Link to article without it showing up on "what links here"
Can you put a link to an article (i.e. on a talk page or user page) so that it does not show up on that article's "what links here"? I thought adding a colon after the two left brackets and before the article's title might do it, but it doesn't. Bubba73(talk), 00:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a colon before the title in a link to a picture makes a link to the picture instead of showing the picture. It would be nice if something like that could do what I asked about. Bubba73(talk), 21:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More appropriately, putting a colon in front of a category makes a link to the category but does not add that article to the category. It would be good if doing that in a link would not show it up in "what links here" - to be used for user pages and talk pages. Bubba73(talk), 17:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The what links here page has a namespace field where you can choose to only see articles, so I don't see a big need for the suggested feature. As mentioned, you can make a url instead if you for some reason really don't want it in what links here. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that it is easier to put in the name of the article than the entire URL. I'd rather not have pages I link to on my user page show up on their "what links here". Bubba73(talk), 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any nightingale birds in Northa America most especially the southeast. (as in Alabama. Georgia, Mississippi, etc)
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.144.228 (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2009 (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.
Date linking has been going through an arbitration case. Just now, I wondered if this was settled yet (after all, it's been six months!). So, I checked WP:MOSNUM which has a big box saying that it's still being fought over. The link that the box provides goes to an arbitration case which has been closed as of yesterday. My problem lies in that I don't see where anything was actually decided on the topic of linking dates. I see where a bunch of people were banned, restricted, and had their hands slapped but I don't see any word on what we should be doing about linking of dates. So, can someone tell me in simple (non-governmental, non-red tape) terms what the guideline is now? Dismas|(talk)04:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I want to be able to help fix up or upload images to Wikimedia Commons, and might want to add to Wiktionary. The problem is that I can't log in with my Wikipedia User ID. Is there a way to use this, or could I suggest that the Wikimedia Foundation considers User IDs for the whole Foundation? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevetsjc (talk • contribs) 05:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that after you unify your account, you will still have to wait for separate autoconfirmation on the various Wikimedia Foundation wikis, starting from your first edit on each one. On Commons, this means you have to wait four days to upload new versions of existing images, but you can create new images there with no delay. See Commons:Commons:Autoconfirmed users. --Teratornis (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pages in Script font - help
When I am in Explorer, all of a sudden everything is written in a tiny script font, which I cannot read. It didn't used to be that way.
If I open Wikipedia in Firefox, it's not that way.
Can anyone help?
Thanks
joan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.103.236 (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to replace the company logo. The logo currently posted in the page describing our company is not official one. Can I replace it with the correct one? If I can, please advise how to do it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A1190469 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
where do i give alternate definitions to acronyms ? i tried to create a new page but it was deleted for being too short.Shraktu (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that an article I wrote has been abused by an anonymous user, who has transformed the text into a (blatant) advertising, and also removed certain references. Obviously, this was done by the representative of a company, who wants to advertise it in Wikipedia, while removing or writing against its competitors (inadmissible for an encyclopedia). All of this destroys weeks of research and writing effort - and the effort of further contributors. I would like to ask for advise and help. Thank you!
Article is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_translation
Edits are by: IP:68.174.131.183.
Could someone take a look at my review of this article over here and see if it's all right? This is my first review so I'm unsure of how to go about this. Thanks.
(BTW, the review is in hidden comments to prevent it from showing up on the article talk page, so to see the review you'll have to edit the page, remove the <-- --> symbols, and then preview it.)
When I try to save changes made to the articles I get the MediaWiki internal error. Can anyone help? Here is the whole text:
"MediaWiki internal error.
Original exception: exception 'AFPUserVisibleException' with message '<abusefilter-exception-regexfailure>' in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/extensions/AbuseFilter/AbuseFilter.parser.php:1604
Stack trace:
That's done by moving the page in question. Click the "move" link on top of the article. Then, redirect the old article to the new one by replacing the text of the old article with #REDIRECT [[Target page name]]. Adityaαß11:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things to add: first, your account must be autoconfirmed before you can move pages. This simply means that your account has been active for four days and made at least ten edits. Secondly, the redirects are created automatically, pointing from the old page title to the new one. Admins have the option of not leaving a redirect behind when they move a page. TNXMan11:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know why the little Commons logo is no longer visible in the upper right corner of file pages of files on commons while being viewed through WP? This one for example.--Rockfang (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have popups, and normally when I hover over a user name, I see the number of edits. Not today - is this just a temporary glitch, or did something change?
Edit ignore this question, I wear it wasn't working two minutes ago - I tried to add a signature, which mostly works, except the "link" to the talk page, doesn't seem to be a link. I've looked at other sigs, and haven't noticed what I'm doing wrong. I'm sure it's simple, but I don't see it. Here's the code <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#091C5A;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#ADD8E6;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">T</span>]]</font> --SPhilbrickT17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Were you testing your sig on your talk page? If so, the link won't work (since you're already on the page). FWIW, the link in your sig seems to work from here. TNXMan17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)And for your first questions, I use popups as well and can still see the number of edits at the bottom of the popup window. Have you tried purging your cache? TNXMan17:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the best idea is that you'll need to recache - popups no doubt needed to have its code changed after the recent update of the MediaWiki software. - Jarry1250(t, c)18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounded plausible, however - I purged my cache - no change. Thought maybe I needed to exit Mozilla and get back in, no change. OK< maybe I need a reboot, no change. OK, I'll purge my cache and cookies. Other than the pain of having to do all the logins again, no change, that is, no edit counts. I guess I can try powering down, but that doesn't seem likely. I did not purge my passwords, but I can't believe I need to. Not a big deal, just reporting in case someone else is having the same issue.--SPhilbrickT21:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely powered down the computer, modem and router, and started over. No change - still no edit count. I tried uninstalling popups and reinstalling. Still no luck. Am I the only one with this problem?--SPhilbrickT14:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
creating French pages and linking to them from English
Hi - I want to create a French wikipedia page and link to it to the English page - can I do that from my English Wikipedia account or do I need to set up a French Wikipedia account?
