurately that HAL had rebuilt Saddam's oil fields after two wars and that the company would profit again after Saddam fell.
Would it be appropriate for me to submit links to my own articles?
It sounds like those articles support a viewpoint that could be contentious. It depends on what paper published the articles and what experience you have on the subject. To avoid any accusations of being non-neutral, I'd recommend mentioning this on the article talk page and contacting the editors who've edited the article recently to see what they think. Please read: WP:COI (conflict of interest) and WP:RS (reliable sources). - Mgm|(talk)23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got two options: 1) you print it out and stick it in an envelope addressed to your friend. 2) you send them the URL in an email. - Mgm|(talk)23:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just created an account and received an emailed link to authorize, but have tried it three times now and always get a response message stating the code is wrong. I tried it both with and without the firewall active... what can I do? It is NOT due to a SPAM filter.
Thanks
Suedid (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the link on one line? Some mail programs may break it by splitting it in two lines. If that happened then copy the parts together into your browser address bar. Note that email confirmation is only needed to use email features. Your ability to post the above message shows that your account is working and can edit normally. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for the inquiry, Wikipedias in all languages are under free licenses so you can use anything you wish from the German Wikipedia article to develop the article here. In fact, a lot of articles are built through translation from other wikis. (see also WP:TRANSLATE) --Kudret abiTalk02:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just add the name of the category anywhere on your userpage (though the bottom is probably best), formatted like a link ([[Category:Wikipedian paratroopers]], or whatever). Of course, many wikipedians add categories indirectly, using userboxes. Algebraist03:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:COI if you are the subject of the article, related to her, or associated with her. Also see WP:RS - Wikipedia requires reliable sources to support any potentially controversial claims in an article. --Teratornis (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And since the Lita Llewellyn article does not yet exist, be aware that new articles by new users have a large chance of getting deleted, for violating any of the vast number of policies and guidelines you probably have not heard of yet. We don't want you to end up like this. See: WP:EIW#Biogra for information about biography articles on Wikipedia. Be sure to save a copy on your computer's hard drive of whatever you contribute here. --Teratornis (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uploading a jpg
Trying to create an account
I am a long-time user of Wikipedia, and I recently decided to create an account as an editor. I had hoped to use my real name, and found that it is already in use! I would like to point out that no one else has my name (I am certain of it), so some one is using it as a username on Wikipedia without permission. I feel as if my identity has been stolen. What should I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.156.172 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing the username in question, we cannot navigate the conditional branches that determine your options. For example, does the user who has this username appear to be active? If that user has not made any edits, you may have a chance with WP:USURP. To see all possibilities, go to: WP:EIW#Username. --Teratornis (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Need a little help customizing my signature
Hi guys, I need a little bit of help. Is it possible to make a signature, that's like fat in the middle and thin around the outside – like a roughly shaped oval ball? It dosent have to be very big but just like the size of a normal signature, just thin around the outside and fat in the middle.
Need a little help customizing my signature
So it’ll be like a normal signature (the user page bit and the talk bit) but the Username will be a little customized – the fat and thin bit. Thank you very much! Fattyjwoods (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i need to apply for working visa in italy by useing www.interno.it, but the above website is in italian lanugage.how can i apply ? can i get a application in english ? my e.mail is <removed to protect privacy> , pls let me if u you guys know anything about it.
On behalf of whoever you might be thanking, I will say you are welcome. If there is some particular part of Wikipedia that you especially like, you may be able to identify the user(s) who worked on that part. See: Help:History and Help:Contributions. Then you can thank those users specifically on their talk pages, perhaps even giving them a barnstar. Another possibility is that you are thanking us for something we did not do - Wikipedia has 6,937,051 articles, on many different subjects, and some visitors mistakenly think Wikipedia is affiliated with the subject of our articles. --Teratornis (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shan Foods (Pvt) Ltd, is the leading spice manafacture of Pakistan, Exporting to more than 56 coutries across globe.
Shan foods has the edge of delivering authentic eastern recipes cusine for our consumers around the world.
We would like to take the oppurtunity to add our website at your portal. When ever the member or no member search for recipes, spices, eastern foods, indian food.
We will also forward complete write up for our brand and products
See WP:CORP and Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for our guidelines on articles about corporations. WP:COI advises against writing about subjects you are personally involved with. However, you may write about your company on Wikicompany, which wants to have articles about every legally incorporated business in the world. Also, Wikipedia is a wiki rather than a forum, although some portions of Wikipedia function something like a forum (such as this Help desk). --Teratornis (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help - none of my js is working anymore
Up until yesterday evening, I was wikiing happily along with things like Voice of All's script and Twinkle in my monobook.js. For no reason that I can fathom, at some point it all just stopped working. I've verified each script and sure enough, not a single one is functioning. I started with the normal clearing cache, trying a purge, checking that none of the scripts had been updated or moved, checking that other people weren't having the same problem -- nothing helped so I went so far as to completely remove firefox and java (including cleanup afterwards of the tidbits they leave around) and doing a fresh reinstall. That didn't change anything either. I've checked my settings in Firefox (v 2.0.11 btw), tried without any plugins installed to make sure something wasn't malfunctioning, checked preferences on Wikipedia to make sure there wasn't anything new I missed out on...
Ok, I figured out something I had forgotten. I logged in from a different computer and I'm still having the same problem, so its apparently not my laptop doing something funny. Just for fun I've tried IE7 too, though I know some of the scripts don't work there. :( Shellbabelfish10:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two problems with your monobook.js that I can see; the category at the bottom wasn't commented out in JavaScript (I've fixed that for you), and you're trying to include a Special:Mypage subpage; I don't think that works (and I just tested it, and didn't get the results that would be expected if it did work), but I haven't fixed that as it shouldn't be causing the problem. Is anything working now? You could also try disabling the scripts one at a time to see if a change to any of those is causing the problem. --ais523 10:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Believe it or not your change made that special pages one start working again. :) Should have thought to test each by itself -- sure enough, twinkle by itself works, I'll test each and see if I can figure out where the problem is. Thank you so much! Shellbabelfish11:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another hint that may help: on Firefox, typing javascript: into the address bar will pop up a dialog box showing you all the problems it's found with websites you've been browsing. This includes JavaScript errors; scroll right down to the bottom, as there are likely to be many irrelevant warnings (even Wikipedia causes a few) clogging it up. --ais523 11:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Search searches for the term you entered in the body of articles (and the search page gives more options for searching specific sections of Wikipedia). Go takes you to an article which matches the term you entered if one exists, or to a search results page if there is no exact match to an article title.--Kateshortforbob10:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Submitting an article for deletion / review
Could someone please look at my last few edits (about the Chris Moxon page, (which just seems like a vanity page that is only linked to the page of a local club he is a member of and his own user page. Even though I consider myself a strict inclusionist I found this to be a bit much. I wanted to do all the right things, inform Chris Moxon and make the little discussion group to argue over the article's merits, but every time I thought I was following directions something went wrong. So could an editor that really knows their stuff advise me or fix it? Obviously I am such an inclusionist I have never done this once since I first started editing in 2002. Thanks. Saudade712:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Apparently I nominated a non-existent template for deletion and not the article for which I tried to create a deletion template. Saudade712:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've confused the Articles for deletion and Templates for deletion processes. You can submit an article for deletion by writing {{subst:afd}} (also known as {{subst:afd1}}) at the top of the article, and following the instructions at AfD in 3 steps from there. In cases of obviously deletable pages, the speedy deletion process is a lot more streamlined, so it's worth checking that first, but I don't quite think it applies here. I've reverted the mistakes you made trying to file the article for deletion, so you'll have a clean slate for your next try. Hope that helps! --ais523 12:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks ais523, I will give it another shot. I always have the hardest time finding the templates I need on here. When I do find the right page I "watch" it because I know otherwise I might never find it again! Thanks so much! (Also I didn't erase things myself because it seemed so deep in the system by then and also because I thought that maybe the templates needed time to magically cretaed some kind of network. Totally counter-intuitive to the way I know Wiki works, but...So thank's for the clean slate! Saudade712:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I share your pain. :) Have you considered creating a subpage or a section on your userpage to outline the templates you expect to use more frequently? I find mine essential. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea Moonriddengirl, alas, each time I am doing something new! This is the first time I ever ran across something I thought should probably be deleted! Since 2002! (I was using that Random Article thing for the first time) alas. Thanks, Saudade715:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template Help
I would like to add a new section to a template. The template is Template:South Carolina. I want to add Unincorporated areas. I tried to do this yesterday, but when I was done, the last section did not appear. The code for the last section was still there, it just did not appear when you viewed the template. When I was adding the new section I copied the code for the other section and changed the "Title#" and "body#" of the sections that came after the section so there were no same numbers. What did I do wrong? Can I added another section? Or is the number of sections allowed controlled by other template? (NOTE: I reverted my edit so that the template is back to where it was before I added the new section) Thanks Rocketmaniac (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the {{US state navigation box}} and it said "There are a total of 7 group/list pairs, so you can use up to group7 and list7. Additional items can easily be added add to the template if needed." So, that is why I thought I could add another section. Thanks Rocketmaniac (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a new article about a newspaper under The Edinburgh Journal. At the moment, The Journal refers to the Canadian current affairs program, and it includes a disambiguation link to The Journal (newspaper). I'm trying to work out how to disambiguate these now that there's a new page; it seems the two options are changing either The Journal or The Journal (newspaper) to a disambiguation page, but I'm not sure what the best option is or exactly how to go about doing it (though I've read through WP:DAB). Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Scottishmatt (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current article at The Journal is a Canadian current affairs television program which ended in 1992 and is probably unknown in other countries. It doesn't need the main title so I would move it and create a disambiguation page for all articles there. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do I publish my article?
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wrote an article in my account. It appears on "my talk", I saved the pages but I cannot see it on the wikipedia. It doesn't appear like an article. What is the problem?
As I happen to be knowledgeable in the subject, in the interests of journalistic fairness and balance yesterday I attempted to improve the Wiki article on clairvoyance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvoyance, by adding three concise, well-referenced paragraphs, and three or four sentences, being careful not to delete any text by other editors. Then I left a message to that effect on the Discussion page. Today, however, I found that within one hour someone by the user name of Antelan deleted all my added material, and my Discussion page message, apparently by clicking on the Undo icon, while making such comments as "Must be kidding me" and "Weasel much?". This article is already preceded with the warning "Neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed." Would someone be able to reinsert my material and place this article under closer supervision, or lock it from malicious deletions and valdalism, to allow me and other knowledgeable people who are in good faith to insert qualified text?RAmesbury (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see where anyone wrote e.g. "weasel much?" I did look at your contributions and I think the problem is with the tone of your insertions. They seem to act rhetorically as a defence of the existence of clairvoyance rather than just an explaination of what clairvoyance is claimed to be. Hence it doesn't meet NPOV. You could say that "so and so makes claims for the existence of X with argument Y" But you can't say that "X exists because Y's argument against its existence is a bad one." Or, again, you cannot claim that lack of proof that something doesn't exist proves existence. I have no proof that Unicorns do not exist but that doesn't prove that they exist.
That said, I am not one of those Rational Skepticism deletists, I even defended the Mel's Hole article here. And it is true that the Wikipedia is about Verifiability and not about Truth. But I did think that your contributions were a little one-sided POV wise and needed to be cited with sources outside those making the claims.
