Help desk
< July 25	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

July 26

How can I make my own Wikipedia?

I see many gaming sites have Wikipedias for their game they play where they contribute information from the game and make a WikiCommunity for it. I have no clue where to find information on making a wikipedia for my game. Any info? Thx

I figured it out. THANKS ANYWAYS :o)

:) Nihiltres^(t.l) 00:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste move?

The article Abyss (computer game) appears to be a copy and paste move from Journey Across the Abyss. Can anyone verify if this is the case, and whether I should follow the instructions at WP:MOVE#Fixing cut and paste moves? --Evil1987 01:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was a copy and paste move. For the moment I've reverted the move but of course it can be moved properly if that's what the consensus is. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 02:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Evil1987 02:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to: Assistance on "delete" for XYplorer from a new user here...

I have received some feedback to my original topic/thread here, but my last question has not yet been addressed, and as it may be more generic, I'll retry now:

To clarify a point: Is it because XY has not recieved attention/mention from major media, such as PC World, or similar, that really thus causes it to be non-notable? If so, then I would suggest a fair number of products would fail to meet the same criteria. 151.203.127.31 13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please read WP:N and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --L^augh! 18:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I had read those sections, but as a WP noob, I could use a interpretation as it specifically applies to the questions/situations as I've described from a WP guru (or similar). And also, is there a specific number of times that XY would need to be reviewed or mentioned in sources, and must they be actual print or is web published content counted as less worthy? The notability criteria description as I read it doesn't give these answers in detail needed. 151.203.127.31 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

151.203.127.31 02:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the notability guideline mentions "multiple non-trivial references", which translates to "more than one magazine or newspaper article with a large section devoted to the topic in question" - so a single article is generally not enough (but may be considered borderline), and if the only mention of Foo in the article is "Some examples of this phenomenon include Foo, Bar and Baz" then that's not significant enough. Web published content is ok, as long as it is subject to some kind of editorial scrutiny - so things like YouTube, IMDB and Wikis are not good, but a major e-zine or other big online news website (I think Slashdot and Kuro5hin are good, but don't quote me on that) is fine. As to the OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, the point is that if you find another article that is as bad or worse than yours (not saying yours is, but in general), then consider whether it meets the guidelines or whether it should be nominated as well. Don't, however, nominate something that you know will be kept, because that's a big no-no per WP:POINT. Confusing Manifestation 02:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comes up non-stop on Wikipedia. The basic argument is:

I'm new here and I want to make Wikipedia fit my needs.
I don't care about the work others have done to make Wikipedia what it is now.
So, let me put my article on Wikipedia the way I want it or I'm going to throw a fit.

Obviously, this argument never achieves the result that the user would like. As has been said many many many times - get notability first. For a band (since this usually applies to some random band that very few people have heard of), get a recording contract. Get a tour. Get a video on MTV (I think they play 2 or 3 videos a day). Get written up in some real magazines. Then, you will see that someone else has written about your band. -- Kainaw^(what?) 03:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the time you took to reply! You mentioned "major e-zine", and the product in question was discussed in two web newsletters, each having in excess of 120K subscribers of which some are paid, thus making them more of a true business and respectable (IMO), in addition to the newsletter authors being known widely in the computer industry. Ok, so it's only two, but they should count towards the total, I would think.

My main issue was, and continues to be, that: by WP creating a chart/table/list of the features available in various file manager products, it thus has created a "review" and in doing so, to include products which are unknown to a number of users of XYplorer (who have themselves evaluated and researched numerous products in this category before deciding on XY) seems somewhat inconsistent and illogical.

It was the removal of XY from Comparison_of_file_managers that was the most difficult for me to see the reason for.

While I could possibly understand and agree that XY does not deserve a stand-alone article itself, it only needs that because the existing WP chart/table/list does not have a way (maybe via links in footnotes?) to point to a mini-summary description and sources (aka vendor websites) for that product. I would appreciate this solution to be considered, as by not including XY and similar lesser known products, the WP list is thus incomplete and misleading. Comaring this to a band situation, while each song that group is best known for would not qualify for its own article, not having them listed in the article for the band wouldn't make sense, true? 151.203.127.31 06:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this isn't really the place to have this kind of extended discussion: we've gone beyond asking questions about using Wikipedia here. I will responded further here. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 15:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question from someone who refuses to read the instructions at the top of the page

why does the moon shine yellow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.44.255 (talk • contribs)

It doesn't shine. It reflects. See moon. -- Kainaw^(what?) 03:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any colour you see is due to filtering through the Earth's atmosphere. Astronaut 14:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Errors/NPOV Issues on National Academic Championship Page

Dear Sirs,

I am a former associate director of the National Academic Association, which sponsors the National Academic Championship (NAC).

