Help desk
< January 6	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 8 >

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.

January 7

Jiggaboo Jones

Nipsey Tyrone Washington AKA "Jiggaboo Jones" Deleted for copyright violation? how ever we got the information from the people who did the DVD???

I am sure this is the same type of BS that got him deleted on youtube.com after making jokes about the KKK "KLAN" I will mention this to him on his radio show and I think it will be funny what he prolly will do about it.... I think I cant wait to see the video he will make....

Anyway search Jiggaboo Jones on ANY search engine and you will see hundreds of relevant links... —Preceding unsigned comment added by W.olive (talk • contribs) 09:10, 11 January 2008

Which was the problem. It was most recently speedy deleted on 15:22, 3 December 2007 per CSD A3 because it was merely a link farm, had a poor title and had no interested parties in working to fix the issues. It was also deleted on 13:26, 6 August 2007 because of a WP:BIO violation. If you wish to recreate the deleted article, and propose new changes, you can take it up at deletion review. Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spoiler warnings

how do you add them to pages? Trig (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been debated a lot and Wikipedia has currently chosen to not use spoiler warnings. See Wikipedia:Spoiler. Template:Spoiler was used earlier but has been deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Birth date and age

I have been investigating Template:Birth date and age, as its instances on the articles for Liam Aiken and Camryn Grimes have not updated to indicate their turning 18, but if I use January 7 as the birthday in an instance of the template on my sandbox, it has updated to reflect the fact that it is past 00:00 January 7, 2008 UTC. Is there a reason for this? Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pages appear to have updated now. Could it be that they just needed to be purged in order to rebuild the page? • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 00:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just purged Liam Aiken. I haven't purged Camryn Grimes if somebody else want to see the age change. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears somebody has now purged Camryn Grimes which also says 18 now. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I submit a n article about a person to Wikipedia when there is already some one by the same name listed?

I am trying to submit an article about a person but when I search wikipedia, there already is information about a differnt person with the same name. How do I list the person in wikipedia - the have no middle initial or nickname. Thanks so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CleoFrancis (talk • contribs) 00:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions. Without knowing the person I cannot give more specific naming advice. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!!!

HI!!! I NEED INFORMATION??? 85.92.186.208 (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About what? jj137 ^♠ 01:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi. If this is information about how to use Wikipedia, you are in the right place. You just need to let us know what you want, and if any of the volunteers here are able to answer you, they will. If it is a general knowledge question, you may wish to ask it at the reference desk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDA

WHAT IS THIS PLACE?? 85.92.186.208 (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Here are some are some other pages that you might find helpful:

Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IVE GOT PROBLEMS ITS WORKING WRONG!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.186.208 (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what problems you're having, or what's working wrong? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CANT CHANGE THE LETTER COLOR'S??? IVE GOT SCIENCE TOMORROW!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.186.208 (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, but feel free to continue browsing Wikipedia's over two million article's. Remember to SEARCH WIKIPEDIA to find what you want. Alternatively try Google. Good night. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 01:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to colors in Wikipedia then see Wikipedia:Colours#Overriding font colour. If it's another program then say which and ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not sure quite what you're asking, but here's a couple possibilities:

If you have a science question, try asking your question at the Science Reference Desk.
To change the color of text on a page on Wikipedia, enclose the text in <span style="color: colorname">text here</span>, replacing colorname with the name of the color and text here with the text you want to change the color of. For example, <span style="color: purple">example</span> produces example.

If this doesn't answer your question, try explaining in more detail and maybe I'll be able to help. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 MILLION WOW IVE GOT WINDOWS???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.186.208 (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows is an operating system. It includes many programs with letter colors and the program you want to make a change in may not actually be a part of Windows. If you want to change color in a specific program then say which. Maybe the program name is displayed at top of the window or in a help menu. And Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing is the best place to ask since this help desk is for questions about how to use Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get help from distant strangers in a text-only medium, you should read: How to ask questions the smart way. The questions you pose above are too vague to admit answers, unless one of the volunteers happened to read your mind correctly. --Teratornis (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contact

How do I contact you? I have a complaint —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungwirthwillkillallrocks (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry you have a complaint with us. Please see Wikipedia:Contact us for details on how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Regards, Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to say in public what the complaint is then we may be able to help you here. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that Wikipedia is edited almost entirely by volunteers, and is editable by anyone; if it's a problem with an article, you can change it yourself or point it out to someone else who can try to fix it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To contact the people who run Wikipedia, well, that's everybody. To contact people who handle specific things, see the directories at the top of the Community Portal, which is also on the menu to the left.