But not to get discouraged! Just try to re-write so that you are not making a claim about whether or not clairvoyance exists, but just about the nature of experiements / research done on the subject. Good luck! Saudade719:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who aspires to be a rational skeptic, or at least someone who tries to practice rationality in occasional short bursts, I'm wondering how a clairvoyant would need to ask questions on the Help desk. Perhaps I misunderstand what clairvoyance is all about, but doesn't it somehow involve a way to get answers to tough questions at much lower cost than answering questions by the tedious unglamorous ways? (E.g. the Scientific method, RTFM, etc.) Granted, this is no reason for User:Antelan to abbreviate WP:WEASEL into an overly terse comment such as "Weasel much?" which probably would require clairvoyance for someone new to Wikipedia to decode. --Teratornis (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! That's pretty funny Teratornis! But I don't think the OP was claiming to *be* clairvoyant! If s/he was, s/he'd be better off getting that fat check from the Amazing Randi! I'm all for rational skeptics, I just remember when there was a vigilante brigade of them on here trying to delete articles about paranormal subjects. That's no good because what if you are watching the The X-Files some night and don't know what a Chupacabra is!? I think that if the rational skeptics want to delete articles, they have to prove themselves able and gallant first by deleting the article for God. Slay that dragon and they can delete the Leprechauns after. Saudade703:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need....
Can you create the Category 'Chinese mass murderers'??.... I have 8 of them and if I don't find Chinese mass murderers I will put them in Chinese serial killers.... and it isn't so.Thannks! Ahmed987147 (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC) .[reply]
I believe I once read somewhere in Wikipedia that the text of one Wikipedia article should not be used as a reference for another Wikipedia article. I've looked, but haven't found that Guideline or Policy. If it exists, can you direct me to it, or offer any "expert advice" on the issue? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonFB (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: What I said is completely right, not partially right. If you quote information from an article that is backed up by reliable in text citations then you can quote this fact in any article. Of course common sense dictates that you don't write/read an unsourced statement in one article and then quote the exact same unsourced statement in another article as a fact. This is what Wikipedia:V#SELF tries to avoid. On the other hand if you quote the definition of Engineering and the exact same definition is backed up by an inline citation to Britannica you can use this definition all across Wikipedia (always accompanied by the same in text citation leading to the Britannica source). Dr.K. (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lynne Freed entry
1. The current entry for Lynn Freed has misspelled her first name. It should be Lynn Freed.
2. The content displayed under Lynn Freed should be in regular normal Wikipedia format, not in "stub" form.
Robert Kerwin
LYNN FREED
LYNN FREED was born and grew up in Durban, South Africa. She came to New York as a graduate student, receiving her M.A. and Ph.D. in English Literature from Columbia University.
Ms. Freed has published a collection of essay, READING, WRITING & LEAVING HOME: LIFE ON THE PAGE (Harcourt, 2005), a collection of stories, THE CURSE OF THE APPROPRIATE MAN (Harcourt, 2004), and five novels: HOUSE OF WOMEN (Little, Brown & Co., 2002), THE MIRROR (Crown Publishers, 1997), THE BUNGALOW (Poseidon/Simon & Schuster, 1993), HOME GROUND (William Heinemann Ltd., London; Summit Books/Simon & Schuster, 1986) and HEART CHANGE (New American Library, 1982; republished by Story Line Press in 2000 as FRIENDS OF THE FAMILY.) Five of her books have appeared on The New York Times "Notable Books of the Year" list.
Ms Freed's short fiction, memoirs and essays have appeared in The New Yorker, Harper's, The Atlantic Monthly, Southwest Review, The Georgia Review, the Michigan Quarterly Review, Tin House Magazine, The Santa Monica Review, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsday, Mirabella, Elle, House Beautiful, House & Garden, and Vogue, among others. Her stories have been recommended in Best American Short Stories (1992) and in The O’ Henry Awards: Prize Stories (2003). Her work is widely translated, and is included in a number of anthologies.
In 2002, Ms. Freed received the inaugural Katherine Anne Porter Award from the American Academy of Arts and Letters. She has received fellowships, grants and support from the National Endowment for the Arts, The Guggenheim Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Lannan Foundation. In 1986, she won the Bay Area Book Reviewers' Award for Fiction for HOME GROUND. THE BUNGALOW, THE MIRROR and HOUSE OF WOMEN were nominated for the award. FRIENDS OF THE FAMILY was short-listed for the 2000 Western States Book Award.
Greetings, I have been using your encyclopedia on & off for a few years. I have been browsing the web for a long time. I have however, never done anything with a blog or any other such on-line posting. I want to add a citation to your article of tacticity, but I cannot figure out how to do it. I have searched for about 30 minutes, read many FAQs, tried to edit but was unsure how to add a citation, I AM LOST. here is my edit for the article on tacticity -a citation for isotactic polypropylene by the Ziegler Natta catalyst process - this is mentioned on P 63 of a book called Organic Polymer Chemistry, written by K. J. Saunders in 1973. I have the second edition (1988), published by Chapman & Hall, NY, New York. ISBN0-412-27570-8.
I would think there are more than a few people in my shoes, those who are unfamiliar with uploading information onto the web. The whole process was confusing enough to make me want to give up. A set of simple instructions, tested by dummies like me, would be helpful to those who might wish to help improve the encyclopedia. Thanks for listening Richard Breakem (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Have you been to Wikipedia:Citation templates? There are a number of templates there that you can insert into text to create a citation, and I think they're about as simple as it gets, but if things are still as clear as mud ask another question here or drop a note on my talk page and we'll see what we can do. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution with intransigent editors
I'm unsure of the next step to take in resolving a content dispute, and I'm hoping someone here can give me pointers. Briefly, the situation is this:
A content dispute arose over a linguistic issue, with two editors contesting some changes I made to an article. After some discussion, and before we got to examining the content in question, the two editors declared unwillingness to discuss the issue further. However, they continued to revert changes to the article. An RfC produced no input, and we're ineligible for WP:THIRD. Assuming they're unwilling to mediate, what's the next step? Thanks. Ilkali (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you just sent me a conformation request in my <e-mail deleted for privacy> account. When I clicked on the sight location to conferm my registering,it failed to go through.I am comferming it here.
What web site did you sign up for an account with? This is the Help Desk of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not use email confirmation before you can use a new account. --teb728tc21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your account has been created [5] and can be used for editing without email. Try copying the full confirmation URL from the mail to your browser address bar. Maybe your mail program split it in two lines. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the left-hand side of any page (in the "toolbox", below the search box), there is a "printable version" link. It will bring up the text and images of the article only. NF24(radio me!)20:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contacting administrator using the talk: page
Hi,
Sorry to trouble you. I posted an article earlier which was deleted, and wished to discuss the reasons with the administrator. Afraid I'm having a little difficulty following the guidelines. I have located the talk: page for TeaDrinker, but cannot find an area where I can open a new discussion.
There are a number of topic 'conversations' on the page, with the 'edit' link at top right, but I'm wary of 'butting in' on another conversation.
Can you tell me the correct procedure to open the discussion please?
Sure go to the page, User talk:TeaDrinker and do one of two things: 1) click on the "+" sign at the top of the page (right next to "edit this page"), fill in a subject and then type your message below; hit save page; or 2) Go to the talk page, click on edit this page at the top; go to the very bottom of the page; place a subject name there and surround it with two equal signs on either side (like this: ==subject==), type your message below that, click save. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some vandalism on my "My Page" page that doesn't show up in the editor. Someone has an issue with me, apparently, and decided the best way to discuss this issue was to put an anatomical picture that covers up my page. A sneaky way, and creative, since there isn't a direct trace, but apparently cowardly nonetheless.
I have previewed the page in the editing stage, and the picture does not show up.
Apparently cutting the code, saving, and repasting did the trick. Still curious about why there was no editing shown in putting it there in the first place. (Possible this was somebody's idea of a European regional flag?) --Paploo (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since it didn't show up in edit mode or in the page's history, this is likely the result of template vandalism—a template you have on your page that is transcluded was vandalized and what you saw was not targeted at you at all, but was seen in all places that template is used. It would disappear not because of any change you made to your page, but because the vandalism to the template was reverted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It sounds like somebody vandalized one of the images or templates on User:Paploo. It's unlikely it was aimed at you. Somebody must have reverted the vandalism elsewhere. Your blanking and reversion had no effect on the source since the diff shows no change. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
East718 has recently protected around 870 templates [8][9] of a kind used extensively on your page (through {{flagicon}}). Maybe this was a response to vandalism you saw. Note that you may not see vandalism has been reverted on a transcluded template before the page is edited or purged. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a few days that when I click on the signature tab or put four tildes at the end of my comments, my username (Omidinist) does not appear. Is there something wrong? Thanks.--217.11.17.251 (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not logged in with your account. Click "Log in" at the top right of the page, enter your username and password, and then you will be logged in. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be OR. To make matters worse I feel that the results are dubious, since the historical rankings appear to be an Ordinal measurement meaning that average is rather meaningless. Not having any backround in how these surveys are conducted I don't feel like beeing bold and removing them though. Taemyr (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it’s working fine now. I deleted temp browser files and cleaned up browser cookies. resolved issue. but this this the first time I am facing like this.--Avinesh Jose (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
logging on
I tottally forgot my user name, and password. As such I cannot log in. I tried about seven differnt usernames and password, and I even ued the index card where I keep such information, anddifferent case sensetive ways of eritting it. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.21.124 (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you remember a page you have edited while logged in then you may be able to find your username by clicking "history" at the top and looking for your edit. If your account gave an e-mail address then you can click a button at login to e-mail a new password to it. If you are unable to access your old account then create a new. If you figure out your old username then you could write it on your new user page. Note that each Wikipedia language has separate accounts so a username from another language would not work. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
login problem
i cannot login or sign in your site by using my password
regards
Seyed Hasan Waheed
This page is highly visible on the internet. I have removed yor email address to protect your privacy and reduce the amout of SPAM you might receive. Astronaut (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
on page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_email_software
the user Kashirin seems to like only its company links and removes other companies links.
Tried to remove every link in the page to make it NPOW but he reverts.
Sorry to bug you guys. I recently added the Infobox user template to my User page. I'm curious what the "{{{data1}}}" codes are all about. I see similar ones on other templates. I've read some of the documentation and help pages, but I'm still confused. Please help. Thanks - NGC6254 (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As PrimeHunter mentioned, things in triple braces are arguments to templates. So if you called {{Infobox user|data1=Hello world!}}, then {{{data1}}} would show "Hello world!".
Part of your problem might be that you subst'ed the template into the page, rather than just putting {{Infobox user}} in with some arguments, which might have been clearer to you. If you look at any article with an infobox on, you should be able to see what I mean. What you prolly want to do is add something like this:
{{Infobox user
| name = John Doe
| image = NGC6254 WikiUser.jpg
| caption = My mugshot
| pictures = 50
| pages = 800
| status = Active Wikipedian
| hobbies = Webmaster for [http://www.sealth85.com/ sealth85.com], [[photography]],
[[astronomy]], [[karaoke]], [[chess]] and almost anything that ends in "[[-ology]]"
| reading = [[Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire]]
}}
, which would imply you've uploaded 50 images and made 800 pages, giving you a userbox like the one to the right here:
(Note I've changed the template some, partly to give the arguments more meaningful names, hence none of them is called {{{data1}}} in my example.)
Gimme a yell if you need any further help (though if you specifically want my help, please post to my talk page, as I might not notice an update here.
(edit conflict) I don't know a good way. A problematic way is to create an image and insert it in the cell. I just made Image:Dimensionality of Organic.png and here it is in the table:
Classification of hybrid materials based on dimensionality [1]
I want to add an image to an existing page (Mikhail Prokhorov). I have successfully uploaded the image onto the site but I don't know how to get it onto the page I want it to be on.