Thanks.
Marier2008 (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Hi Marier, in order to create a page on the French Wikipedia, you will need to have an account there. However, an option you might like to consider is creating what is known as a "unified login", sometimes also abbreviated to SUL (Single Unified Login) and sometimes also referred to as a "global account". This feature creats an account for you on every Wikimedia project (French, Spanish, German wikis, etc, Wikispecies, Commons, etc), using your current user name and a single password. You can easily move between projects without having to login or create accounts. I have a unified login, and this is what my range of contributions looks like. It effectively reserves my username, even on the wikis that I have never edited. If you go to m:Help:Unified login, you can read more about it and set this up. If you don't want to go that route, then yes, you will need to go to the French Wikipedia and sign up for an account. Once you've created an article there, you link to the English article by placing [[en:Articlenamehere]] at the end of the article's text. Hope that helps! Maedin\talk19:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to nominate for deletion an article that belongs to the personal space of other user. Should I do it like with a regular article? Can anybody help to do this?
Hunshi (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's blatant advertising (and the author does not appear to be actively improving it) or if it's an attack page, you can mark the page with {{db-g11}} or {{db-g10}}, respectively. Otherwise, it's generally considered proper to ask the user about the page and allow them to mark for deletion themselves. TNXMan19:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bot is creating inaccurate articles from a database. The problem appears to be the bot owner does not know much about the topic of the articles the bot is creating (this from reading the bot owner's responses to other editors reporting problems), and the bot owner is using a partial database as if it is an authority on the taxonomy and a completed database rather than a work in progress. Other IP users have brought up serious problems with the taxonomies of the articles, but the bot is still creating articles. In addition, the bot does not search the literature and note when a species is extinct. Wikipedia now is the proud owner of hundreds of incorrect articles on obscure species of algae. This is a problem. The articles are copied by wiki mirrors and are sometimes the dominant return in a search engine and other times the only return in a search engine. But, they are wrong.
The bot is not copying the taxonomies correctly. The bot is listing extinct species without mentioning that they are extinct. The bot is mixing taxonomies. The bot is listing species counts incorrectly. The bot is listing species incorrectly. Every article I have looked at appears to have at least 2 major errors in it. Every article out of hundreds viewed.
Wikipedia appears to be the proud hoster, distributor, and source of hundreds, if not thousands, of incorrect algae articles (even using the term "algae" in articles about coccoliths and diatoms is debatable). I attempted to start fixing them, but the sheer number is beyond the scope of occasional editing.
These algae articles are wrong. It would be better to give no information than to give the incorrect information and allow wiki mirrors to build up dozens of pages of nonsense.
The bot should probably delete or fix the algae articles it has created ASAP. Or someone who cares about wikipedia should do something to fix this situation instead of continuing to ignore the comments of IPs. --Contributions/69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does that bot has no permit? If yes, I also want to create a bot to automately sign or add certain text to articles I have been edit. Bus88MRT (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See a related article such as Charophyta which has received substantial edits from actual humans. Talk:Charophyta displays the {{WikiProject Plants}} banner. You may wish to report this bot on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants where hopefully you will find a concentration of other Wikipedia editors who have relevant domain knowledge to address this problem. On the Help desk there are probably not many helpers with enough knowledge of botany to be of much use with this problem - but you never know. Someone authoritative may chime in. --Teratornis (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help. Wikipedia writers take IPs pointing out errors as affronts. It turns out there are over 6000 algae articles written by this bot. I posted at the plants page, maybe this will get fixed. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can probably thank the legion of vandals for the bias against unregistered users. Most vandals prefer to edit without creating an account, and if you don't create an account, you can't build up a recognizable editing history that would allow other users to easily distinguish you from the horde of drive-by vandals. In an ideal world, Wikipedia editors would refrain from committing the Style over substance fallacy and instead judge every edit on its merits, not on the basis of who posted it, but in practice it's just a whole lot easier to keep track of who is doing what if editors create accounts. That's why the majority of high-volume editors eventually do create accounts. Even though one of Wikipedia's Founding principles is "The ability of anyone to edit - including modifying most articles without preamble or registration," the endless fight against vandals causes Wikipedia to chip away over time at the editing privileges of unregistered users. However, if it's any comfort, lots of people who do create accounts may still have a rough time anyway, depending on what they want to do, and who else doesn't approve. No matter how great an idea is, somebody will probably oppose it. To get things done around here, one may need to be persistent and be able to write persuasively. --Teratornis (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
June 16
Moving free license to Commons without furthur edit
How to move local updated free license to Wikimedia Commons with all of its information such description and types of free license, and hoped to accomplish to no difference except a reminder template says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below....".