How to name new article about person with same name and profession

I want to fix the link to Joan Hill in the Mark Boyle article -- the existing Hill article is about a Native American Artist; the correct Joan Hill for the Boyle article is from Edinburgh. Should I add a disambiguation page for Joan Hill and make a new page Joan Hill (Scottish artist) and rename the existing one Joan Hill (Muskogee artist)? Or should it be Joan Hill (UK artist) and Joan Hill (US artist)? Should I put something on the existing Joan Hill discussion page first, or just go ahead and edit -- advice on protocol welcome. Many thanks.

Jonathan Laventhol (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the answer is to your question, but have you checked WP:Style? The answer might be there. Zenwhat (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the basic principle set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) is that we want the most (1) recognizable and (2) the most unambiguous with existing pages. I would imagine Muskogee artist would be difficult for #1, since even people who know her as Native American may not know her tribe. I would be inclined to identify US/UK for that reason. As to whether its appropriate to move the existing article in the first place, how notable is the UK artist Joan Hill? If the US artist is more notable, it may be more appropriate to add a hatnote to the top of the existing article directing readers to the UK Joan Hill and not move the original article at all. Discussing on the Joan Hill page is a good step if you feel the move is likely to be controversial. Given that it isn't often edited, I suspect it would not be, and if I felt the Joan Hills merited equal coverage might be bold in this case. If you do move Joan Hill and create a disambiguation page, please remember to follow "What links here" so that you can repair wikilinks as necessary. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helpful advice. Turns out that it's academic as the UK artist is 'Hills' and the US artist is 'Hill', and there's currently no Joan Hills article. I used your hatnote advice to remove extraneous matter about a different Mark Boyle from Mark Boyle. -- Jonathan Laventhol (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heeeeeelp with WP:FRINGE and possible arbitration.

On Debt-based monetary system, which is a POV fork of fractional-reserve banking, me, EGeek, and Gregalton have tried to improve the article by at least removing stuff that violates WP:FRINGE. There is consensus that it needs to be improved. However, whenever any changes are made, Libertarians who seem to be supporters of these fringe theories revert any edits to the page which remove such material, and appeal to WP:CONSENSUS. This isn't direct vandalism -- just wikilawyering that takes advantage of the slowness and tediousness of Wikipedian bureaucracy in order to keep nonsense up. And they don't put forth any genuine arguments for why they're making such reverts other than a vague appeal to consensus. I've noted this repeatedly on the talk page.

I already posted this on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard a few days ago, in hopes it would bring outsiders to edit the page. That has not helped reached consensus and the topic has been listed for RFC in the distant past. On monetary theory articles, in general, I seem to be going around in circles, because the article on fractional-reserve banking looked good enough to be featured a while back, but now, adherents of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) and Austrian economics have put all of their silly little fringe theories back in.

I would like to either engage the users making the reverts or seek arbitration. However, the users' seem disinterested in discussing their reverts (so mediation is out of the question.). But on the other hand, given the current state of ArbCom, ArbCom will likely reject my request because they seem to want people to assume good faith even where it's clearly absurd and mediation hasn't been tried. Per WP:IAR, I'd like to just say, "To hell with these trolls," and boldly remove all of the nonsense, but then I will probably be blocked for violating 3RR since WP:IAR doesn't seem to ever be a legitimate defense on Wikipedia.

I saw this recently which made me highly skeptical of ArbCom's current ability to address WP:FRINGE violations, since admins who proactively go after such trolls cause great controversy, risking their administrative privileges from being taken away.