Please advise
RLFPartnership (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your account has no sandbox edits so I cannot see what went wrong. See Help:Images and other uploaded files. You can upload a new logo (if it isn't uploaded already) to a new file name, and click "edit this page" at International Boxing Association. Or you can try to replace the existing logo at Image:Aiba logo.JPG. Come back if you still have problems, and try to be more specific about the problem. If you give a link to the logo and possibly copyright information for it then maybe somebody else will upload and add it for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply anyway. You have to transclude the entry on today's list by enclosing the entire name of the nomination page in template brackets, like this: {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rayuan Pulau Kelapa}}. Certain automated scripts like Twinkle will do this for you. Hersfold(t/a/c)15:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your relply. In fact, I thought I had done just that! However, I will be very careful in the future, and certainly bear your advice in mind. Bessel Dekker (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i recently started making the Barry hawkes page, and then Movedgood renamed it to Barry Hawkes, which i was trying to do. So i then tried to delete the old page but im sure how that can be done as im new to this. Both pages are the same but the good one is the one called Barry Hawkes. If you could help me i would be very grateful. thanks lee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeironmonger1987 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I know that you explain how to post on wikipedia but It was unclear on how to directly do it. If you could help me that would be great. I am trying to put a form of core exercise on here called core fusion. It is trademarked but I dont see any reaosn why it shouldnt be on wikipedia. It deserves to be on here!! If you could ust explain step by step to me how to do it that would help me out tremendously.
thank you,
I would like to contribute my theory about creation on the first page
Here is a summery of my book
Mr. Travis Smiley and associates, I am a Black author from Indianapolis, Indiana. I have spent the last seven years doing research about the first book of the bible, Genesis. I have composed a substantial amount of evidence to support the fact that Genesis is the true story of an ancient African Ruler in Ethiopia.
The book of Genesis has been retranslated by the controversial Black author Kevin A. Lee. Kevin uses dictionaries from over one hundred years old and from over seas to destroy what he calls lies and deception. He states that Genesis was indeed the story of an ancient African Ruler who built a historical dam in order to feed a nation in a time of famine. It was a worthless piece of land, equivalent to a dry desert. The dam miraculously turned the dry land into a farm equipped with a high tech irrigation system that later became known as the Garden of Eden.
Mr. Lee also states this wonderful story never would have been told had not he discovered who wrote the book of Genesis and his purpose. This dam was not only used to feed a nation, it was also used to control the only world in which they lived. You see, this dam sent water down four rivers; one of them was the Nile. The Rulers famous saying was, “Whosoever controls the water rules the world.”
In Mr. Lee’s book, he states that Genesis was written by Joseph, son of Abraham. He makes this claim based on the reoccurring ending of old testament books of the bible; the person who dies at the end of the Hebrew books were usually the author. Joseph died at the end of Genesis.
The story begins with Joseph running for a political office to become the second head of Egypt. He is soon placed in prison when his opponents reveal his adulterous sins as an adolescent. On the witness stand Joseph diverts the conversation and testifies about his greatest ancestor who was considered a god and how he turned a dry wasted desert into a wonderful paradise called, The Garden of Eden. This story fascinated the King of Egypt because famine plagued the land. Joseph then took seven days to tell this story, knowing the laws stated that any perpetrator who remains free for seven days was a free man. Here Joseph makes plans to not only escape the charges against him; he secretly orchestrated a plan to become elected the second head of Egypt. Mr. Lee states in his book that it did not take seven days to create the world, it took seven days for Joseph to tell the story you are about to hear.
On the first day of creation, the bible said God created heaven, earth and light. Mr. Lee says that earth could not have been created because the word earth back then was defined as topsoil, otherwise dust, dirt or mud. Heaven could not have been created because back then the word heaven was defined as up or something far away. Mr. Lee says that Joseph was narrating the book of Genesis and in this introduction he was giving credit to whom credit is due. Mr. Lee said the ruler started a fire on the mountain to call thousands of workers to build a dam to reserve water for the dry season. The fire was on the side of a mountain could be seen for miles.
On the second day the bible said God separated the water above from the water below with a firmament. In the book Joseph tells the king of Egypt and the senate that the water above was separated from the water below with a firmament, which Mr. Lee believes was in all reality a dam.
On the third day the bible said God made grass and the trees. Mr. Lee said Joseph was telling the King of Egypt and the senate how the dam made it possible to grow fruit trees and a garden that before now they could never grow due to a lack of a continuous supply of water.
On the fourth day the bible said God made the two lights. Mr. Lee states that Joseph was explaining time and how they used the stars, sun and moon to tell the seasons. Joseph said the celestial bodies were the time clock in the sky was used to tell them when to plant seeds and when to harvest. Mr. Lee also states that the light on the mountain was used as a warning system for invading armies that may want to invade the land for food and water.
On the fifth day the bible said God created animals. Mr. Lee believes that Joseph told the King of Egypt the predicament of having a garden was all the birds and animals that came from the wilderness to eat the food in their garden. The wild animals also ate the fish in the streams for food.
On the sixth day the bible said God created humans, both male and female. Mr. Lee states that Joseph was simply telling the King of Egypt that the solution to the problem of the birds and animals eating their garden was scarecrows. So they reached into the ground to pick up sticks, sand and clay to build statues of people to scare away the animals. The statues were scarecrows in the garden. They also built beautiful statues of females to make their garden beautiful.
On the seventh day the bible said God rested. Mr. Lee states Joseph was the one that rested, knowing the laws his plan worked well. Joseph had been out of the dungeon for seven days. Never again would he have to endure the dungeon full of dead bodies, rats and snakes again. On the seventh day Joseph was elected second head of Egypt, the only person Joseph bowed to was the King himself. Dressed in royalty, Joseph was endowed with titles magnifying his deity. If that did not make for a good ending, Joseph also got the girl.
For thousands of years this story was told around the world in all language, by word of mouth. When it was made possible to record this story, the myths of Egypt and other countries destroyed the truth, definition of words changed, and the story was lost forever. Now after seven thousand years, the memories of a dead Ruler has resurrected. What you are about to read is the true account of what occurred in a garden called Eden.
Now without further ado I give this book to the world free of charge. Log on to www.damcreation.com and read the most powerful story on earth from beginning to end.
If you have comments you can reach Mr. Lee at <email removed>
My theatrical company are performing Little Women on 20th-23rd of Feb 2008, can we add a link to your website on the external links part of the page?
http://www.sideshow.moonfruit.co.uk/
Hello, my name is Matt Peirce, username courthouseman. I'm passing this on because although I am technically an "administrator" or "guide" and have the power to change/edit pages, I don't know how to edit that one as it has been altered somewhat significantly (It wasn't me !!)
Some wise ass altered the page for "Eugene O'Neil" Read the 1st page or so and you'll see what I mean. If you can not change to the previous (correct) form, please pass this along to someone who can.
What do you refer to and is it still there? Apart from the scale in {{POV-check}} I don't see any image (except a small Russian flag), but it's not impossible that a transcluded template has previously displayed an inappropriate image. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is going to sound REALLY STUPID. But, can i sue a company, for copying information off wikipedia? I mean, IT IS A REAL COMPANY, not a small, unknown one. I just wonder.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.74.72 (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer's at this location. The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free under the GFDL and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom.
To fulfill the above goals, the text contained in Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia contributors and licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). The full text of this license is at Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. This text must not be changed. --Orange Mike | Talk17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm not a lawyer and don't speak on behalf of Wikipedia or Wikimedia. I'm not sure what the perceived problem is, for example possibly illegal content originating from Wikipedia, or a copyright issue? Note that copying Wikipedia content is allowed when the GFDL is followed. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. If you have contributed content to Wikipedia then you have agreed to license your contributions under the GFDL. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
show times
i was just wondering when you were going to be coming back to the virginia beach area? my fiance really likes your shows and he missed your last one. if it will be a while for virginia beach , were will your next shows be?
my name is amanda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.230.243.184 (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the duplicate. This is the help desk for the encyclopedia Wikipedia. Maybe you saw one of our more than 2 million articles and thought we were a help desk for the article subject. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template question
I have searched the site to no end and for the life of me can not find the "template" companies such as verizon, vanco and BT used to post information. Is it possible to send me to the right page or tell me how they all did this to look exactly the same?
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmarrier (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are aware that representatives of the companies you name did not write the articles about themselves, and that their employees, shareholders, etc. are actively discouraged from editing the articles. We have standards about conflict of interest and self-aggrandizement in article editing on Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk21:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what is temperare?/how do we determine the body temperature?/how does the weather affects our temperature?/how do we use a themometer to take a temperature measurement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.2.118 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if that isn't enough then: Have you tried the science section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
posting article
I have an article I would like to post that is linked to the political reframing discussion and I have spent about 2 hours trying to find the portal for my article and I have been stumped. My article is in MSWORD and saved in html format...whatever floats your boat. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Love (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you talk about the “political reframing discussion” it sounds like your article is original research or a personal essay. If either is the case, then Wikipedia is not the place for it; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --teb728tc21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that images are still not loading (they just keep trying to load (ie have that circly thingy spinning FOREVER in the tab)) even after consulting this:
I cannot do the step "3. Clear the "for the originating web site only" checkbox" because I do not have a checkbox like that presented to me... I'm sure if I had such a checkbox this wouldn't be a big problem... maybe it isn't a big problem at all and I'm just making it as such.
There appear to be some invalid XML entities such as
�xfeff;
that occur on older pages which make XML parsing of Wikipedia difficult. The original author of some such entities claims he does not remember adding it. (See User_talk:Fvw#Your_signature). Any idea why these occur, and tips for dealing with them? Thanks. Pkalmar (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, all these are from the signature of Fvw in December 2004 (and it doesn't affect articles which are signature free). I don't know whether the signature was faulty at the time or incompatible with later software or what. If it causes problems then I suggest a bot request to fix the bad signatures. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, upon reviewing that AfD, the consensus for deleting it was very weak, with pointless comments such as the last one. If you can make a case for restoring it, you could bring it to deletion review. LeeboT/C22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c.*2) Admins always leave a reason for deletion. Let's see:
List of seiyū: Deleted after an AfD discussion. Nomination #1 was here, after which the article was kept. It was deleted after a 2nd nomination. Please note that you cannot edit those pages.
If you would like the page to be undeleted, take it to Deletion review. You can also recreate the page, but keep in mind that is eligible to be speedily deleted under CSD G4 if the new version does not significantly differ from the old one. NF24(radio me!)22:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't matter. It's not the creator that matters, it's the content. If you recreate what was deleted through discussion without taking it to deletion review, it can be deleted under WP:CSD#G4. LeeboT/C01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does knowing the names of things help with finding information about them, but the nature of this question raises further questions about what this company wishes to do. While I can't speak for every company, those few I have observed at close range usually hire someone to be in charge of installing and administering software packages such as Trac and MediaWiki (it takes more than wishing to get complex software to work - it takes paying for the necessary expertise, or developing expertise on one's own through good old RTFM). I'm wondering why the questioner is bringing this question to the Wikipedia Help desk rather than asking his or her system administrator. If the questioner is to be the person who installs and administers a corporate wiki running on the MediaWiki software, I recommend reading m:Help:Contents#For administrators first. Hopefully the decision-makers at this company are budgeting adequately to give their corporate wiki a chance of success. MediaWiki is relatively easy to install (as far as Web site software goes), but it's a long way from the resulting initial bare-bones wiki to a well-developed corporate asset that employees actually use. The odds of success will be greater if the decision-makers themselves (the people who decided they want a wiki) will use it extensively. --Teratornis (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit to the entry "shahtoosh", in which I deleted the last sentence at the end of the 2nd paragraph, and then inserted 3 sentences and a reference in the same place. When I posted my edits, the remaining 4 paragraphs of the article, and the links, did not appear on the page, although they are still shown as text on the editing page. Why did the article just cut off at my edits when I posted it?