Recently someone posted a page on Wikipedia concerning the National Academic Championship that was poorly written, riddled with errors and violated neutral point of view in that the author compared the National Academic Championship negatively to another competition. I believe that the author(s) might also have been responsible for writing a spurious page about NAC founder Chip Beall that has since been deleted. The authors of this material belong to competing quiz bowl organizations, which by definition violates the neutral point of view requirements of Wikipedia.

I have attempted to correct the factual errors and revise the article in a more professional and neutral way. However, the objectionable material continues to reappear.

My association with the NAC ended in 1996. However, I do know the history of the organization, and I want it to be accurately represented and professionally written.

Best regards,

Cheryl Claypoole Mensa1960

For very obvious vandalism, if the problem persists, you can file a report at WP:ANI or WP:AIV. And, if it still continues, you can request page protection here. If the edits are not quite "obvious" vandalism (ie totally off topic, curse words, obviously offensive libel, etc.) then you should consider dispute resolution. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 05:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Canyon City, Utah - notable?

As covered here and mentioned on tonight's Colbert Report, Bryce Canyon City is in the process of being incorporated as the result of some loophole in Utah's laws. Basically it's a resort, but because of the number of employees it qualified to be a town. My understanding is that all incorporated US municipalities are inherently notable, and the existence of this loophole probably makes BCC more interesting to outsiders than many other towns with similar population. :) So it's legitimate to start an article, yes? Thanks, PhilipR 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would sure say so, seems to be notable enough for an article, so long as you cite reliable sources. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 05:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a page where I can report things?

Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.236.196 (talk • contribs)

What do you want to report? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) What kind of things? Have you seen Category:Wikipedia noticeboards?--Werdan7^{T @} 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THank you sir!

Contact

How do I contact the person who is in charge of Wikipedia?

You can contact an aadministrator at WP:AN. If you want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation, you can email them at info-en _at_ wikimedia _dot_ org. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YAHH<, I NEED some help!

I need the link to the Price is Right page, the "go" button here on Wikipedia isn't working for me. So please provide the link, appreciate it!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.236.196 (talk • contribs)

The Price Is Right--Werdan7^{T @} 04:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to make my own project, can I use Wikipedia?

I how I create a project, like how WIktionary has been created, can anyone help me?Thanks, --71.96.236.196 04:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want MediaWiki, the software that runs Wikipedia and Wiktionary. The website for it is at mediawiki.org. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the project is something that works in line with the Wikimedia Foundation's goals, then you can propose it on meta (although I think technically the "new projects" page was temporarily frozen some time ago while they get the Incubator set up, I think you can send a proposal to the foundation-l mailing list if you can find it). If you just want a wiki, you might consider running MediaWiki on a server of your own as TheFearow suggested, or you can set one up on Wikia. Confusing Manifestation 06:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PETA external link section/youtube videos

Do these videos violate copyright? I really have no idea.

[1] [2] [3]

Thanks. Turtlescrubber 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they're a compilation someone made of a bunch of different clips. So, to be quite honest, "probably?". However, they shouldn't be included in external links anyways -- external link guidelines explain that links should principally be only for things which cannot be covered in the article with text. I don't think these qualify. --Haemo 05:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So these should be removed twice? Ha. external links also include interviews and the sort, and this is sort of like a speech. However, I do agree with you and have always had my doubts that these were a violation of copyright. When I tried to remove them I was reverted and treated like a vandal. So if anyone can say with any certainty it would be great. Thanks for your response. Turtlescrubber 05:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

Why did my article on Lords of Pain get deleted? I worked hard on that. I was going to finsh it when I got more info about it, but then you deleted it! I'm outraged. Need sources? Have it! Need more info? I have it! It's my first project, and I really want to make it. Tell me whatI need for it, and I'll add/delete it. Just please put my page back.

Zombiekid29 06:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about Lords of Pain. Please see: Why was my page deleted?. A Speedy deletion tag was placed on the article, invoking criteria A7, which is that the article does not assert the notability of its subject. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 07:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:There is no deadline. You don't have to submit the article right now. If you can provide more material and good sources, please consider improving your article at the sandbox (for example User:Zombiekid29/Sandbox and only create the page Lords of Pain when it is ready. Wikipedia:Your first article might be useful. I hope this helps. Peacent 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, see WP:WWMPD#If all else fails, try another wiki. Wikipedia has much tougher requirements for content than many other wikis tend to have for articles in their specialized topic areas. Many people try creating articles on Wikipedia simply because this is the first wiki they discover, not because Wikipedia is most appropriate for what they want to do. --Teratornis 00:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a page by the same name?