Yes,free images on local wikipedia, BTW, uploading free resources is not a option to local wikipedia, why they can doing this?Bus88MRT (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To learn more about moving images to Commons you may want to read this. About your other point, I'm not sure about other language wikipedias, but at this one, you can upload free images.--Rockfang (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IP Editor using my real name
I didn't really know where to raise this question, so I defaulted to here. If there is a better place, it would be nice of someone to redirect me. The anon IP editor at 98.239.20.4 was somehow able to discover my real name and added it to an article (Specifically Loeb's (department store) in this diff). I don't really care if anyone knows my real name or even if they use it, but I would like to know how it's possible that (s)he found it out. The IP lookup shows that this person is in New Jersey, and I am in Mississippi, so it's a pretty safe bet that this guy doesn't know me personally. It just kind of creeped me out to know that a random person could find my name and then had the audacity to put it in an article, making it visible/searchable for all eternity. Does anyone know how this person may have been able to do that? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A google search of your username returns the name used by the anon editor on the second page of results...and several more times on the following pages. Not sure if that's what happened here, but it appears that in other places you've left a connection between this username and your real name. --Onorem♠Dil04:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah.. I didn't think of that haha.. I was thinking of Wikipedia tools like the WHOIS thing, geolocation, etc.. So I revert this guy's edit and he Googles my username, looks through to the 20th result, then adds my name to an article? Wow. Thanks for clearing that up though! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you went onto a photo on the English Wikipedia, it would tell you its description and have a link to its page on Wikimedia Commons including the Commons logo. It appears to have changed and now uses an external link format with that arrow on it rather than the inter-wikimedia link you had before (example image). What's the story behind this change? Can anyone point me to the discussion of this change? JollyΩJanner00:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I think I remember that there is a script somewhere that gives you the diffs for all edits a specific user made to a selected page but I cannot find it again. Does someone know of that script and where it's located (if I'm not making this up of course)? Regards SoWhy07:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone asked a similar question here the other day, and the only answers we came up with were this (which just counts the total edits by each contributor) and Whodunit, which shows the attribution of all the text extant in the article. Maybe someone else knows of other tools? Gonzonoir (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But none of those would supply me with diffs to those edits, just telling me how many edits they made to the page. I'll ask at VPT if it's not as obvious as I thought. Regards SoWhy15:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add a collapsible navbox, like the DRV ones, to hide an archived discussion. What's the code for that? Adityaαß08:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploading new verisons of images that should be in SVG format
I am trying to upload newer versions of a few pngs and jpgs that should be svgs, however when I upload them, Wikipedia says that "the file is corrupt or has an incorrect extention".
When I go to manually upload it through the "Upload file" section of Wikipedia, and when I click on the "work of someone else who has given permission to use it on Wikipedia or it is a work released under a free license" link, and I type in the original file it says it doesn't exist.
Should I upload my version as my own work, and replace any links to it?
Also, not sure if this will help, but the "Images that should be in SVG format" category has subcategories which all say "(0)" next to them. Does this mean that there are no images that need editing?
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevetsjc (talk • contribs) 08:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot upload SVGs in place of PNGs or JPGs, you need to upload new files (preferably with the same file name + ".svg") and license them accordingly (with {{PD-self}} for example). Then you can tag those old PNGs/JPGs using the {{Vector version available}} template. If you are replacing Fair-Use images with SVGs, replace all usages of the previous file in articles and then tag the old file with {{subst:orfur}} to nominate it for deletion. Hope that helps. Regards SoWhy08:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been debating this question for quite sometime; were Adam
and Eve the first creation of mankind? On June 16,2009 I spent hours on the phone arguing on the behalf of this issue. The peron that I was discussing this with was a female minister, a friend of a brother of mine. First she started with Genesis 1:26
which states; Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image,according to Our likeness;let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the , over all all the earth and every creeping thing that creeps on earth.
Now this next portion is what I do not understand. Genesis 1:27; So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. This verse I believe is talking about some other humans I believe because Adam was not created according to Genesis 1. Genesis 2:7 tells us that man was formed from the dust of the ground. It appears to me by these verses in Genesis that there was humans before the creation of Adam and Eve. This was what the discussion was all bout during that phone conversation. Also I was told that
Adam and Eve was created to begin the lineage of Christ. Please help me figure this one out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.235.164 (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is from my talk page, I don't know the answer: "I just wanna know why sometimes I place a file (image) from another language in English encyclopedia then, the file appears to not exist ? what to do to apply a file in both commons of all languages ?" Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that English Wikipedia will only display images that have been uploaded either here or on Commons. If the image is hosted a local Wikipedia only, another copy will have to be uploaded before it will display here. TNXMan14:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This is probably because the file has been uploaded in that foreign language Wikipedia and is not accessible by English Wikipedia. A solution would be to upload it at commons so that all other Wikimedia projects can use it. However if it's a fair use image, we'll have to upload it again here. Chamaltalk14:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MITC. I have moved a few dozen images from the English Wikipedia to Commons. It's not too hard once you get through the initial setup. The process may be slightly tricky if you want to move an image from a Wikipedia that is in a language you do not read (since you will not easily read some of the text that tells you how the process is working). In such a case, I asked a user on the Italian Wikipedia to move an image for me, and he did. Probably all of the other language Wikipedias have some users who also speak English, and some of them will move images to Commons if you ask them. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons where you might get some help if you need it. --Teratornis (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 2.8 million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. TNXMan14:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On several articles there are both bold and italics on the first word of the first paragraph, like this. Is this what you are supposed to do, or is it just to be in bold. Spongefrog (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All titles should be in bold, but if it's something that should be itatlicized normally, such as a movie, album, or book, it should be both. hmwithτ13:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a reference for the yellow alder article and it didnt show up...I went to Help Cite:references and did what it said but the citation still wont show up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivercatterson (talk • contribs) 18:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it! Your last edit but one was OK; the problem was that citations will only display if there's a section for them. I added a "References" section, and then used {{Reflist}} to display the citations. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need a user name to upload a picture, but right now you don't seem to be logged in. Do you have a user name? Also, do you know the exact file name? TastyCakes (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Picture (continued)
Yes, my user name is Mnicholas and I uploaded the picture into the commons area: UFCU Building.
Hmm I see you also uploaded the company logo to commons here. Usually logos are not uploaded to commons because they use Fair use criteria rather than being free images. It will probably be deleted if you leave it there. It would be fine if uploaded on English Wikipedia however... TastyCakes (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to find info about the Flashback broadcast by Bill St. James and I can see the page description, but there is an error every time I try to get to the page. Here is the description I can see.
""Flashback" is an American radio show syndicated by Citadel Media (through ... It is hosted by the "irreverent" Bill St. James , and ... " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.56.130 (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears okay for me, and there doesn't seem to have been any changes in the recent past. Can you reach the page by clicking on this link: Flashback (radio program) ? Would you be able to tell us what error message you get and on what page you you are coming from? --Kateshortforbob22:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do so many pages attempt to download when I click on the link?