Thanks,
wyopaddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyopaddy (talk • contribs) 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What happened was in this edit, [14] you added a <ref> tag without closing it. The tag automatically hides the text as a reference. I've restored the article back to the previous state for you. Hopefully that helps. --Hdt83Chat02:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lir's last block was dec 10 2006 with an expiry time of one year, so it seems Lir is no longer blocked. No one's removed the block notice from his userpage, mind. Algebraist13:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to create an external link to the following website:
http://www.witness.co.za/?showcontent&global[_id]=1179
But because of the "[" and "]" in the URL the link does not work properly.
Uh.... I'm not really sure. That's not something you generally see in a link. I'm going to go try something in my sandbox, and let you know if it works. Hersfold(t/a/c)06:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My idea (using a template similar to how {{!}} works) failed miserably. I really have no idea how to do this, and I'm not even sure it's possible with how the software is set up. You could try asking at the Tech Pump; if anyone would know how to do this, they would. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Hersfold(t/a/c)06:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add an existing image to an article, type [[Image:File name.jpg|right|Optional caption.]] to the article – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, right with the alignment of the image on the page and Optional caption with the caption, which of course, is optional. See our picture tutorial for more information.
If you want to upload an image from your computer, to put in an article, you must find out what license the image is licensed under. If you know your image is licensed under a free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons, where all projects have access to the image. If you are unsure what license your image is licensed under, see the file upload wizard for more information. Also, please read Wikipedia's image use policy, because if you upload the image under a false license, you may be blocked.
I have deleted the journalist's photo from the history of the judge's photo. I have removed the judge's photo from the journalist's article. I have removed the journalist's photo from the judge's article and tried reinserting it (as it should come up as the judge's photo), but it still shows the journalist's photo even though that no longer exists! I suspect the correct version of the image is stuck in the job queue, and I suggest that someone tries adding Image:Alexander Cockburn.jpg to Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet later on to see if it works. BencherliteTalk12:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at his edit history, it looks like Watchdog9 (talk·contribs) is Souradyuti Paul and that the article thus violates WP:AUTO. I'd rather not drive the process of investigating this because I know him a little and he's a nice guy, but I also believe in following Wiki policy, so - if someone else could look into it I'd be very grateful! 195.172.218.226 (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he is a nice guy, then he should be thankful if you explain WP:AUTO to him. Consider: tens of millions of visitors to Wikipedia recognize the greatness of this work. Wikipedia is great because Wikipedia's nucleus of experienced editors have worked out and documented an extensive set of policies, guidelines, and procedures which enable everyone to work constructively toward our shared goal of building a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality. Unfortunately, this know-how is staggeringly complex (and constantly changing), reflecting Wikipedia's underlying complexity (millions of users, millions of articles, on more subjects than any one person can comprehend). Not even a highly experienced Wikipedia editor necessarily understands every aspect of Wikipedia's operation, which means all of us are subject to occasional correction from other editors who happen to know about some applicable guideline or procedure we haven't learned yet. Being "nice" on Wikipedia means thanking rather than resenting the other editors who increase our knowledge of how Wikipedia works. It means actually appreciating what other users teach us - the opposite of how most people in real life respond to correction, squandering opportunities to improve by interpreting them as a loss of face. At the risk of digressing, I should point out that ordinary social customs evolved in societies that are relatively static - in everyday social discourse, a person largely functions according to rules learned in childhood. Wikipedia, in contrast, did not even exist ten years ago, so there is no longstanding social precedent for how to do what we are doing. Wikipedians had to create a whole new set of social rules from scratch, and these rules can be far from intuitive for many new users. Learning to cooperate on Wikipedia is, in some ways, like re-living kindergarten, and requires a child-like openness and humility. --Teratornis (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My name
Now that I am registered, half the time when I sign my name an an article talk page, it says I am not registered and gives me a lecture about why I should register. Why is that? More15:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think you're right? You mean you can pretent to be someone else just by using their signature? Humm. When I click my signature (in those places it registers and doesn't lecture) I get my user page. I have pictures on my userpage. Go look. More15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlamMeMore (talk • contribs) [reply]
That's because I just created redirects from User:SlamMe to User:SlamMeMore, and from User talk:SlamMe to User talk:SlamMeMore. If you click the links without "More" (or your bad signature link only saying More) then the top of the page says "Redirected from ...". And yes, you can falsify a signature (the software doesn't distinguish between a signature and any post where the same ending as the signature is written manually). But you cannot falsify the user name in page histories [16], so people can always find who made an edit, also unsigned edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One day a new editor may choose the username SlamMe. Then the redirects to your user pages must be removed, so please get the signature fixed before you leave bad signatures all over Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Case sensitive searches??
Why does one get different results when one searches for 'Udi' verses 'UDI'. Case sensitivity in searches is a very poor practice and is likely causing many people to be unable to find information that they are looking for! Most search engines figured this out decades ago!! We live in a world where case is more and more ambiguous. For example, which capitalization of the acronym for 'voice over IP' is the correct one: VOIP, Voip, VoIp, VoiP, vOip, VoIP, voiP?
Actually, search is activated by clicking the "Search" button below the search box and it is not case sensitive. It gives the same result for Udi and UDI. Clicking Enter or "Go" activates go which is case sensitive (except for the first letter): If there is a page or redirect with that capitalization then it goes there. Otherwise it makes the same case insensitive search as the "Search" button. I think it works OK. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I understand this a little better. Thank you. So instead of the search engine being silly, the silliness actually lies with the use of disambiguation pages, at least in the case of UDI v. Udi. Shouldn't all entries that include the three letters udi be all on one page regardless of case? It appears redundant and cumbersome to have the 'Udi' disambiguation page have a See Also section that points to the 'UDI' page. I'm not sure how widespread this practice is, but is frustrating to say the least. Thanks again for the explanation on the search and Go buttons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.228 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those pages should clearly be linked, but Wikipedia uses capitalization for a reason. If they were to be merged, there'd be discussions and rows on what the resulting page should be called. Pages should be titled according to their most used name. I don't see why that shouldn't include disambiguation pages and their capitalization. Searching only takes 1 or two more mouse clicks. - Mgm|(talk)22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIV "stats"
I remember seeing something on WP:AIV that listed something like 5 users with the most vandalism reports in a month. The reason I'm trying to find it is so I can get an idea of how many AIV reports get processed in a month, for curiosity's sake. Does anyone know where I can (re-)locate this? Pandacomics (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the page you seek, but here is how to look for it:
On my userpage it has a content table along with a list of headings where you could go, how do you add the content table onto the talk page like with my userpage. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It displays automatically depending on your preferences. You can force the table of contents to appear by putting __FORCETOC__ where you want it. x42bn6TalkMess16:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made major changes to the William Jewell College entry. I am the executive director of college relations and marketing there. I also made additions to notable alumni including new bio information I cut and pasted from our alumni magazine (which I edit and wrote the article for). I also added a bio for our president. I am concerned that these additions and changes have not been accepted. What do I do now? Thanks very much.
Hello Mark, please take a look at WP:N and WP:COI. Your articles may not be following our guidelines regarding notability. Since you are the executive director, you may have a conflict of interest here. By the way, you would need to prove somehow that you will release the text freely, and that you are indeed the director. This can be done through an email to OTRS. Thanks, and good luck! Redrocketboy17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, you said in your bio above that you are "executive director of college relations" for William Jewell College. This is a big time wikipedia conflict of interest. You're a bull in the China shop in your edits. You obliterated a thoroughly referenced section on the college's colorful history including a battle in the civil war fought on campus, Jesse James father being a founder, connections to a major religious painting about George Washington, and the campus bouncing back from a recent tornado. And then replaced it with unreferenced material that reads like an advertisement. I am very sympathetic to expanding the article to include info in past presidents and alumni (I see the president article have already been marked for speedy deletion). I can help you shepherd some the information into wikipedia format if you want to add it incrementlly or send it to me to include separately but I STRONGLY suggest you steer clear of wholesale edits to Wikipedia on William Jewell. Americasroof (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if there is a way to find out how many hits exist for a Wikipedia page. Particularly I wondered how many hits exist for en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemophilia. Perhaps how many hits per month? I couldn't seem to find this information on the site anywhere.
Hello, Kucab there is a list of the month's most visited pages here, but unfortunately I don't know if there is a way to find out on a page by page basis. There is a feature but it is disabled here, it seems. Redrocketboy17:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add on my wiki some result folder location which are on central server in particular folder.
How can i just put some "link" for it on wiki.
for example my server is accessible from my desktop command prompt with following command "\\abc" and particular folder i am intersted is "my result" so i have to put \\abc\na\myresult.
Actually it depends on what the questioner means by "wiki". The Help desk receives a number of questions from folks who don't seem to have a clear idea yet of what "wiki" actually means. Many new users incorrectly conflate "wiki" with Wikipedia (or more specifically, often the English Wikipedia, which is one particular wiki). Wikipedia itself has no features I am aware of for accessing a folder on a user's computer, and I'm pretty sure this would seriously go against the entire nature of Wikipedia. However, if by "wiki" the questioner means his or her employer's corporate wiki, then it may be possible to link arbitrary files to wiki pages. For example, TWiki allows users to attach files to wiki pages, much like using email attachments. The questioner should clarify which wiki he or she is asking about. If it's a corporate wiki, then the questioner should ask the system administrator, i.e. the company employee who installed and maintains the corporate wiki, to see what if any file-linking options are available. --Teratornis (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flag Template in wikitable causing rendering problems?
Has something recently changed connected with using flag templates in wikitables? as tables on pages List of York City F.C. Clubmen of the Year and List of Birmingham City F.C. players have as of the last couple of hours failed to render properly. Specifically, for me, each table row renders properly until a column containing the {{ENG}} (or other country) flag template, which transcludes OK but nothing after it renders. I.e the offending table entry contains the flag, the country name and the unrendered markup for the rest of the row, and all column entries after the offending one on each row are empty. This isn't just my problem, as another user first raised it here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't a help for wikipedia, but my browser "Mozilla" is starting to struggle when I'm on this page, it's getting too long, some of the older comments which have been answered or sorted out should be archived and erased on the current page, to make some more room. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "struggle?" And are you running an older version of Mozilla? If so, you should download the latest version of Firefox. The Help desk suffers from the general problem of talk pages on MediaWiki, namely that wiki software was not designed for threaded discussion in the first place. Help may be on the way in the form of mw:Extension:LiquidThreads, although I have not used LiquidThreads so I have no idea whether or to what degree it is better than what we have now. --Teratornis (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got the latest version of Mozilla, but what i mean is the browser is starting to take awhile loading the entire page, certain things aren't appearing on the page. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had similar problems when my cable modem was "flapping" (intermittently losing its network connection). Here is a speed test you can run to diagnose the consistency of your network connection. Be sure you are consistently getting whatever speed you are paying for. My problem went away when my ISP replaced my cable Toshiba cable modem with a newer Motorola model. This may or may not be relevant to your situation. --Teratornis (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to create a new page similar to the zimbra page. I didn't know the ScheduleWorld page was deleted and I'd like to make sure it stays up this time. Please let me know why the ScheduleWorld page was deleted and what I should do to make it more appropriate so it's not deleted again?
The Galbijim wiki is not as explicit about what license it's material
falls under. I would guess that most users don't care what license
their material falls under.