If I wanted to create a new page for a band named, say, "Salamander," how can I make this happen? There is obviously an existing page for the reptile, salamander.

You could write Salamander (band). Remember that the band must conform with WP:BAND and be notable enough for inclusion. Sr 13 07:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create a new page with the title Salamander (band). In cases where the new topic is more important than the old (not in this one, obviously), move the original page and use the new one (ie Salamander (animal) for the creature and Salamander for the band).

Ensure the band is notable per WP:MUSIC before creation.

Have a nice day,

The Rhymesmith 07:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

For more details, see WP:DAB. Confusing Manifestation 23:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table for Company Info.

Please can you tell me how to place a company info. table, such as:

Founded: Headquarters: CEO:

Thank you.

That would be {{Infobox Company | company_name = | company_logo = | company_type = | foundation = | location = | key_people = | industry = | products = | revenue = | operating_income = | net_income = | num_employees = | parent = | subsid = | homepage = | footnotes = }} --Haemo 08:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Facts

I recently heard that you can set up Wikipedia so that on a daily basis 'General Knowledge' facts appear automatically on your Browser, how do you do this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 09:00, 26 July 2007 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 26 July 2007.

You can transclude the "Did you know" section from the Main Page on your userpage by editing it and adding this code:

{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;"
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cef2e0; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Did you know...</h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"| {{Did you know}}
|-
|}

That will only work if you sign up for a username and log in. Once you've done all that, set your userpage as your homepage in your web browser. It might be easier just to set wikipedia's main page as your browser homepage, though. If you do want to put that stuff on your userpage, by all means drop me a message on my talk page and I'll help, or do it for you. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-referencing

As a scientist (now inactive because of a chronic illness), I have contributed to some 200 articles on the Dutch Wikipedia. A few of these pages deal with topics on which key publications were written by myself and collegues, such as a model of the Dutch economy that was used by the Dutch government to validate socio-economic policy.

I have now run into a bunch of users who claim that any self-mention of my name, be it in the text or in a reference, should immediately be deleted, regardless of relevance or notability. Even references to publications by others who in their written work happen to refer to my publications get hunted down and removed.

This seems to deviate from the policy on Wikipedias such as this one, where cases of self-reference are, albeit with scrutiny, judged on their merits.

Any attempt to discuss these matters on the Dutch Wikipedia is met only with abuse.

My question is: is the Dutch Wikipedia community free to equate self-referencing, and anything remotely related, to self-promotion, or is there a common policy for all Wikipedias that they should follow?

If self-referencing is forbidden in all cases, then it is simply not possible for scientists to contribute to the Dutch Wikipedia on their field of expertise.

Regards, Guido den Broeder 09:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that are relevant are desired. Whether or not they are related to the person referencing is irrelevant (unless the article is becoming swamped with references to one person). If your work is peer-reviewed and a part of established theory, and is necessary to complete the article, then there is no bar on including it. You may wish to take a look at WP:COI however, before continuing.

Of course, it is not desirable to reference oneself, rather than one's work.

Have a nice day, The Rhymesmith 09:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've seen that page, it is well-written. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent page on the Dutch Wikipedia and people there consider what is on the English Wikipedia as completely irrelevant to theirs. Is it their right to do that? Regards, Guido den Broeder 10:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partially. Policy can differ from Wikipedia to Wikipedia, although the core tenets stay the same. However, if the Dutch Wikipedia doesn't have an equivalent, what are they charging you with? Self-promotion? It might be worth starting a policy debate there, or asking that Help Desk. There isn't a huge amount that can be done here. The Rhymesmith 10:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guido, we have no ability here to amend to rules and working practice of the Dutch Wikipedia. We can only give some general advice - if your changes or references are being removed, try suggesting them on the talk page of the relevant article first. Neil ╦ 11:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation is indeed self-promotion. It is explicitly claimed that self-reference is by definition self-promotion and that I am a moron to suggest otherwise. My attempts to discuss this on the talk pages of the articles, before or after, were met with abuse. My requests to protect me from this abuse and (more importantly) to protect the articles were met by the same accusation by a number of moderators, again equating self-reference to self-promotion. When I asked for a policy debate I got laughed at. The page I started merely to propose a description of the term was immediately thrashed and nominated for deletion.