It seems like about every 100 pages I click on or search for do not take me to the page, but attempt to download a file onto my computer. Unless there's a redirect to the page, I can't view it. Why is this? It's been happening for months now. 74.105.8.120 (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this at the Village Pump but then noticed there aren't any recent posts there, so I thought this more highly-trafficked page might get this a faster fix.
The Welcome page is protected from editing and I have no idea where one is supposed to go to point this out, but the text appending the photo of Gerald R. Ford is wrong. It reads, in part:
"...the Watergate scandal, which began an attempted break-in..."
When of course it should read:
"...the Watergate scandal, which began with an attempted break-in..."
Hopefully someone here is cleared to edit the page or can forward this to the appropriate page. If someone would note on my talk page where that is, so I know where to go in the future (I've noticed a similar error on the main page in the past), I'd appreciate that. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone else been having intermittent problems with Twinkle? I find rollback failing to work completely, and page tagging to work sporadically. Warnings appear to work without issue. This has been going on for maybe 3 days, and is replicable across different CPUs (all using firefox 3.0.10). Shadowjams (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it OK to put italics in section headings? I searched the help desk, but every editor seems to have a different answer and fails to back it up with an actual guideline. From reading the Manual of Style I'm assuming that if it meets WP:ITALICS it should be italicised. Copana2002 (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of writing my first article ( L'Hôtel_du_libre_échange ) and would like to upload images to it. I've taken these pictures myself and have read page up and page down on how to upload, insert into text etc etc etc. But before I can do any of this I have to select the correct copyright tag to it and I simply cannot find the correct one. I've been browsing and browsing the copyright tags pages and I just can't find a tag that applies to a self-made picture I want to release to the public domain for non-commercial use only. It's supposed to be a fairly straightforward and common tag; but I still have no idea how to make it.
Someone please help me?
Nimloth250 (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Nimloth250[reply]
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags has an overview and links to lists of tags (eg you can pick a licence from here). Generally the easiest way is to select a tag from the drop down box when you upload. Note that "public domain" means no restrictions, and that Wikimedia project don't accept non-commercial licences. Ideally all freely licenced images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and not English Wikipedia, that way the French version of the article can use the images too.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been improving some images by converting them to pngs, but now there are two versions on Commons. Is there a template to say that a better/converted version is available and that the original can be deleted? I have made sure to redirect links to the right place. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevetsjc (talk • contribs) 07:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be considered a WP:reliable source for an article on The Oaxaca Community Foundation? It's a book by the Social Enterprise Knowledge Network about the organization. (The text isn't available online, though I know that's not a criteria for a RS).
Hello all. And thank you for your brilliant services.
I've got a question to make.
I got into Ammouliani and I wanted to add an external link of this blog post Ammouliani Info & Photos. Is that consider as spamming? Am I not allowed to create such an external link?
The blog seems to be basically an advert for a restort, so yeah that would be considered spam. The other problem is that it's not in english and we presume that the majority of people checking that page would be unable to understand it - so it would have no value in increasing their understanding of the topic. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:EL, it will give you details about what kind of things that can and can't be added as external links. Blogs are not usually used as external links, whether it is spam or not. Cheers. Chamaltalk11:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I have edited about a third of an article in the normal way, I find that the cursor (and all the text), has a habit of leaping towards the bottom of the screen with each press of a key. I can still continue to edit, but I must constantly scroll the page up to see what's coming. Its all very irritating. RASAM (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this when you type in the edit box? Is the whole edit box visible on the screen? Which browser are you using? Does it happen on all pages or only on for example large pages? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such prompt replies to my question. To answer your questions (sorry that you have to ask): Yes, when I type in the edit box; The whole edit box is visible; It happens on all pages that are large enough to require scrolling; I have Internet Explorer 8; and finally I have tried pressing F7 when the cursor is at the bottom of the page with no result. RASAM (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tracing
I need to trace a number from leask Sk. They call my house @ <blanked> and their phone is for outgoing calls only..no information at all when i reverse the number...when i call it says only outgoing calls....could i please get some assistance with this. You can call me at the above number and my name is darryl....the number I am trying to trace is <blanked>...if you know who thye owner of this line is please call me..i believe my wife is broken down there somewhere...Thank-you wonderful people. You can also contact me at <blanked>
I'm sorry, but we cannot track phone numbers for you. This help desk is for asking questions about Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. The only suggestion I can offer is try using *69 to determine the number that called you. TNXMan16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The error here:
List of countries by amount of economic aid received
is arguably minor - the site claims the data comes from the 2008 CIA Fact Book [6] , and it appears that it came from the 2007 version [7] (There must be a better source, but this is the one I used). However, the source is the place with the error - so one possibility is that the page should change the reference date to 2007 and explain why. Another possibility is that the source cannot be considered reliable.
Do you know SQL and are you willing to do some work? In theory, all the information to answer this query should be in Wikipedia's database. See WP:EIW#Download and WP:EIW#Query. As you probably already figured out, the history of the category page itself is no help, because the information you seek resides in the histories of the individual articles you want to find, and you don't know those articles in advance obviously. It's possible that you would have to scan all the histories of all the articles to see which ones had at some time contained a link to the category. That would probably be an expensive query to run on Wikipedia itself; you might have to download your own copy of Wikipedia and run the query on your own computer. Why do you want to do this? --Teratornis (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Footnote"-type question
If I want to identify certain members in a list of individuals as part of the same group, what's the preferred style? Typically (in print) you see asterisks or daggers used, with one note at the bottom of the page. I could use standard numbered footnotes, but I'm not sure how to THEN avoid having a list of identical "explanatory" footnotes at the bottom, where just one would really do. I tried using an asterisk, but of course that appears as a square at the bottom in "saved mode." Thanks for any help. RadioBroadcast (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a book written years ago about Waterbury, CT - I believe it was named Sin City. How can I find any information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.69.89 (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got no response to on the village pump, so I'll try here:
Is it considered appropriate to userify apparent (based on user name) autobiographical articles that are clearly intended to be Encyclopedia articles? For example moving Bob Nobody to User:Bob Nobody
I would think not, because:
If the person is notable, the fact that they created the entry doesn't change that
If they are not notable and/or the article is highly promotional in nature, userifing does not solve the problem as promotion is not allowed even in user space.