Material from that wiki has been posted on Wikipedia under the
assumption that it is covered by the GFDL and material from
wikipedia has been posted there as well.
I suppose I didn't actually ask a question. Where are licensing issues like this addressed? Is there a legal group that looks over this stuff? --Gbleem (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's only somewhat relevant. If no GFDL was granted for most of the Galbijim site then some of the contributions would fall under the Creative Commons license if the contributer specifically chose to place their contributions under that license. If the licenses are merged and only the Creative Commons was specifically granted on a portion of the articles then only that portion would be under the new merged license. That's a lot of if's though. --Gbleem (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been contributing to 2 quite small chemistry oriented articles, and alas it has ocurred to me that it's impossible to meaningfully discuss article #1 without explaining article #2. It is impossible to meaningfully discuss glycyrrhizin without also explaining glycyrrhetinic acid. The two topics are closely inter-related. Currently both of the two articles are relatively small and they will separately remain so for the forseeable future. Chemically, there can be no #2 without the preexistance of #1. Therefore article #2 should be deleted and its contents transferred to the article #1. Need to know:
how to delete #2
and also how to pipe #2's articlename to #1 should someone use that old articlename as a searchable keyword.
I know nothing about this topic, so I'll rely on your judgment to merge the relevant information from Article #2 into Article #1. Once that's finished, simply replace the text of Article #2 with a redirect to Article #1. Thanks for your great work! GlassCobra20:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can request speedy deletion by adding the speedy deletion tag {{db-reason|Administrators, Editor is requesting deletion}} and can redirect by adding #REDIRECT [[NAMEOFARTICLE1]] to the article 2 once it has been deleted. If you would like me to do it all for you, simply give me the names of Articles 1 and 2 and their links.
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.
In today's featured article on Belo Horizonte, under "History, is this line:
Having found a location with pleasant weather, a nice poopy diaper and good soil for farming, the explorer settled in the region in 1701, leaving a gold hunting expedition.
I have been an occasional user and have a question that I didn't find in the FAQ's.
Why can't I go to an article, read it, and if it does not answer my specific question on a topic, leave a question for the authors/world. I may not know enough about a topic to add to it, but I can recognize something that I want to find, but don't.
This seems so basic to me, I don't understand why it does not already exist.
Use the Reference desk for general knowledge questions. The MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia does not have an efficient mechanism for attaching discussion threads about an article's subject to the article itself. The talk page for an article is generally efficient for discussing ways to improve the article, but it is not suitable for open-ended questions about an article's subject (talk pages could become cluttered with general knowledge questions, making them less efficient for improving articles). On the other hand, if you know of some important aspect of a subject that its article should treat, feel free to make suggestions on the article's talk page, because that would be a discussion about improving the article. --Teratornis (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Etiquette for rewriting an article
I am a fairly new user to WP and thus far my contributions have been fairly minor. However, I have identified an article in desperate need of a rewrite (users on the article's talk page seem to agree) that I have the background to overhaul. Should I choose to rewrite it, I would do the whole article, start to finish. What is the etiquette for that? It occurs to me that I could put a working copy of the article on my user page and apply Template:Rewriting to the main article, then ask for feedback on my rewrite before finally replacing the existing article. Is this the "proper" thing to do? Or is there some other process I should follow?--Squirmymcphee (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you have good ideas already. I'd start, though, by putting a new section on the article's talk page, saying, "This is what I'm gonna work on; here is the address of the sandbox I'll be doing it in." Then await feedback. --Orange Mike | Talk22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that rather than edit your draft on your user page, you should make a user subpage for your working copy. To do that, place a link like this on your user page: [[User:Squirmymcphee/Draft of article (replace with a real title)]], click the resulting red link, and begin editing. If you lose track of your user subpages (they can accumulate like old magazines), you can find them all at Special:Prefixindex/User:Squirmymcphee. --Teratornis (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please tell me now that how comes WP type shortcuts are no longer WP type shortcuts? For example, WP:Rail now automatically links to Wikipedia:Rail instead of its original destination of Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways. Or WP:TIS now links to Wikipedia:TIS instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport in Scotland. Sorry to say this but this has screwed up a lot of project pages and Wikipedia pages in general and i feel this is a bad idea.
Discussion of restrictions on unregistered users, as a group
Hello: Is there any page or policy that discusses the question of whether unregistered users should be restricted in what they're able to do on Wikipedia? I don't mean blocking individual users. To try to explain further what I'm looking for, I've developed the perspective that unregistered users should be blocked from editing at least some kinds of pages, and I want to know if there are arguments in favor of allowing them full capabilities that I'm not considering. I also want to know if this is a question that actually is discussed by the community, or if the policy of allowing full access to unregistered users is simply so ingrained that it's not an issue, like asking if Wikipedia should be published on slices of cheese instead of on the Internet. I haven't even been able to locate a policy that actually STATES this as policy. Any guidance on where, if anywhere, I can find out more about this is welcome. (I don't have any plans to try to lead a revolution against unregistered users myself, or anything like that; I just can't believe that nobody else here has ever wanted to.) Thanks. Propaniac (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Un-logged-in users (and new users-accounts less than 4 days old) cannot create a new page, rename a page or upload media. In addition they cannot edit pages which have been “semi-protected” to prevent vandalism by multiple IPs. WP:ACCOUNT gives advantages of creating an account. WP:PROT discusses semi-protection. --teb728tc00:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is the name of the encyclopedia containing all the articles. Click the "history" tab at the top of an article to see editors that have contributed to the article. Anyone can write an article (after creating an account), but it may be mercilessly edited by others, or deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finding digitized books by specific authors (& linking articles)
For those writing articles about specific writers/authors (literary & non-literary), you can add a link for readers that triggers a search for digitized works by that author at www.DigitalBookIndex.org
There are several thousand authors listed at:
http://www.digitalbookindex.org/_help/helpauthorsa.asp
The listing is strongest for authors prominent where copyrights have expired (about 1926 in the US), but some more modern authors are included where they have been posted to the internet (Hemingway, etc.)
If I search for Halo 3 on Google, the wikipedia entry reads: Updated facts and data on the Halo 3 game. Pre-release and multiplayer beta included. That text does not appear in the article itself. Where does this summary come from, and how can we change it? (after all, no one cares about the beta now that the game itself has been released.) David Fuchs (talk)01:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i very seldomly use this website but upon looking up "giant Sequioas" I A message said something about don't believe this site and said all who go there wwill get virused plz make this safe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.252.237 (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First click "Printable version" in the toolbox to the left. The rest depends on your browser and is not specific to Wikipedia pages. Select the text you want to print, for example by "dragging" your mouse over it (move the mouse from one end to the other while right click is pushed down). Then select a print menu, maybe by first selecting a file menu (it's possible a print icon will just print the whole page). Then look for a box saying something like "selected text", and click it if it doesn't have a checkmark. Then look for a button saying print and click it. If it doesn't work then come back and say which browser you use. Or try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism.
On the article Seung Hui Cho. An user had put a message on the article: "DO NOT ADD TO SEUNG HUI CHO TO ANY AMERICANS CATEGORIES BECAUSE HE NEVER BECAME AN U.S CITIZEN". And now, I just delete the categories "American mass murderers" and "Korean-Americans".... so... Can you protect the article??.Frankedjsjs (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page appears different when I am signed in/not signed in
What is happening is: I logged in, edited a page, and clicked "Save page". Now when I log in and view the page, I see my edits. When I log out and view the page, I see the old one.
Here is some information that might help.
- Being a newbie, I negelected to add a subject. Does this keep my edits from taking effect?
- The way I did the edit was to copy the code for the entire page to the sandbox, make my edits, copy all the new code, and replace the entire page in the Wiki page. Was this incorrect?
- Should I edit a section at a time in the future?
- How can I get my edits to take effect when I view the page as a normal user (logged out)?
Your edit [17] is registered correctly. You probably have to bypass your cache to see it when you are not logged in. Editing a section at a time is not necessary, but it reduces the risk of an edit conflict. This was not a problem here where the preceding edit was the day before. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool. I thought I had cleared the cache, but maybe not. It is also impressive to view how the history page displays my changes compared to the previous version. That feature really works well - makes the subject less necessary but I will add one next time. Thanks for the guidance PH. -- WWriter (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than think of revision diffs as a reason not to add edit summaries, I suggest thinking of the diff as a way to write better edit summaries. You can click the "Show changes" button to show the diff of your current edits before you save them, so you can remember all the things you changed, and write a nice edit summary. That will save time for other editors, who generally prefer to quickly scan the history page for descriptive edit summaries, rather than examine every revision diff to figure out what everybody did. See Help:History, Help:Contributions, and Help:Diff for more information. Yes, being able to see differences between revisions is very cool. Actually it's more than cool, it's an intrinsic feature that enables remote collaboration to work. Wikipedia is a type of Web site called a wiki, and integrated revision control is a standard feature of (probably?) all wiki software packages (at least, all the non-lame ones). Integrated revision control turns Wikipedia into "a glass house made of super-strong glass." Everybody can see what everybody else is doing, and since the revision control saves every revision of every page, users cannot really "break" anything. We can always revert any page back to any previous revision. Revision control technology is also essential for other types of remote collaboration, such as virtually every open source software project. It seems like all of them use a stand-alone revision control package such as CVS or (lately) Subversion. Programmers need fancier revision control features such as branching, but for documenting work (which is what we do on Wikipedia), very simple revision control will do. The MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia implements revision control so cleanly that most users don't even have to know that's what they are using. And by the way, Wikipedia's revision control system is probably the single most widely-used revision control system on the planet. --Teratornis (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CVS articel vs. Walgreens Article
The article on Walgreens does not include any of the many many controversies involving Walgreens Corp. However the article on CVS includes many of the controversial instances they have faced. I think an online encyclopedia should be fair and balanced but the CVS article is biased and a misrepresentation of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.32.238 (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
how do i print sections of article content without printing the entire article when using AOL ? my options seem to be file (tool bar) print, print (tool bar), or Ctrl + P. no icons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.80 (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is continued from #printing specific sections of article content. In the future, please make follow-up posts in the same section, by clicking "edit" to the right of that section. AOL is an Internet service providerand I don't think they have their own browser. To see which browser you have, try clicking "Help" and then maybe "About" (I don't have an English browser and don't always know which English names are used). Maybe you can experiment a little with printing a short page which only takes up one sheet of paper if you accidentally print everything. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In the toolbox on the left of most pages, there is a "Printable version" link. Click that to make the page easier to print. Select the text you want printed. Most browsers include print functionality on the File menu or by pressing Ctrl+P, which brings up a dialog box. That dialog box usually includes the option to only print the selected text. Astronaut (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
how do you flag an article that is completly copied from another source?