I must add that IMHO the entire Dutch Wikipedia suffers from an unhealthy warlike attitude, where many users are relentlessly attacked by others all over the place. New users are often treated to warnings and blocks before they can finish their first contribution. Guido den Broeder 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: right after posting here, no less than two Dutch moderators have threatened to block my account (note: while I am on a long wiki-break over there). Guido den Broeder 12:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but as has been said previously, we are only able to offer comment and help on the English Wikipedia. I suggest taking up some form of Dispute Resolution on the Dutch Wikipedia through whatever processes they have in place there. We are not able to offer any assistance in other languages. Sorry. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems peculiar that the Dutch Wikipedia would be systematically hostile to contributors who write about their own peer-reviewed work. (I cannot read the record of this dispute in the original Dutch, and we haven't heard from your opponents, but you seem calm enough while presenting your side. Which by the way makes your claim of scientific credentials more believable: scientists by training must know how to handle disagreement without flying into hysterics.) I know of some examples on the English Wikipedia that seem acceptable, for example PeterThoeny is the primary author of the TWiki software, and he contributes to articles such as TWiki, Corporate wiki, and Structured wiki. If he (or anyone else) doesn't stay neutral enough, other editors will be along to weigh in. In my opinion (which carries no official weight), Wikipedia has more to gain than lose from contributions by persons who did the original research or invention behind article topics here. If wiki technology had been around since the Middle Ages, we could probably go back in article histories and read original edits by all the giants of science, the arts, statecraft, etc., in addition to all the forgotten ordinary people who had something to share. Imagine a wiki telling Isaac Newton not to cite his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (after it had been published elsewhere, of course). In any case, Wikipedia#Language editions says the various language Wikipedias operate independently to some extent, but it's not clear exactly to what extent. My suggestion would be, since you appear fluent in English, to translate the 200 Dutch articles you mention to English and create them on the English Wikipedia if they don't already exist here, or edit the English versions if they do exist. The English Wikipedia certainly gets more total traffic anyway, although that might not be true for particular corresponding articles. The other obvious approach to getting your citations onto the Dutch Wikipedia would be to recruit a meat puppet to add them for you, although now that I have mentioned that, the Dutch Wikipedia administrators who are monitoring this discussion will doubtlessly be hypervigilant for any editing which might look as if done on your behalf. Meat puppets are against policy on the English Wikipedia, but apparently the policies here do not apply there. --Teratornis 00:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting problem on Obesity

After making multiple edits to this article, the ==Therapy== header seems to have disappeared for no reason seemingly. My edits, and it disappeared after this edit. Please help fix this problem. Go Dhokla! -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 10:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed out the backslash in a reference just before the Therapy section - it said <ref name="bbcn00s">, and should have said <ref name="bbcn00s"/>. Neil ╦ 11:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sincerest thanks. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 11:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SAARC devlopment

marine conservation and bio diversity in the saarc regional devlopment —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.43.204.45 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 26 July 2007.

You haven't asked a question. What is it you want help with? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

I'd like to write a factual (NOT promotional) article regarding the company that I work for, however, having read the help pages on Conflict of Interest I'm not certain whether I would be in breach of these guidelines or not.

I would appreciate some advice from a human being on this subject as I don't want to offend or be seen to be using Wikipedia for any other purpose than an encyclopedia.

Thanks,

Alex Virginiahayward 11:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you probably would be in breach of the guidelines, but that doesn't mean you can't get the article written. The first thing to do is read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). You might also find the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ useful. If you think that your company is notable, list it on Wikipedia:Requested articles. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also study some featured articles about corporations. There aren't many, but the Microsoft article is one. (While I don't know for certain who all the editors were for the Microsoft article, I would be astounded if nobody from Microsoft had any input there.) Wikipedia has clear standards for giving an article the highest possible quality ranking (which we call featured), and an article's ranking only depends on the article itself, not on who wrote it. (This is a basic premise of critical thinking: that every claim can be decided on its own merits, not on who makes the claim. For example, the world does not become flat merely because we dislike a person who claims otherwise. See: Ad hominem fallacy.) In any case, it doesn't matter whether an article gets written by a Mother Teresa or a hired public relations gun, if the article is as good as the Microsoft article, it can become a featured article as well. Of course I must hasten to add that in the vast majority of cases, PR flacks do not tend to write featured articles. But they could, the same way as anybody else, by studying the Wikipedia manuals carefully and following the clear instructions. In my opinion (which carries no weight), the conflict of interest guideline exists not because having a conflict of interest fundamentally prevents a person from learning how to write encyclopedically, but because in most cases, people who come to Wikipedia specifically to promote some organization or cause usually do not take the time to learn how to edit properly on Wikipedia. But they could. --Teratornis 19:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zurich Airport

In the pages about airline operating out of Zurich Airport, you indicate that Singapore Airlines opartes the sector ZURICH/MANCHESTER. Thsi is no longer the case since 2006. Can you pls delete this information

Thank you very much

Christina Hollenweger Marketing Services/PR Manager Switzerland SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD Tel:0041 44 218 61 40

Done (after a quick google check). Thanks for letting us know. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

add to this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mortgage_lenders

When I added Choice Finance to this page, I could not get it to post alphabetically under "C". Instead, it posted at the very top and Wikipedia removed it a couple days later.