However, I see no specific policy guidance or previous discussion on this point, so I am seeking further guidance. --ThaddeusB (talk)
I agree with you. A certain amount of autobiographical material is OK on a user page, but there is absolutely no reason why an autobio of a non-notable person should languish in userspace. – ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think userfication is OK, because it allows the user to work to improve the content, even if there is a conflict of interest. The idea (as I understand it) is that the user will ask another editor to review the content before moving it back to the mainspace. If it's written neutrally, well-sourced, etc., then it can be moved back. If not, it stays in the userspace, where it is out of sight of readers. TNXMan19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's being actively improved, why not? The article is out of the normal readers' sight and is still subject to review before being moved back to the mainspace. If it has been inactive for a while, there's no reason the article can't be brought to miscellany for deletion. TNXMan20:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)\\[reply]
I was responding to the second point above, on the assumption that it is not being actively improved or has no chance of ever meeting the inclusion criteria. – ukexpat (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we are absolutely sure that the autobiographical user page has no chance of ever meeting the inclusion criteria, then we should encourage the user to transwiki it to Wikipopuli or Wikibios. If the user made a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia (for example, if the user is inexperienced as would very probably be the case), then applying the usual high-handed deletionism might give the user a very unpleasant perception of Wikipedia and then we might lose potentially constructive future contributions from that user (we might even create a new vandal out for revenge). It would be nice if once in a while we could arrive at a remedy which the victim user is comfortable with. I get the impression that in the vast majority of deletions on Wikipedia, the feelings of the page creators don't even enter into consideration. We rarely bother to look for a way to protect our precious guidelines and policies that might also create a satisfactory outcome for the person whose work gets clobbered. In other words, it might be nice if we could figure out a way to treat well-meaning but inexperienced users somewhat differently than we treat vandals. As far as pages in userspace go, I think we should be as permissive as we can be, as long as users are contributing something constructive to the encyclopedia. Userpages are cheap in terms of computer resources, and if they motivate people to put in the hard work to learn to edit on Wikipedia, then I don't care how many userboxes etc. a person wants to display on their userpage. I can see Jimbo's point, but I think in the bigger picture, people really do not work for free. Everybody who puts something into Wikipedia expects to get a little something out of it, and if they want a somewhat autobiographical userpage, what's the problem? Joe Nobody's page is not going to get 100,000 page views anyway, unless they are actually notable. A page that nobody looks at isn't costing us anything we could measure. Just my opinions, of course, which count for nothing here. --Teratornis (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you create a "rough draft" article?
I am a brand new member of wikipedia, so i am very unsure of how things work. I've tried reading the help pages, but they dont have concise easy to follow answers.
My question is how do I create a page, but not publish it officially? I want to lay the initial groundwork today, and then come back several times afterwards to add refferences, add content and edit it. Please give me a SIMPLE step by step on how to do this.
Thank You.
The only way we could make it "simple" would be by knowing exactly what you want to do - and more importantly, exactly what you don't want to do. Wikipedia is an extremely complex artifact (with 6,935,227 articles and growing, on almost every imaginable topic) - in fact, Wikipedia may be the most complex artifact available for the general public to mess around with. (Does anyone know of a more complex system which the public is free to modify? Linux might be another contender). Our instructions are complex because we write one set of pages that must cover every contingency, special case, and conditional branch that 48,503,022 users can cook up. If all users wanted to write on the same topic, and they fully agreed about it, then we could make things simple. Incidentally, the Stanton Grant aims to make Wikipedia more "usable", but I doubt anyone can make Wikipedia appreciably simpler, and I think Fred Brooks would probably agree. --Teratornis (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject sounds like it is probably notable, but you will need some reliable sources to assert the subject's notability. See WP:CITE and WP:FOOT to learn how to include your sources as footnote citations.
In particular, put a {{reflist}} template in your References section to make your footnotes appear. But you should move your <ref>...</ref> tags up into the body text to put them after the claims they support. see WP:FOOT for details.
Since the subject is an organization in Brazil, you may also like to edit on the Portuguese Wikipedia.
See Help:Section and WP:LAYOUT to get your layout right. You are using bold text for section headings, when you should rather make them like this:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the U.S.A. and many "civilized" countries are signatories, declares that privacy is a fundamental human right.
I am the inventor of a steganographic method which is undetectable and unbreakable. The method was created in service of protecting the fundamental human right of privacy.
It is of no danger to any open, moral, democratic society but is lethal to the likes of governments like that of Iran.
As the inventor and holder of preliminary patents and copyrights it is my right to devulge to whatever extent I feel appropriate the ideas and methods associated with these patents and copyrights, yet I have twice tried to amend the article on Steganography only to see its content erased.
This is what I added:
Modulus Of Dithered Color Offset -Steganography An entirely undetectable, and unbreakable method developed by Ivan J. Grimm and submitted for provisional patent application in May 2009.
This statement is entirely true and highly relevant to the topic under which it is categorized.
It is not an attempt to sell anything, it is merely a statement of historical fact.
It is as if there was an article about airplanes that contained nothing except outdated information about bi-planes and when someone posts information about a huge technological advancement, a jet plane capable of mach3, you delete it !
May I be allowed to post information about "modulus of dithered color offset" steganography in order to update your stupid, worthless collection of obsolete information about steganography ?