If the article is newly created, and the only content is a copyright violation that is blatantly obvious, tag it with {{db-copyvio}}. If the article is more contentions, it should be taken to appropriate forums as provided by WP:COPYVIO. Or just post at at a place like this if the red tape is too much :) I have removed the relevant text from the page as the present version is not substantially different enough to be a derivative work. I could hide the offensive posts from the page history, but it is complicated in this case. Leaving a talk page note. Keegantalk05:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Always be careful. I'm not sure it is the case, but I think allmusic could have user-submitted content like IMDB in which case it could be a copyright violation of Wikipedia and not the other way around. - 131.211.161.119 (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How to print and save Wikipedia pages with the font I want
I am using Mac OS 10.5 and using Safari to browse Wikipedia, I want to save some of the pages in PDF format, Safari allows this, however, all the fonts saved in the PDF format will be converted to Times Roman instead of Arial which is what my Safari displayed.. The same thing goes for printing. How do I choose the font that I want? --Seasurfer (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really a Mac person but it might be that you don't have the font Arial installed on your system, so it is using another font. I think installing IE automatically installs a lot of fonts so you may try installing IE, opening the page in IE to see if it displays in Arial, and then opening in Safari to see if it displays in Arial. One again, not really a Mac person so sorry if what I wrote is complete nonsense. You may also try asking this at WP:Reference Desk. --Kudret abiTalk08:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't specify a particular font; instead, it specifies 'use a sans-serif font', and many computers follow that instruction by using Arial. The browser's save-as-PDF feature seems to be ignoring that instruction for some reason, because Times Roman isn't a sans-serif font. I don't know enough about Macs to solve the rest of the problem, though; I agree that asking at the Reference Desk is more likely to give you a solution to this problem, because there are people knowledgeable about computers (rather than about Wikipedia) there. --ais523 09:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
MINOR HELP
How do you on the userpage and talk page, add things like the status bot which tells you when I'm online or offline on the top right corner, in the same position where a hyperlink says "skip to the bottom" on the top of this page. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found this on wikipedia Activity Indicator and placed it on my userpage, however their's seems to be no script for placing scripts like the "skip to the bottom", i've spent awhile looking through the archives from the link you provided but theirs nothing expect for the Activity Indicator. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay, my watchlist didn't alert me that you've responded. I've placed the code onto my userpage and it works, the user status is displaying in the same position as the "Skip to the bottom" symbol, thanks for the help, i've also added a new subject on this page which is at the bottom, which I'm wanting to do. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
how long do I have?
Hi,
I just wrote a page and submitted it. Is there any way of keeping tabs on it? Is there anyone I can turn to for advice regarding improving the article? How long do I have before it comes under the scrutiny of one of the administrators? Can they delete it without informing me? Can I ask them to write to me first?
Keeping tabs on pages you've created is easy enough; one way is via Special:Contributions/Alansholto (the 'my contributions' link at the top of the page), which shows which edits you've done, whether anyone has edited the page since (the word (top) displays if nobody else has), and when; pages disappear from that list when they're deleted. You could also use your watchlist (see Help:Watchlist for details).
As for advice regarding improving the article, you can see Wikipedia:Requests for feedback for that sort of request. Looking at it myself, it seems to need wikifying and copyediting for style, it needs categories, and most importantly, it needs references. I'll put tags on the article that will let other editors and readers know that they can help with this; you can do the edits yourself if you like, or you can wait for someone else to do them.
About articles coming under the scrutiny of administrators: many administrators and other non-admin users watch the list of pages being created, so the article is likely to have come under scrutiny in that way already, but they'll have just been checking it for obvious deletability problems (for instance, checking to make sure it isn't vandalism or spam). Anyone can tag it for various sorts of attention at any time; for instance, anyone could start a deletion request on the article, but if there are no requests that require admin attention then administrators won't look at it acting as administrators (they may look at it acting as regular users).
Administrators can delete an article without informing you, but they ought not to. If you want to increase the chance that you are informed, mention this on the talk page; administrators ought to read it before deleting the article.
Hope that helps! --ais523 09:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I edited the following separate answers to your questions simultaneously with the above answer, so some of my replies may be redundant; I'll just slap them in here before I get another edit conflict:
Yes. You can ask the Help desk for advice on improving your article; you may find a WikiProject that improves articles in the same subject area; you can find a mentor.
There is no set amount of time. Various editors review Special:Newpages, but with up to thousands of new pages every day, some problem articles may hang around a long time before experienced editors scrutinize them.
Yes.
Yes, you can leave a note on your article's talk page asking to be informed on your user talk page if someone nominates the article for deletion. But it's up to them to honor your request. I don't think anybody can force them to inform you. We do get a lot of people who ask Why was my page deleted?, so it's pretty clear the whole deletion process is not perfectly informative to the (often) new users who create articles that get deleted. Wikipedia has staggeringly complicated policies, guidelines, and procedures, so there are a lot of ways for new users to create articles with problems.
Hello, iám Michael b,
Iám 17ears old,
Iám not good speak english!
Can You Speak Netherlands?
i will speak Ben Affleck the film Pearl Harbor,
Can i Speak Him??
Pleas???
I do a picture off my,!!
Sorry that i can not good english
i hope so that i can speak with Ben Affleck
I willl His adres Pleas
of What else That i can contakt coming pleas,!
Mh, it sounds as if the email you entered may not be correct. If not, you will need to adjust your preferences with the correct email, then find an automatic email to confirm it was you who registered the email. Hope this helps! Qst13:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the template table to link subpages, and to organize the subpages neater, because I'm wanting to create a subpage for my talk page so that all of the wikipedia signpost editions to my user will enter the subpage instead of the actual talk page. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, I had put a question here about vandalism on the article Seung Hui Cho because an user adds Cho to Americans categories when another user had put a message that "Cho never became an U.S Citizen,so, DO NOT ADD CHO TO AMERICANS CATEGORIES". Also, I had removed (yesterday), the categories American mass murderers and Korean-Americans and today, the categories American mass murderers and Korean-Americans were on the article. I have removed these categories 5 minutes ago. So, what can I do?. Thanks. Frankedjsjs (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We revert vandalisms as they occur; but I wouldn't call this vandalism. This is a content dispute: naturalization is not necessary to consider Cho a Korean-American. You need to talk this out on the talk page(s) of these categories. --Orange Mike | Talk15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect Redirect
Hello!
I was hoping someone could help me with this, as I am not confident in that I won't somehow mess this up! My organization's Wikipedia page is located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPCOR_Centre_for_the_Performing_Arts. The title is wrong in that 'CENTRE' must be uppercase to properly reflect our branding.
I tried to rename the page to 'EPCOR CENTRE' but found that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPCOR_CENTRE_for_the_Performing_Arts does already exist, but it redirects to the incorrectly named page! (seen above). Is there any way to keep and move everything from 'EPCOR Centre's page to 'EPCOR CENTRE's? The redirect should be the other way around, yet with the content located on the misnamed page. Sorry, I hope this makes sense...
Thanks very much -- I appreciate any help possible!
Unfortunately, Wikipedia's Manual of Style does state that standard formatting should be used for trademarks. In effect, the title should be "Epcor Center [...]". So, that is what the guidelines say – and guidelines are general rules to follow that may have some exceptions. Feel free to bring this issue up on the article's talk page. GracenotesT§17:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Orange Mike has blocked the questioner: Although I agree with the block, IMO his {{uw-ublock}} message is confusing and bitey without a reason parameter. --teb728tc20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleting edit history
I accidentally added posts while not being logged in. How can I delete from the edit history so my ip doesn't show? I don't care if it deletes my edits.
18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, well you can't actually delete edits, unless you're an oversight. But seen as that is confusing, I won't go into that. If you don't like the edits, and it's not necessarily been edited by someone else, I'd undo the edits. Best, — RudgetContributions18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Threat of being Blocked for alleged Vandalism
I am new to Wikipedia, but I do not know of any rule or policy that allows one editor to censor the contribution of another. For the last few days I have been trying in good faith to contribute some concise, relevant and well-referenced material to four related Wiki articles on relativity theory,
wherin I present criticisms of RT by qualified scientists.
Another editor, apparently not knowing the difference between science and censorship, does not like this idea and always reverts my contribution. This morning I re-submitted it and soon received on my talk page a message threatening me with being blocked for "vandalism." What is wrong with Wikipedia? RAmesbury (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are volunteers here, and you, being only new to Wikipedia, have been unfairly treated, especially considering you AGF actions. From the first article you showed, I checked the history, and it seems that the other editor may be in violation of the three revert rule, (or where you can't undo anothers actions unless it's blatant vandalism etc.) I understand where the other user was coming from but classing this as vandalism is inappropriate, I think what he meant to say was don't add original research, which the content you added did look like. I'd advise you to always add references to edits that you make, and make sure they are to reliable sources. It always helps if other editors can see what you're writing from. I'll have a word with the other editor for you now. Thank you for contacting the help desk. — RudgetContributions20:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expressions like when Einstein was in knee pants , super genius (referrring to Tesla) etc. don't belong in an encyclopedia. The theory of relativity is well accepted. To bring forth a slew of fringe theories attacking it is not the best of ideas. I would not include it in the article. At least not in its present oversized and POV gone wrong form. Dr.K. (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention whole chunks are repeated verbatim from article to article. This amounts to unnecessary duplication verging on article spamming. Dr.K. (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted the other user about this situation. Please keep in mind that consensus should occur before adding large chunks of material, and always cite to reliable sources, which verify any claims. And reviewing the other articles, I must actually agree with Tasoskessaris, some material may have been POV, which is against policy. But as you are new, I can understand that. — RudgetContributions20:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, do not make more comments like [20] to editors you disagree with. Otherwise your next block will probably be longer. Physics theories are usually criticized (or ignored) when they are first presented. But if almost everybody accepts the theory today then early critique from top phycisists doesn't mean much when they didn't have access to loads of later supporting experiments and evidence. Presenting the special theory of relativity like there is considerable controvercy about it is in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Long ago there may have been controvercy about it among prominent physicists but not today, and many of the early objections have been convincingly crushed by repeated experiments. The objectors today appear to be a rather limited number of not very notable people. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether the questioner is using the word "portal" the way Wikipedia uses it. People who pose questions on the Help desk may be new to Wikipedia, and may happen to use words that are also Wikipedia jargon terms, but they may not be aware of the Wikipedia jargon sense yet. However, I don't know what else the questioner might mean by "portal." Maybe the questioner is asking about how to access Wikipedia from mobile computing devices. If so, then Wapedia and TomeRaider may be helpful. --Teratornis (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalizing Headings
Dear Wiki
I created a page for a visual artist and did not capitalize her last name.
How do I go back into the page to capitalize the last name?
It seems I can only edit the main text of my entry...??