HELP

thanks, BJ Matson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Choicefinance (talk • contribs).

Category:Mortgage lenders is a category to display articles. An article is added to the category by placing [[Category:Mortgage lenders]] in the article. Your user name indicates you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, so it would be inappropriate to create the article or make other edits to promote Choice Finance. See also Wikipedia:Business FAQ. PrimeHunter 13:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand how to submit a request to have the content updated for the Company I work for.

Hi, I work for Paychex, Inc. in Rochester NY. We would like to see the general description of our Company updated, as it is old. I understand I can not persoanlly update the content because I work for the company and need to submit some type of request to have it done by a 3rd party editor. How exactly do I go about doing that?? I was reading that you can submit stuff via the 'Discussion' tab or 'Talk Page', which I think are one in the same? Im just not sure how you actually submit the request once your there? Any help would be greatly appreceated!! Thank you!

Do you have links to some newspaper or magazine articles about your company? -- Kainaw^(what?) 13:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>Are you asking in terms of the actual text that we want to have updated or do I have links to other companies that talk about our company making it credible? If you want links regarding our company here are some:

money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2007/snapshots/70.html http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=payx http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=1694 http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/07/13/paychex-adp-buyback-markets-equity-cx_af_0713markets17.html http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/pr.html?symbol=PAYX&type=usstock http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-127199136.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-154501754.html

If you need more please let me know.

Note: If you work for the company please see the conflict of interest page as you may be slighlty biased if you are writing about a company/organisation that you work for. Thank you. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 14:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---> I know I would be biased if I did the editing, that is why I am trying to figure out what i need to do so I can request someone looks at the content we would like put up (in replace of what is there) and have them post it for us.

If you post on the article's talk page (which you can reach by clicking the "discussion" tab at the very top of the article), an editor will come by and assist you. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 15:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--->Great, that's what I thought I just wasn't sure. Would you suggest just posting a comment saying 'I'd like to have the content update, if you are willing to help let me know and I will provide the content.' Or do you Suggest just asking the same thing and also providing the content on that page? Thanks so much again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfalkman (talk • contribs)

Read Help:Talk page to see how talk pages work; in particular, you should follow the standard talk page format and sign your talk page comments. (The Help desk is not technically a talk page, but we treat it as one by following the talk page guidelines here. Normal articles do not follow the talk page guidelines, in that we don't visibly sign our contributions to them.) I see you have already edited on Talk:Paychex, and you even removed your initial edit (which is still viewable in the talk page history). It helps other editors if you provide specific information about what you think should go in an article, and be sure to provide reliable sources to support your claims. Read Wikipedia:Business' FAQ to get a better idea of what you should do (or not do) when writing about your own company. I would also recommend that you make a User page to explain yourself and your interest in the Wikipedia project. If your only reason to participate here is to contribute to the Paychex article, you should disclose that on your user page. Obviously, you could build more goodwill among other Wikipedia editors if you helped out with other articles unrelated to your employer. That way it would at least seem your primary motivation was to assist this project rather than promote one particular company. In other words, ask not what Wikipedia can do for you, but what you can do for Wikipedia. However, I do want to say thank you for asking first, rather than just going in and spamming up articles like so many other people do. You demonstrated good faith by asking first. And while Wikipedia has a conflict of interest guideline, I would be willing to wager serious money that most if not all articles about corporations here receive at least some direct input from persons involved with the articles' subjects. How could it be otherwise? Every article about religion gets some partisan editing too. Personally (not that my opinion carries any weight whatsoever), I don't see a huge problem with this as long as an article also gets substantial editing from people who don't have a personal stake in the topic. After all, insiders tend to have some of the best information about a subject. We just have to make sure other disinterested editors keep a lid on their peacock language and so on. --Teratornis 17:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

downloading a song free of cost

can i download a particular song, say, Hasta Manana, from Abba's Album 'Waterloo' without having an account with you? i am out of USA, do i have to log in?

Mh, I'm not sure what you mean. If you wish to download music I suggest using a program such as Limewire but this is for Wikipedia-related questions. Sorry; — Rlest (formerly Qst) 14:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Savage was deleted why?

i created a a page about aidan savage a player for st fechins and i want to create profiles for all the players what did i do wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmattews114 (talk • contribs).