Well first of all we only have your word that you are who you say you are, but that's irrelevant. If you can provide reliable sources for your edits, they will more than likely be accepted. Alternativley, discuss your changes on the article's talk page. Oh and coming here an making comments like "your stupid, worthless collection of obsolete information" isn't helping your position. – ukexpat (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think everybody who edits much on Wikipedia feels frustrated occasionally. But I think if someone is going to defy the government of Iran, learning to deal with Wikipedia should not be much of a problem. The worst that happens here is your edits may get reverted; as far as I know, Wikipedia does not issue fatwas calling for anyone's murder. The first step is to understand Wikipedia's distinction between "truth" and verifiability. Since anybody can edit Wikipedia, and anybody can change anybody else's edits, we cannot take any user's word as authoritative by itself. Instead we must have reliable sources to support any claim which anybody else may feel like challenging. See WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:FOOT, and WP:CITET. Also note, when you throw down the gauntlet to the Iranian government, people from Iran may be editing here as well - therefore we must find a way to communicate which our opponents can accept. And please go easy on the loaded language; you implicitly claim the moral high ground, yet appear to espouse software patents, something that a number of thoughtful people would find incongruous at best. Wikipedia is a leading example of free content and open source software, and software patents pose an existential threat to what we are doing here. --Teratornis (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree the gratuitous comment wasn't helpful, I just read the article, and it is in need of help. There are some citations, but far fewer than necessary. I hope Ivan will contribute. If we deleted every factual statement not supported by a reliable source, the article would be quite thin.--SPhilbrickT21:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble Moving an edited page
Every time I try to move a page I created to its proper heading, I get a giant internal error and Wikimedia exceptions (see below). Can anyone help me here?
MediaWiki internal error.
Original exception: exception 'AFPUserVisibleException' with message '<abusefilter-exception-regexfailure>' in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/extensions/AbuseFilter/AbuseFilter.parser.php:1591
Stack trace:
(edit conflict) First make sure the picture you want has been uploaded, either to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Then you'll need to insert the picture into the article by adding [[File:Example.jpg]] (be sure that you have the name and extension listed correctly). You change the picture some by adding the appropriate syntax. TNXMan20:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What pictures? There are big differences between these cases:
The pictures are not on Wikipedia or Commons, but you created some pictures yourself, of objects or scenes not having any potential legal restrictions, and you want to upload them.
You found some pictures on the Web that someone else created.
Tell us more about the pictures you have in mind, and we can tell you how to proceed. If you want to figure it out yourself, see the links under Commons:COM:EIC#Copyright which explain (in detail) what sorts of pictures we allow. --Teratornis (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use of talk page
98.223.100.96 (talk) appears to be using their talk page as a collection of facts about horses. This user has no other contributions except to their talk page, and I am concerned about this, but I don't know what (if anything) should be done. just a littleinsignificant20:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion regarding {{catmore}}: how do I make sure it gets wide consideration?
I have made this suggestion on the talk page for {{catmore}}. How can I make sure that this suggestion gets the attention of interested wikipedians who may not be watching this particular template? Regards—G716 <T·C> 22:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to do this on Wikipedia, or on some other wiki that runs the MediaWiki software? If you want to do this on Wikipedia, then in addition to determining what is technically possible, you must also determine what is politically possible. If it's your own wiki, then you can do whatever you want (which is technically possible). I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's politics, but it looks like when people want new features in the pages you mention, they discuss them on the talk pages (MediaWiki talk:Common.css and MediaWiki talk:Common.js). To determine what is technically possible (I'm not an expert there either, at least for what you seem to be asking), you can start by reading the pages linked under WP:EIW#MediaWiki particularly m:Help:Contents#For administrators which documents the dizzying array of customization options. --Teratornis (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think if you want to add CSS to just one page, put the CSS rules in MediaWiki:Common.css and don't use those rules except on the page that you want them on (that's how we do it here, anyway). Same with Javascript: add the code you want to MediaWiki:Common.js and surround it with an if statement that looks at the page title to see whether the current page is the page the code should execute on. Although there might be a better way, that's the only way I know of. Calvin 1998(t·c)04:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, the second explaination helped. Just put something like this: (copied from MediaWiki:Common.js)
elseif(wgPageName=="Special:Search")//scripts specific to Special:Search{importScript("MediaWiki:Common.js/search.js")}
I know I made some edits months ago, but I can't remember what username I used. I'm sure I would have entered my email address when I created the username. Is there a way to retrieve my username, given my email address? I can't find anything about that in the FAQ, except to create a new username, which I'd rather not do. I'd just as soon be the same username everywhere on wikipedia.
I looked at the edit history of pages I think I might have edited, but I can't find any usernames that look like one I would have created.
71.146.132.81 (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)forgetful user[reply]
If you have an idea what the username may start with then you can try Special:ListUsers. If you click on a linked username and then click "User contributions" in the toolbox to the left then you can see edits by that user, but not edits to pages that were later deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tried that. Also ran through many usernames without the "User contributions" limitation. Too bad there is no way to specify your email and have your username automatically mailed. Oh, well. Thanks for the quick and courteous replies, everyone.71.146.146.92 (talk)forgetful user —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
There is school specific advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Note there must be a published reliable source for the content. You cannot add your personal knowledge or opinion of the school. Below is advice about creating new articles in general:
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.
Just save that image to your computer and open in Inkscape or another SVG editor. Changing kits should take three minutes at most (Object - Fill and Stroke), while the text should take a bit longer because you have to convert it to a path (Path - Object to Path). Xenon54 (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do I cite an RAIB report?
I want to add a statement to the Chain (length) article, and I want to cite my source for it. The source is in this RAIB report (or rather the PDF of the report I downloaded from that page). I've had a look at WP:CIT but I can't work out how I would need to cite it as it doesn't match any of the types of source listed there, and it doesn't have an identifiable author or authors. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are citing a PDF located on a website, i would use the cite web template. Below is an example i already filled in for you; It might need some tweaking or additional information, but it is a start:
I am a new Wikipedia user and have posted an article and would like to add a photo.