You have contacted Wikipedia. Simply edit the article yourself, by clicking on the "edit this page" tab at the top of the article, and then adding the missing information, with proper citations of the reliable sources used. That's what Wikipedia is about. --Orange Mike | Talk21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but most people would understand "edit" to involve making some changes that "stick" for a while. (Consider: when a scholar "edits" a book, the final copy will contain clear evidence that the scholar did something. On Wikipedia, it is possible for an editor's edits to be completely wiped out by other editors, leaving only entries in page histories that are not ordinarily visible. In real life, an editor who leaves nothing in the final copy probably did not need to be hired.) In that case, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can try to edit. One's chances of making edits that survive long enough to be worth making increase in proportion to how much one learns about editing on Wikipedia. The effort may be substantial. Thus, to be honest, we should adjust the slogan to: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but a lot of time and effort may be necessary to learn how to edit in a way that doesn't merely waste one's own time and the time of other editors. This is not an argument against making the necessary effort; Wikipedia's greatness is the direct result of the many editors who did invest time and effort. However, our answers to the question are somewhat vague and general because the question was not specific. If the questioner will tell us the name of the incomplete article, and perhaps some clues about the additional information the questioner expects the article should contain, we may be able to provide specific advice about how the questioner can locate and add the missing information. --Teratornis (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page for Hammad Siddiqi
I am writing a book on Young Pakistani leaders in various professions. The page Hammad Siddiqi was created by myself and a colleague however there appears a message on the top of the page about a conflict of interest. how can this be removed because no conflict of interest exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makhanlal (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hammad Siddiqi was created by Hammad1 on 11 September 2007.[21] The name makes a conflict of interest appear a definite possibility. Your account Makhanlal has only edited the article long after it was created, and the message on top was already there at the time. Is Hammad1 an account for you or your colleague? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hammad1 is my colleagues sign on name which he created for use of creating the page Hammad Siddiqi. He and I were unaware of this possibility that this could be considered a conflict of interest. We both have posted information from our research on the writings and commentary of Hammad Siddiqi the Pakistani journalist and commentator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makhanlal (talk • contribs) 22:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved your reply here. Please don't create more new sections about the same matter. Hammad1 has made 31 edits: Special:Contributions/Hammad1. The first 30 were to create Hammad Siddiqi, his father Shahid Aziz Siddiqi, and writing about the two in these and other articles, for example as notable alumni from their places of education. That is an unusual obsession about two relatively unknown people. The message at top of Hammad Siddiqi says "may have a conflict of interest", and I think "may have" is a natural suspicion in these circumstances. It doesn't claim "has a conflict of interest". If an uninvolved editor goes over Hammad Siddiqi and possibly makes some changes then that editor may choose to remove the message - or to nominate the article for deletion. The 31st edit by Hammad1 is this gross attack on a historic person, repeatedly calling him a coward (7 times) and worse. It doesn't look like serious objective research to me, and I can understand it was reverted as vandalism with a warning at User talk:Hammad1#October 2007. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What are you referring to? Your account has never been blocked, you can edit all pages except a few which have full protection, and your account has many edits. Just click "edit this page" at top, or "edit" to the right of a section. Don't you see those links? Occasionally the software is unable to process an edit request. Just wait if that happens. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your contact system is so complacted that this is the only way that I could get through. I didn't find any other way to contact you other then this. You should have a central email adress that people can contact you at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.220.132 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you did get through and we received your message shows that it works. I think this is not too complicated once you use it a few times. It has also an advantage over email systems in that many people can respond and discuss things at almost the same time, something that you can't do through a regular email inbox. Dr.K. (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a convenient "Contact Wikipedia" in the menu to the left. Since Wikipedia is a project mainly driven by an awful lot of volunteers, the way of contacting someone really depends on who you want to contact. Legal matters need other eyes than a request to correct an article for example. - Mgm|(talk)23:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who has never used a wiki before could legitimately complain about the number of wiki editing features a person needs to know just to post a question to the Wikipedia Help desk. Wikipedia works a lot differently than most non-wiki sites a non-technical user would likely have seen before. The MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia does not yet have true threaded discussion, nor does it have facilities for structured input (although with effort it is possible to hack up wizard-type interactive troubleshooting decision trees). The Help desk works quite well for the people who use it a lot (i.e., the volunteers who answer questions), but not so well for the substantial number of folks who seem completely baffled - notice the number of questions that have nothing to do with editing on Wikipedia (or even nothing to do with Wikipedia). --Teratornis (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need help Editing certain false information in Wikipedia
Yuioplkjhga (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)I am sorry but I am not very computer literate, so I have tried to use the "talk" page and another page to ask how to rid Wikipedia of certain false information. I tried to edit these topics myself, but it has been reverted to original writings. These writings are very false and leading other people to think this information is correct when in fact there is no historical basis for these lies.[reply]
I am referring to the pages regarding Pope Nicholas V, and the supposed Papal Bulls he is alleged to have written: Romanus Pontifex and Dum Diversas.
I have consulted with Church historians, and there are no such Bulls nor have there ever been. The only Papa Bull is Romanus Pontifex, and this has nothing to do with slavery.
The only references that are made for "proof" of these "slavery" bulls is from anti-Catholic sources, whose authors give NO reference or documentation for evidence of these bulls. Just because an author says it is so in their books, does not mean it is historically accurate.
I am asking, since I cannot do it myself, and I don't know how to use the other means available, that you please delete these untruths. I have found these lies under Nicholas V biograhpy, and under List of Papal Bulls, and under the names of these two Bulls.
If you write the Catholic Church from Vatican historians and any museums, you will see that your wikipedia source cannot substantiate the existence of any of these Bulls supposedly written by Pope Nicholas V. They do not exist.
I appreciate any help in this matter. To leave untruths in this site when it has been addressed to your attention would be questionable then as to the efficacy and truthfullness of any article in wikipedia. I really like this site, but it is not the first time blatant error has been found in this site.
Sincerely,
claire
Hello Claire. The problem is that there are just scads of published sources which treat these topics as real and based in historical fact. For example, there are 243 published books found through a Google book search which at least mention the Dum Diversas[22]. Do you have any reliable published sources which speak about the falseness/nonexistence of these topics? If you do, then (and only then) it would be appropriate to add information in the articles on these topics describing the alleged questionable historical basis of these "bulls", giving due consideration to weight.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once your account is four days old, click the "move" tab at the top of the page. Since this could be a potentially controversial move, you may want to place {{Move}} at the top of the article's talk page (click "discussion" at the top) and see if other users support or oppose the move. If no one responds within a few days, then it defaults to "support". Otherwise, please honour consensus; move it if the move is supported and don't if it is opposed. NF24(radio me!)23:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects from misspellings can cause confusion. As far as I can tell, we only have them to kludge around MediaWiki's built-in search feature, which does not tolerate minor variations of spelling, case, and punctuation as well as a modern search engine. I don't think it is an advantage to have redirects for people to link to accidentally from articles, because when an editor sees a linked word finding a target, the editor may not notice that the article contains a misspelling. Of course this kind of problem should be easy enough for a bot to find. But still, it would be better for the editor, I think, if a link on a misspelled word would show up as a red link instead of appearing to be correct. Maybe when MediaWiki gets a modern search feature, we can clear out some of the gazillion unnecessary redirects. Of course we could keep redirects from alternative names which are not misspellings. --Teratornis (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource Copyright
I have a user at Talk:Nicolas Gikkas asking about Wikisource's copyright licensing rules. Yes, I know I'm registered there, but I never edit and therefore don't know their policy. Could someone who knows more drop in or drop me a line? Thanks Mbisanz (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the credits for this program you list Joan Janis as a writer. She had nothing to do with the writing of this program. The writer is Barbara Chain only.
I cannot get into the credit box on the side to correct this. How can this be done?
I wanted to complain to Jimbo himself, however his talk page asks that I start here, which actually makes more sense....
I'd like to hear back from the powers that be about this, specifically the last paragraph, where the email was oversited and the editor who revealed the mailing list banned. [[23]]
The email was oversighted -- I can't speak for the exact reasons for doing so, which makes it rather difficult to explain their validity or lack thereof, but the general hubbub seems to be over posting private, copyrighted material (such content is routinely removed, in other cases; whether doing so, or doing so via oversight, was appropriate in this case, I'll leave for you to decide). Giano, on the other hand, is far from banned and has been editing as recently as today. This isn't the first time he's run into controversial waters -- it may be helpful to read up on past history, there, as it'll give a bit of context to the arbitration committee's considerations. Again, of course, whether these decisions are proper or not, that's something you can and should decide for yourself. – Luna Santin (talk)07:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up on him being able to edit again.
My concern is with the existence of a behind the scene mailing list which people "in power" in wikipedia use to co-ordinate their activities, it just goes against everything wiki is supposed to be.
If you want to see a discussion about the use of confidential evidence, see the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Confidential evidence. Keep in mind that sometimes private information will be important to an Arbitration, but for obvious reasons cannot be placed on-wiki for all to see. Folks are trying to work out a guideline to handle such situations. -- Kesh (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
grace period
Can we delete an uncited info just immidiatly after its addition or should we have a grace period? I mean if someone added an uncited info, should't we give it the benefit of the doubt and wait some time before deleting it? If you agree on this grace period, then how long is it? Is there any policy for it or just it is up to people?Farmanesh (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's more or less up to you. If it's particularly controversial, you could probably remove it as soon as you notice it. This should definitely be done in a biography about a living person. If it's not overly controversial, you may want to just watch the page. In any case, an alternative option could be to tag the statement with {{fact}}. It also depends on the user - if it's an experienced editor (which you can check by going to the edit history and checking their talk page and/or contributions), you may want to give a longer grace period than someone with no edits. You may also want to see WP:IAR. Hersfold(t/a/c)06:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. I've been working on Andover F.C., and I've recently been contacted by one of the club officials enquiring whether it would be possible to post the club officials' email addresses as listed on the official website. I have a feeling this would be forbidden (or at least very strongly discouraged) for security reasons but I've been unable to find some sort of official policy on this matter. Could someone confirm this for me? Bettia (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's a strict policy, but I'd strongly advise against it for SPAM reasons if nothing else. If the official site is listed here then people who want to contact you can presumably go from Wikipedia, to your site and then e-mail you from there. Pedro : Chat 10:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a side note, but your official website [24] is using the Wikipedia logo. Although just about everything here is GFDL free use, the Wikipedia logo itself is actually copyrighted. Not sure if you're aware of that. Pedro : Chat 10:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Browsing on the Internet this morning I came across your article on HMS Ulster which is a direct copy from my HMS Ulster website, which is included in www.candoo.com/ncot/ulsterhome.html
I have no problems with you using information from my site, however it would have nice to have at least been asked if this was OK.
Very sorry for the possible copyright violation. Because your site is down I can't obviously verify the copyright infringement. However as you have stated you're happy with it, and your site is down, then I guess the content can stay. If, however, your site is put back up again we will either need to re-write the article, or you would have to grant permission for the text under GFDL on your site. Is the site likely to be going back up soon? Pedro : Chat 10:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text, which I have reverted, had every hallmark of being copy and pasted from somewhere—so much so (even mentioning a webmaster) that if I had come across it, having never seen this post, I would have removed it as a suspected a copyright violation. In any event it was unverified material.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to save a Wikipedia page to your hard disk then go to the page, possibly click "Printable version", and try your browser's file menu. If you want to download the whole of Wikipedia then see Wikipedia:Database download and think carefully about it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way of finding out the identity or assumed ID of the authors of Wikipedia information and further, to contact them on a forum board or any other means to ascertain the source of the info'?
The authors of the material on Wikipedia do seem rather anonymous - or perhaps I am not navigating the site properly?
There is a history button right at the top of the article. Pressing that you can see who (that is, a user that could be indeed anonymous) has added the information. You might have to go through lots of history pages before you can actually find who added what. To contact that user you just press the talk button next to the user's name and then leave them a message at their talk page. You can also try leaving a message at the article's discussion page. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you have reason to question the validity of an assertion, you can always edit the article to insert either the {{cn}} or {{fact}} tag, querying the accuracy thereof. Any information in a Wikipedia article is supposed to be verifiable. --Orange Mike | Talk13:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion to improve Wikipedias - The Search Box.
Hello Help-Desk,
I browse Wikipedia on a daily basis and I would like to suggest something to help improve Wikipedia.
If I go to Google.com and do 'Ctrl+V'(Paste), it directly gets pasted in the search box or for that matter if I type something it goes into the 'Search Box' and then I just need to press Enter/Return key. I guess this is the way most search-boxes work.
I wish Wikiepedia could do this too. I am sure almost everybody, every time have to do a search to find whatever they want as they come to the Wikipedia website. But they still have to click on the Search box (or even worse for people who don't have a mouse as they need to run the 'tab' key) before they can actually type or paste something.
I would like to request the Wikipedia team to look into this matter and make searching one-click less :-)
Personally, I don't see the need to click at all when searching Wikipedia. I achieve this on Firefox with a bookmark with location http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%s and keyword wp. That allows you to go to a Wikipedia article with the command 'wp foo' in the address bar. You could do the same thing for search with location http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/%s if you want. Hope this helps. Algebraist19:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why my e-maill address is not valid?