Because in violation of the criteria for speedy deletion A7 and it was not written in the expected tone for an encyclopedia article (however only the latter is a reason for deletion - not the second). Please see Wikipedia:Your first article and Help:Starting a new page for tips. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki appearance proble,

My browser seems to get an error when I type www.wikipedia.com in my browser address bar. And now I can only gain access to a wiki page by doing Google search for a specific page. Also the website seems to be no longer in its normal appearance, basically it seems there are no frames, it all appears in regular HTML format. 70.231.32.88 15:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The address for the English Wikipedia is actually http://en.wikipedia.org - As for the display, check your browser settings and make sure your browser is displaying frames correctly. I'm fairly certain this is not a problem on our end, sorry. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 15:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the links under: User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#Bro. I have noticed that sometimes when I have a poor connection to the Internet, various wiki sites including Wikipedia will not display correctly (text is in a default browser font, no images appear, etc.). I'd guess this means the page content (text) is reaching me, but the style information is not. --Teratornis 16:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About editing stuff

Yeah. Why are you guys so sensitive about my editing stuff?! I'm only adding stuff! The article about Takashi Hagino needed expanding! I mean, articles are not going to expand themselves! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.14.216.60 (talk)

The complaint is that you removed {{Japan-actor-stub}} in this edit. It's not a big deal by itself but there has apparently been other problems with edits by your IP address. It's likely that some of the earlier edits were made by other editors sharing the IP address. PrimeHunter 17:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I was surprised to see blood type listed in a biography. I found Japanese blood type theory of personality which is probably the reason. I wonder how such information is sourced (I don't speak Japanese). PrimeHunter 17:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user is out of control, what do I do?

Hi! There is a page on Artist Trading Cards (ATCs). I've been involved with artist trading cards since the 1980's in Boston, MA, US. There is someone promoting the idea of artist trading cards whose link and promoters keep appearing on the wiki Artist Trading Card page claiming to have invented ATC's in 1996 in Europe, named Stirnemann. This is a ludicrous, bogus claim that he invented ATC's. His link and the claim that he invented ATC's is put back on the ATC page repeatedly.

Furthermore, there is a substantial Artist Trading Card web site, a blog that chronicles an exceptional ATC group and how it's done, which the abusing user keeps removing from the links section. The person who removed the link left a message for me calling it spam, when it's more relevant the topic than the Stirnemann web link which he keeps replacing. It's not spam, it's a premiere example of ATC's and how the concept works.

What does one do in this situation? How do I report a user?

Thanks.

You should take the following steps, in order, if you have not done them already.

Leave the user a message asking him to explain what he's doing. (I assume you already did that.)
Leave a message on Talk:Artist Trading Cards, asking other users to comment.
Request a third opinion, asking other users to comment.
If the disruption persists, report what has happened at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. Shalom ^Hello 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs (removing the fact that something may be or is a stub)

If something is long enough, how am I supposed to remove something telling us that the article is a stub without having to listen to you tell me it is not right?! If I edit the article, and it's long enough, should you remove the stub marker yourselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.216.60 (talk • contribs)

If it isn't a stub, just remove the stub template from the article. -- Kainaw^(what?) 18:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is only if the article is no longer a stub. You have removed stub templates from articles that appear to remain stubs. A one line description of an actor, followed by their filmography, is not enough to merit removing the stub template. Lucky number 49 22:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing a Typo in the title of a Wikipedia Entry

How do I fix a typo in my latest Wikipedia Entry?

I just created an entry for Wear-Dated, but didn't capitalize the "D" in Dated for the entry.

Thank you. Christine

Problem fixed. Check out Help:Moving a page for more information. Regards, — Rlest (formerly Qst) 19:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too need help with this. I just created an article titled "Pardada pardadi"; the title should read "Pardada Pardadi Educational Society" (all caps as it is a proper noun). I can't for the life of me find the "move page" button that is described in the help. Could you please change it, or tell me how to find this button?

Thank you. Agnieszka

editing

A friend created the Wikipedia page for my husband musician, john beasley. i've updated the content, which was easy, but i cant figure out how to edit the top bar and inset bar. there's no obvious edit button.

help. Beasleymusic 19:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)lorna[reply]

Well looking at the page history it seems you have already edited the page. Please be careful when editing the page as if you actually are related to this person you may have a conflict of interest. Regards, — Rlest (formerly Qst) 19:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of an article can be edited by clicking the "Edit this page" tab at the top. PrimeHunter 23:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration use

Can I assume that any illustration not marked with a copywrite or liscense number can be freely downloaded for eduucational use?