I read that to do this users have to have been registered for four days and have ten 'credits' (what are credits?)
However, I also read that it is possible for new users to add photos via Wikipedia commons. I did this, the photo appeared, but has since disappeared. Clicking on the link said that I am unauthorised.
Not 'credits', it's 'edits'. You already have more than that. However you account is only 1 day old so you'll have to wait three more days to become autoconfirmed (which enables you to upload files and move pages in Wikipedia). But as you said, you can upload images to commons without having to got through this. If the image you uploaded to commons has disappeared, it may have been deleted for some reason (if it seemed to be a copyright violation or it lacks copyright info etc). Chamaltalk11:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it has been deleted as a copyright violation. Check your talk page at Commons. The message has a few links, read them to get some details about the licencing we have to follow when uploading files. Same goes here at Wikipedia too. Chamaltalk11:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Side effect of masturbation
Hi,
Actully i was trying to get the information regarding side effect's of the masturbation,
but i am unable to find.... pls i want to know side effect of masturbation...ans me...
For the records sake, there is a known case of Heart failure. There is at least one known case where a "Practicer" got a heart attack due to the intensity of the physical activity - though man might argue that the masturbation itself did not directly relate to this issue as the man in question was known to have a weak heart, which might have broken at other physical activities as well. As fir normal effects? I can guarantee you there are millions of people testing this every day, 365 a year, and so far we still did not find reason to outlaw it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might find what you are looking for in the article Exploration. If you cannot find the answer there, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps. Algebraist12:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prosopography (just kidding with this one, unless your fifth-grader is a Child prodigy, but maybe the history teacher would get a kick out of hearing a student even mention this word)
It's Wikipedia. People disagree on what is "important". An article subject should satisfy Wikipedia:Notability.
Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
I've created a few tables of statistics - one example is here: Jamelle Elliott#UConn Stats. It looks fine in Firefox, but I just happened to look at it in IE (work requirement) and it looks terrible - for those who can't see the problem, the text in the header line is in a column, so the header spans seven lines. Any suggestions on fixing it (besides the obvious - don't use IE)? --SPhilbrickT13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - you added a "Width=" property on the table row in question. Firefox and Chrome seem to ignore that parameter, but IE tried its best to keep that particular row at 54 pixels - or at least it did so for the content. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I purchased the Southwestern collection yesterday? It seemed extremely high but I was told that regularly it would be $1200 to $1400. I paid $480. Did I get a great deal or did I get ripped off?? It seems at B and Noble I do not pay alot for these types of books. What is the advantage of having these over other eduational ones? (Julkat0305 (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I can't believe the word "donuts" isn't incuded in the section on America under "breakfast". We must include donuts! Donuts are so much a part of the "worker's breakfast" in America, among other things. I feel they must be included. I add them, with a mere two words, to a sentence talking about common on-the-go breakfasts, and I am told my edit was UNCONSTRUCTIVE! Immediately! Who read my edit so immediately? Who decides this? And how is my addition of donuts to the listing of American breakfast preferences "unconstructive"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.123.32.89 (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to single out one particular food item, especially with very a very point-of-view and unreferenced statement as "the ever-popular donut!" -- kainaw™15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are just templates. As happens often, the easiest to use template doesn't necessarily match the exact case in which it is used. -- kainaw™15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct this was/is a template generated using Huggle. The rollbacks were made due to the fact that the user seemed to not be following the general format/style guidelines of Wikipedia. The first 'warning' has links to several good resources in learning what is and is not an acceptable edit. e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki Internal Error
I am trying to move a page from the sandbox to an article, but I keeping getting this error.
I found others with similar problems, but could not find there solutions.
MediaWiki internal error.
Original exception: exception 'AFPUserVisibleException' with message '<abusefilter-exception-regexfailure>' in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/extensions/AbuseFilter/AbuseFilter.parser.php:1591
Stack trace:
I guess this is about User:AndreatSS/sandbox. Hmm. All 3 reports are about moving user subpages to mainspace, and subpages are disabled in mainspace. I wonder whether this is relevant. What is the new title and does the error occur when you click the "Move page" button after writing the new title? Can you move to another user subpage? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user named YourLord. The investigation against me was hackneyed and rushed and I have reason to believe, rigged. I complained about the obvious stupidity of my persecution on my talk-page, only to have it protected so that I couldn’t edit it. I complained to the editor who protected my page but he ignored me so I took the case to an admin named Jehochman who also ignored me, meaning that I’ve had to take the case to you. I don’t know how else to get unblocked. All the people I have spoken to seem to be in on the same conspiracy. The key instigator in my plight is none other than unpopular user User:IllaZilla.