This is the message I receied "No send address", "You must be logged in and have a valid authenticated e-mail address in your preferences to send e-mail to other users". I did log in, I did have valid authenticated e-mail address in my preferences. please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWLSHA (talk • contribs) 15:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find it in the FAQ or in other searches/hunting.
The page in question is called "Sunken Gardens (Virginia)," which refers to the Sunken GardeN, singular, at The College of William and Mary. I will be editing this to the singular but don't want to do anything until I can fix the title of this page.
It seems that the longer Wikipedia ages, it becomes much more technical and difficult for a non-expert to understand. Is there any effort within the Wikipedia ranks to provide a "Wikipedia for idiots" page where you don't need to have a grad degree in math or science to get an answer to simple questions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.139.242 (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I'm finding that Wikipedia is less and less useful as a learning tool. I'm finding it easier to go to other internet sources for anything dealing with science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.139.242 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Simple English Wikipedia, but there are very few articles. For example, I looked up eigenfunction, and there are no articles. If you look at the Wikipedia article on eigenfunction, it's a very technical explanation.
Thanks, but the reason that Wikipedia has been so helpful is that you don't have to send questions to a reference desk to be able to understand the material. However, with it gaining as much popularity as it has, you are getting Ph.D.s providing a very carefully composed and concise mathematical, scientific, philosophical, (etc.) explanation, and this is making it less useful for me. My question is whether this issue has been considered in the Wikipedia community, or is it not given much thought.
Perhaps a better question is: Who do I need to ask if they could put a Grade Level tab so that if you want a lower grade explanation, then this text will appear. If you want an expert explanation (if available), then you hit the Expert tab and the low level explanation will not show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.139.242 (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as pointed out, we already support 2 levels- the simple one, and the full encyclopedia. My guess is that we would see diminishing returns as we tried to add more levels. There'd be no way to automate this- each article would really have to be 5 articles, if there were 5 levels. Five times the maintenance would be required. Friday(talk)16:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of your answers. I was hoping for more, obviously. The problem I see is that there is a trade off relationship between expert accuracy and layman explanation. It seems that Wikipedia naturally will go the route toward satisfying expert accuracy, which is a good thing, but experts already know the material and it is not citable in scholarly material anyway. So, what began as a layman tool, will be more limited. Of course, it will always be of use, but Wikipedia might be a disappointment to the vast majority of people who just would like an explanation that they can easily understand. (I.e., most people are not experts.) Anyway, if there are any "powers that be" in Wikipedia-land, please pass this concern onto them even when they won't hear anything of it. =)
The larger Wikipedia becomes, the more it needs collaborative filtering. The basic idea behind collaborative filtering is that you have a large number of users rating Web pages by whatever criteria they care about (appropriateness to their task, grade level, offensiveness, etc.). Then the collaborative filtering engine compares your ratings to the ratings of other people. If it turns out that a subset of people agree in their ratings of the pages they have all seen, then their ratings may have predictive value. I.e., if someone who thinks like you do likes a page you have not seen yet, odds are you will like it too. Collaborative filtering can be powerful because it accounts for the vast disparities in personal preferences, which simple schemes of article rankings cannot. As to who might implement collaborative filtering for Wikipedia, we are a volunteer project, so the only way anything gets done is when somebody decides to do it. Alternatively, a third-party project might set up collaborative filtering for Wikipedia (lots of people are mirroring or indexing Wikipedia's content in various ways, attempting to add value to it). --Teratornis (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gasoline usage and pricing shows some historical data, along with current prices for various countries. Note that the pump price of gasoline varies enormously around the world, largely as a function of local government policies. The general rule is that countries which initially had little petroleum deposits had to import most or all of their motor fuel from the beginning of the automobile age, so they taxed motor fuel heavily, conditioning their citizens to think of fuel as expensive, whereas countries with large petroleum deposits tended to develop a cultural perception that motor fuel should be cheap. The United States, for example, used to be a petroleum exporting country, and the U.S. oil embargo of Japan was a significant motivating factor in Japan's decision to attack the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor - to clear the way for Japan to sieze the oil fields of Indonesia. Today of course, the U.S. imports more than half of the petroleum it consumes, as U.S. domestic production continues to fall as predicted by Hubbert's Curve (and by an interesting coincidence, the U.S. has also invaded an oil exporting nation). And yet most of the U.S. population, conditioned for generations to expect cheap motor fuel, seems not to have realized the need to move to European-style fuel pricing. (No Presidential candidate can seriously suggest it yet and have any chance of being elected.) That is, the U.S. population is largely in denial of the fact that the U.S. is now an oil importing nation, and has the same need to price motor fuel like the other oil importers. The few remaining nations that still have abundant petroleum deposits (e.g., Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia) persist in absurdly low motor fuel pricing policies, and this may generate political unrest after they too hit and pass their oil production peaks - which must inevitably happen (unless the Abiogenic petroleum origin theory turns out to be true, and the Earth's petroleum turns out to be essentially unlimited - anyone who believes that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you). --Teratornis (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the entry under Hajj, first paragraph is *very* not correct (and offensive to boot).
Also, it would be good if there was a clearer way on your website to report abuse like this! It took me 5+ minutes to try and find information about reporting abuse, and I couldn't find anything. Wound up here. Hope you can fix Hajj entry at least!! 66.182.6.170 (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings - I just entered some substantive changes to the entry for Carleton Holbrook, said to be the University of Iowa's first black football player. I have researched this (I am the university archivist) and have concluded that the correct name is Frank Kinney Holbrook. My changes to this entry reflect this. However, the title of the entry needs to be corrected to read "Frank Kinney Holbrook." I was unable to do this - perhaps you or a colleague could?
I recently posted a new entry to Wikipedia about titled MAX Awards, about the marketing awards for excellence in Georgia and is was deleted very quickly. Could you please help tell me why it was deleted and how to edit the material so that it can be posted. There are lots of other awards wiki entries so I feel that we should be able to post ours but maybe it was just too promotional to begin with.
Thanks you for all your help.
19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindseybrooke (talk • contribs) 19:18, 14 December 2007
I'm looking for advise on what I should do when I come across articles that appear to have been copied and pasted. Is there a tag that can be placed on that section? Whats my best course of action? --EndlessDan20:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under a GNU documentation license we would like to find and download all country and city text data for credited insertion into various web pages in english. Where is the appropriate file located in wikipedia and what is the name of that file.
Hey my name is Josh and my username on wikipedia is crueddude. My favorite band is Sevendust and one day I went on here to look up some info and saw that someone deleted their whole history. So what I did was edit in a new and longer biography with much greater detail than before. I believe it lets everyone know the full history of Sevendust. I also edited in some Extra Tracks they did along with names to the videos they have done. After I did all that, a couple days later, someone edited in the old and short biography and delted the extra tracks section and videos section. I have the code for the Sevendust page I made and will show you at the end of this message. Is there anything you can do to help this situation? Your help will be greatly appreciated. Here is the code, I just recently edited in this code, but hopefully no one else tampers with it again.
There's no need to paste the entire article here (see: Sevendust). The information was removed because (according to the edit summary)Further revisions are simply copy and pasted from various internet sources. Did you write all that or did you took it from some website? -Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:17, 14 December 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.
This page is designed for questions about using Wikipedia. This would be better placed on the Reference Desk. If you do decide to ask this question at the Reference Desk please phrase it in the form of a question and be more specific as to what you are looking for. Right now I can't tell what you are asking. Raven4x4x (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) - Can Franz Fuchs be considered an Austrian serial killer? or he's serial killer, mas murderer or terrorist?
2) - Why two users say that Moninder Singh Pandher and Surender Koli mustn't be added to Indian serial killers if they are suspected of the murders of 19 little girls? I asked it on Here but I don't have answers there. Thanks and Merry Christmas to you and your family. Ahmed987147 (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have made a query on the talk page of that article. The user that removed it was User:ExRat ([25]), so perhaps you should talk to him. Not that I know anything about these people, but if they aren't convicted, then it makes no sense for them to be on that list (see [26]). I don't, however, have an answer to your first question, and you may get a better response at the miscellaneous Reference Desk. x42bn6TalkMess23:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what the Wikipedia policy is for the use of English. I note that Civilisation is called 'Civilization' here. What is the justification for using the Americanism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.66.128 (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot log in. I get a message, "Your browser is not set to allow cookies, please set browser to allow cookies and try again." But my browser (Safari) was and is set to allow cookies and there were many on there before I cleared them to ensure room for new ones. So, I have my name and password, and my browser is set to allow cookies in the preferences, but I still cannot login. What else can I do?
to whom it may concern,
I have personally hiked to the top of Quail Mountain 75 times. I am not a nut or anything! I found the Quail Mountain wikipedia page today, and found some inaccuracies, the elevation is wrong, and there is no trail to the summit for example. I also added some information I have obtained from firsthand experience, and even uploaded a photo I took while hiking to the top on August 10, 2005 (NOT an easy feat in the summertime). Anyhow, my editing has not shown up, and I don't know where the photo went. I live about 10 miles from the peak and can even see it from my back yard. I am not vandalizing Wikipedia, only trying to make an honest contribution. Thanks! Username DouglasBear DouglasBear (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! We're glad to have you here. However, to help cut down on some of the vandalism, we have some bots that revert changes that they think are suspicious. They are obviously wrong sometimes! Before you change things permanently, though, you'll want to use the preview button to make sure that's what you want. For example, your last edit still had default images for the gallery, which is probably why the bot reverted it. I went ahead and put that picture you uploaded in there, but it's up to you to finish it. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me! Xiong Chiamiov::contact::help!01:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Xiong! I am new to this and do not understand it very well. I will try to work on the page more at a later time, I appreciate your help. I just stumbled upon the page today and could not resist trying to add more as I know the mountain very well. Anyhow, thanks again, I will make it better now that I know my work is not going into the waste basket! DouglasBearDouglasBear (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article for WTIC-FM needs to include proof of the "Wayback Weekend". I included a link in both the format listing and at the bottom of the article. Any professional Wikipedians out there, please help out this beginner. I am unsure of what type of retro format, specifically, the WTIC FM "Wayback Weekend" is so I just labeled it as "80s". You will need to visit the webpage and read the article than use your own judgment as to what variation of the retro format the WTIC-FM"Wayback Weekend" should be labeled as. Also, a little room should be set aside in the article itself to describe the "Wayback Weekend" program. It has become a major attribute that listeners have started identifying the radio station. It makes it distinctly stand out from other CBS Radio stations. If the WTIC-FM website does not load properly through Firefox or Netscape, it is sure to work on Internet Explorer. Thank you for taking the time to read this unsigned comment.
Please....
I'm afraid because I don't know if this question must be posted here but ... well... , have patience with me please... Can you create the Category:Spanish serial killers to me??... I love serial killers :P. Thanks and please don't insult me if the question mustn't be posted here. I'm new Ahmed987147 (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well, I could (and you could do it yourself, by adding the category to an article, clicking on the redlink, and creating the catpage with the sole text [[Category:Serial killers by nationality]]), but what are you going to put in it? List of serial killers by country has no Spaniards that I can see. Algebraist04:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do I create a wikipedia article on a subject that is not already covered?
Id like to make an article over something that currently does not have an article with wikepedia. How do I do so?
^Cheetham, Rao, and Feller. Structural diversity and chemical trends in hybrid inorganic-organic framework materials. Chem. Comm.46 (2006) 4780. doi:10.1039/b610264f
Done I think? :) Regards, — Rudget speak.work 19:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
![[6]](https:/upwiki/wikipedia/ja/1/17/CEATEC_JAPAN_2006.JPG){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:CEATEC_JAPAN_2006.JPG){kind=link}
Resolved