Thanks Gnerosen 19:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All images on Wikipedia should have licensing information on the image page. If you come across an image that doesn't, please edit the page and add {{subst:nld}} to the image page. However, any image that says it is in the public domain or uses a [{Creative Commons]] or a GNU Free Documentation License is free to use. That should include all images that are not labeled with copyright tags. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD / Speedy Deletion conflicts

If an article is already being discussed for deletion on the basis of non-verifiability and an editor realizes that there may be a more urgent need for speedy deletion (in this case, the entire article seems to be a blatant copyright violation), is it advisable to add the speedy delete request beneath the AfD? Or should one simply to point it out on the AfD talk page so that it can be dealt with in due time? (I made a note of it a few hours ago on the page, but decided I needed to follow up in case this is too urgent for that.) Copyvio protocol seems to require blanking the page, but blanking the page is forbidden by the rules of AfD. Any guidance on how best to proceed would be most welcome. Moonriddengirl 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a copyright violation it should be blanked, and {{copyvio|URL where copied from here}} or {{db-g12|URL where copied from here}} of it the article qualifies for another area of the criteria for speedy deletion it should be tagged accordingly with the CSD tag below the AfD tag then the admin will close the debate early and delete the page if it is a suitable candidate for a speedy deletion. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you should also make a note on the AfD page to make the editors there aware. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 19:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Tagged and notifications spread all around. Moonriddengirl 19:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

log in errors

I recently joined this site. I created an account w/i incident. I confirmed my email address and went to the site. I was "told" I was "logged in" but when I tried to use Preferences or Watch list, etc. message states, I must be logged in??S?

Please advise

Go to Special:Userlogin, and try logging in again. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 20:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a contributor/ editor?

wiki-help thurs 7/26/2007 4:15pm i wrote the short book DR. MORSES INDIAN ROOT PILLS in 1972 and it is in the public domain. a person with the username of MATHHAMMER made a good and accurate synopsis of my book --- 18:03, 18 March 2007 Mathhammer (Talk | contribs) New user account--- a later comment by mathhammer said s/he was a descendant of mr.comstock, the creator of Morses Pills. i would like to thank her/him and ask about her/his kinship in the family. how can i contact mathhammer?20:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)~~ thank you, bob shaw

Leave a note here

Have a nice day,

The Rhymesmith 20:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film Writing

Hi I am from Czech republic and I will writen film story of my own which I will give for a film in America.Can me please help with contact addreses of film writrs which ca offer my film-story?

Wikipedia does not provide contact details for screenwriters. Apologies.

The Rhymesmith 20:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging two accounts

How does someone go about merging two accounts? We have an editor who has used multiple accounts, not for sock puppetry and there are no concerns about that. Someone suggested the various accounts be merged. Is this possible?? How is it done? By whom? Where? Thanks. KP Botany 22:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the answer to this question in WP:SOCK, which does describe some permissible uses of multiple accounts by one user. If someone knows the answer, they should add it to the WP:SOCK page. WP:RENAME talks about changing usernames, but not merging two usernames into one account. When all else fails, try searching. This Help desk archive search finds:

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 January 4#Putting previous contributions under my new name.

in which Kesh mentions WP:SOCK#Alternate accounts, but that looks like merely a way to tag the multiple accounts as belonging to one person rather than actually merging them into a single account. Why do the multiple accounts need to be merged? Would merely tagging them be enough? --Teratornis 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a doppleganger account, which is mentioned -- maybe that is a solution? --Haemo 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's a doppleganger account? They created a small handful of accounts because they couldn't remember their name from one computer to the next--the same reason a lot of us un-computer savvy folks have multiple accounts all over the Internet. Another user asked them to merge the accounts since they were editing the same articles with multiple accounts. They agreed to. All very civil and orderly. The only issue that remains is how to do it. KP Botany 03:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's another account to preserve your name, or a similar name. --Haemo 03:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding External Links

I tried and it was deleted repeatedly.

Within all major cities' (your city) there is an affordable housing crisis.

A link from an article about any major city to the web-site of a local organization that connects people who struggle to make ends-meat with owners of small apartments is more important than the esoteric Wikipedia Nazis right to delete said link on a whim.

Humility: Elite Wikipedia editors don't have a moral right to block needy people from finding affordable housing just because they have power issues.

So far I represent 3 owners in the Gatineau / Ottawa area who own 17 buildings (71 apartments). Each building contains only budget priced apartments that the average man or woman can afford. The apartments are so small and simple that the Wikipedia elitists would scoff at them in snobbish disgust... The rest of us are thankfull to call it home.