IllaZilla is an impertinent waif who hasn’t been on Wikipedia for especially long but struts about like he owns the place. He uses his voluminous knowledge of policies to game the system (something which he accuses others of doing) and bully other users into backing down or agreeing with his impossibly narrow view of what is acceptable on Wikipedia. He became obsessed with User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus after coming into conflict with him on Talk:Tin Man (TV miniseries). User:JOM had, as observed by many other users, made numerous positive contributions until encountering User:IllaZilla who then began to shamelessly stalk Jupiter by means of his contributions, of which he reverted most, if not all, often with very little explanation. He assumed ownership over many of the articles Jupiter edited, see in particular Azkadellia, Lord Voldemort and Megalomania, much to the annoyance of others. He rigidly controlled Jupiter’s movements like an especially domineering parent. Naturally Jupiter’s ire was evidently risen and he confronted User:IllaZilla on numerous occasions but was accused of personal attacks and trolling. IllaZilla had a habit of canvassing other users such as User:Collectonian, User:Sesshomaru and User:Arcayne to assist in his antagonising of Jupiter. Ultimately Jupiter was exposed as a sockpuppet of blocked user User:YourLord and IllaZilla gleefully bated Jupiter on his talkpage after his blockage. I advise you to look at the history of JOM’s talkpage, it’s quite shocking. I caught IllaZilla’s attention when adding a List of fictional Emos to the Emo article. This evidently aggravated the extremely temperamental IllaZilla because he then immediately accused me of being a sockpuppet of Jupiter/YouLord and canvassed various other editors, including Sesshomaru, Collectonian and User:Magidin, all of whom had been in disagreement with Jupiter in the past and opened an investigation against me. I scarcely had time to defend myself before I was blocked, on account of a slight similarity in usernames and WP:DUCK, a completely nonsensical policy which I doubt you’ve even heard of. In any case, Sesshomaru and Collectonian (two extreme deletionists) had obviously made up their minds as to my identity as you’ll see by looking at their talkpages. One of the crutches of IllaZilla’s argument was that I had created an article entitled List of fictional narcissists which thanks to IllaZilla has since been deleted. Jupiter, like many users had an interest in psychoanalysing fictional characters, something which IllaZilla frequently accused him of doing when on occasion he obviously wasn’t. IllaZilla has accused other, apparently unrelated users of being sockpuppets of Jupiter and of psychoanalysing fictional characters when they don’t seem to have been doing anything of the sort. See List of characters in Tin Man to observe what I’m talking about. With regards to the List of fictional narcissists article, the list was actually not created by me but by an unregistered user on the Narcissism page. I observed that it was getting quite lengthy and so gave the List an article of it’s own. Numerous characters on the list were personal favourites of Jupiter and this was one of IllaZilla’s reasons for blocking me when in actuality they were already on the list when I copied it into its own article. Therefore it seems far more likely that the unregistered user on the Narcissism article is in fact a sockpuppet of Jupiter, given the fact that given their edit summary, they share his disdain for policies, a trait which I myself do not share. On an unrelated note I feel that policies have their uses but on account of my Inclusionist philosophy I believe that they are taken far too seriously.
With regards IllaZilla, by observing his contributions you’ll see that he also has ownership issues with regards to the Alien and Predator articles and to a lesser extent, with articles related to Punk Rock. See in particular the aforementioned Emo. IllaZilla’s condescending and sarcastic attitude and tone are also causes for concern in my opinion. It is my opinion that the information I have given you be filed away for future reference should some poor fool ever think to nominate IllaZilla for adminship. I also think it would be prudent to perhaps file an AN/I on IllaZilla because his behaviour has attracted criticism from other users such as User:Learner001. See his page for other complaints about his conduct with others. User:Arcayne has also expressed a view that many of IllaZilla’s deletions are quite unreasonable (see Villain) and I really think it’s high time he was put in his place. Ministers, in the immortal words of Hamlet 'do not let this canker in our nature come to further evil.'
Back to the issue at hand, it is my belief that I should be unblocked or at least allowed to edit my talk-page. Thank you ever so much for your time.
Aaaaaaand . . . blocked for using an IP to evade a block. For future reference, please use our dispute resolution processes to address grievances instead of posting long messages accusing other users of wrongdoing. TNXMan18:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the table of contents at the top of this page, how does it use the "#" to link to a section on the page whenthose sections aren't sorrunded by "==" or "<h2>" or anything? Erwin Springer [talk] 19:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of 'general reference', the span has an id different from the link, but the link still works, because the section title is in fact wrapped in an h2. Algebraist19:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File talk:BB61 USS Iowa BB61 broadside USN.jpg has question on the talk page that was already asked on the article class page. Additionally, the image originated from the commons. Given this I feel the image post in unnecessary, and as an admin, its within my power to delete the talk page, but I was wondering if I first needed to nominate the page for deletion, or if this fell under routine housekeeping. Can someone please advise? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be routine housekeeping to me. Just be to sure, you could note the reason for the deletion in the edit summary. TNXMan20:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added some information to a couple of articles on 19th century baseball players explaining some of the major differences in the game from the 20th century game that mitigate somewhat the statistics complied by those players. The next day they were gone. Did I do something wrong, or violate a rule? e.g. Ed Delahanty
Usually when material gets yanked from an article like this it is for one of four reasons:
The material was uncited/cited to an unreliable source,
The material is covered somewhere else and was considered redundant in the article,
Previous consensus was reach not to include such information,
The information was regarded as test edit and/or vandalism, and was reverted as a result
If you think the information should be in the article and would like more info on why it was removed leave a message either on the article talk page or with the user who removed the info. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the history, you might see a reason listed. If you don't know how to do that, tell us the name of the article and we'll show you.--SPhilbrickT20:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
democratic is a form of govt. Democrats should call themselves, the Democrat Party, not the Democratic Party. Am I correct here?
Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address.
Not sure what e-mail you are referring to (wikipedia doesn't send spam invites), but in terms of how to participate in Wikipedia, the welcome page is probably a good start. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Im kinda new to Wikipedia. My school has blocked Wiki from our school and now our state. So I was wondering on how to put up an article cause I'd like to put up a few of my work.
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.
Because sister is the appropriate word to use. See the 7th definition of "sister" at Wikipedia's sister project, Wiktionary: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sister. Mother or father would imply a parent-child relationship, which isn't the case here. It's not "brother" because, in English, female terms are usually used for these types of relationships (e.g. mother ship, daughter card). Pburka (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
uploading a image
How do i upload a image on wikipedia?? is their a special requirment or somthing? i cant find the page can somone help me? --Mactrac (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bubba73 (talk), 15:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
Thank you to everyone that helped. It appears that the server is down. --I dream of horses (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
You might find what you are looking for in the article Exploration. If you cannot find the answer there, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps. Algebraist 12:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address.