A mean person keeps deleting the external link to the web-site of the organization.

How do I get past mean people who justify their existence by searching for stuff to delete?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.41.220 (talk • contribs)

Ahem. Before I even attempt to give a detailed answer to your question, I would kindly ask you to read WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:EL and Godwin's Law. Confusing Manifestation 22:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And probably also WP:NOT. Confusing Manifestation 22:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ahem" is exactly the snobbery to which I just referred. I need to get past your attitude toward needy people so that less fortunate people can have a home too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.41.220 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry that you're so frustrated, but Wikipedia simply isn't the website you need. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a listings site. I'd guess that you can find listings sites through google, but if not then I'm sure the miscellaneous reference desk can help you. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paul, Wikipedia is no more nor less "elitist" than any other organization which makes rules about what its participants can and cannot do. No organization can be all things to all people. I'm sure the local Web site you want to link to imposes its own rules on the content it publishes, and those rules could seem "elitist" to someone who wants to use that site for reasons other than what its owners intend. Besides, the people you call "needy" would need to have Internet access to view Wikipedia or any other Web site, and that would make them fabulously wealthy by the standards of the world's billion poorest people (who subsist on about $1 per day per person), so your cause is also "elitist" in its own way - you're excluding the neediest people of all. See the WP:NOT page for a long list of things Wikipedia is not - everything on that page is there because lots of people tried (and continue to try) to use Wikipedia for those purposes. However, all is not lost. The Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia also gives away its wonderful MediaWiki software, so anyone with an ax to grind and money to buy Web hosting can set up their own wiki and grind away. Thousands of people have set up their own wikis; see WikiIndex. For example, ChicagoCo-op looks like an attempt to do something along the lines of what you are trying to do. Why don't you contact the people running that wiki and see if they are interested in expanding their geographic scope? One problem that small wikis often have is that they limit themselves too much, either topically or geographically, and then they don't attract enough users to build much content or establish a viable community. And finally, while wiki technology provides fantastic new possibilities for mass collaboration, wiki editing is not for the hypersensitive nor the faint of heart. Not everyone is tough enough to watch their work getting chopped to pieces on a regular basis. To stay sane while editing on a wiki requires a degree of mental looseness, a willingness to relax one's urge to insure a specific pre-conceived outcome. Wiki editing is more like an experiment where you try things, see what happens, and go with the flow. Anyone with a Persecution complex, real or imagined, should avoid wiki editing. --Teratornis 23:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that everybody who answers questions on the Help desk has almost certainly, like me, had any number of their contributions to Wikipedia obliterated by other users. Welcome to the (sometimes) cruel world of Wikipedia! --Teratornis 04:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if the "Ahem" seemed snobbish. While I appreciate that when you're involved in a dispute your temper tends to be shortened (I know I've suffered it myself), jumping onto the Wikipedia Help Desk and raving about how "mean people" and "Wikipedia Nazis" are removing your link, and generally making attacks on the people who could quite easily be reading your post, is probably not a good idea. Also, while many people have preconceptions about Wikipedia being a place where "anyone can do anything", a moment's thought shows that if there weren't widely accepted guidelines on the way to do things the whole thing would have fallen apart years ago, and so it's sometimes worth taking a step back and thinking "What I'm trying to do seems important to me, but given that people are opposing me, am I going about things the right way?" - your comment that including your link in the article "is more important than the esoteric Wikipedia Nazis right to delete said link on a whim" suggests that you didn't consider whether maybe the "Nazis" were following some sort of guideline on external links, rather than just deleting it "on a whim". Hence, I provided some links for you to read, which would probably answer your question better than I could (as well as a few extra, like the link to Godwin's Law, to explain why the use of a term like "Nazi" tends to bias people against you). Again, I apologise if it was taken the wrong way. Confusing Manifestation 04:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Reverts

Hello, I've never had this issue before so I'm not sure what to do. On the entry for Halal, presumably a single user with both IP addresses 87.74.46.129 and 87.74.16.171 keeps inserting a picture which, I feel, is inappropriate for the article. I've reverted their edit atleast twice with the reason in the "edit summary", but the person insists on reinserting the picture. I've also left a message on the article's talk page requesting a discussion, but they haven't responded. I don't want to revert a third time, in fear of violating the 3 revert rule. What should I do? Thanks!Starwarp2k2 23:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down in the Editor's Index to the "Content disputes:" heading below this anchor point: User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#Con. There you will find links to just about everything on this subject. --Teratornis 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]