So, please, somebody tell me: What can I do to fix that article without having my edits reverted with the summary "omg no consensus" with no corresponding comment on the talk page, and without getting blocked for edit-warring? Zenwhat (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the long run, you can't escape community consensus. If the greater community wants something a certain way, it will eventually be that way. But a localized consensus may not match the community's desires. So if an editor or group of editors are maintaining an article to non-Wikipedia standards, then what you need to do is seek wider input. Keep in mind that common practice (that is, the defacto standard) doesn't always match policy, which means policy in such an area hasn't caught up to common practice yet. At the core of this approach is WP:IAR - the community isn't straight-jacketed by its own rules. To seek wider input, post requests for editors to come and participate on the article. In addition to occasionally asking for help here at the help desk, also try WP:CBB, WP:RFF, WP:AN, WP:RFE, WP:VPA, and WP:RFC (for articles). If you really want the community to apply the magnifying glass to the article, prepare it for featured article status. Post it at WP:GAN or WP:PR, and once it gets through peer review, nominate it at WP:FAC.

Keep a log of the perp's violations, for use in an RfC on him if it ever comes to that. You can also use that as evidence to request that the article be protected, but that step usually follows an RfC. Keep suggesting mediation, because you are open to consensus-building discussion.

To solve the merge-issue, I stepped-in and boldly renamed the page so it is more closely associated with the article it expands upon.

I hope I've been of help. If you need further assistance, continue to post requests everywhere you can think of (check WP:DIR for all the relevant departments you can find), and on my talk page.

The Transhumanist 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that consensus is necessarily inevitable. It seems to me that overall M:Wikithoritarianism is less influential than M:Wikidemocratism because Wikipedia is a "friendly community with wildly inaccurate articles, because of wikilawyering" not "a rude community, made up of academic elitists who don't follow any particular rules." Hence the reason for WP:Expert rebellion. This is reflected in various ArbCom decisions, some of which have caused very good editors to leave Wikipedia, and is also supported by Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club. Part of the problem may stem from the fact that "Wikithoritarianism" is labeled by that name. I plan to write an essay on "Wikindividualism vs. Wikollectivism" soon to go more in detail. Wikipedia will only be accurate if individual editors (like you) continually and courageously engage poor editors and bad faith editors, while adhering to Wikipedia policy. It is a mistake to personify "consensus" as a conscious individual entity that will somehow always automatically get it right in the end. Zenwhat (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, but generally it is, IMHO. True, there will always be exceptions. And I agree with you that it is a constant battle. A war of quality assurance. Fortunately, we have thousands of volunteers who focus primarily on watchdogging and patrolling Wikipedia for problems to fix. If you help make them aware of what to look for, you may have an army on your side. Good luck. In the meantime, the best articles generally have dedicated maintainers, sort of like the custodians of literature in Fahrenheit 451, except we're preventing "article burning" instead of book burning. Keep the faith. The Transhumanist 04:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Are there any Wikipedia users who have died? If so, could you please list at least one? 138.217.145.45 (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:deceased Wikipedians. Algebraist 04:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With 48,462,860 registered users, there may well be some users who die today (I live in a city with a smaller total population where people die every day). I'll do my best to avoid being one of them. But barring some amazing technological breakthroughs in life extension, soon enough we will all be dead Wikipedians, our edit counts frozen in time until the heat death of the universe at best, or some earlier catastrophe, shuts down Wikipedia for good. It's also possible for Wikipedia to end before homo sapiens goes extinct, but Wikipedia is thriving for now. I do have to wonder, in 50 years or so, will future Wikipedians demand that we archive off the dead users somehow, perhaps into their own dead user namespace, so the living Wikipedians can re-use the "good" usernames? It seems terribly presumptuous that I could, for example, reserve my username for all time. Once I am dead, I will hardly need it. Another burning question: do the heathens who run Wikipedia have a plan in place to deal with the Rapture which may suddenly remove a (presumably very) small percentage of our users? --Teratornis (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Teratornis you're hilarious! :-D -- Menti fisto 16:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLAYING CARDS WITH RELIGIOUS MEANING

I AM LOOKING FOR AN ARTICLE THAT IS OUT THERE THAT TELLS WHAT EACH CARD IN A 52 DECK OF CARDS MEANS FOR EXAMPLE THERE ARE 13 BOOKS IN THE BIBLE, JOKER IS THE DEVIL, 3 THERE WERE 3 WISE MEN,

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP DEBBIE ULLOM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.108.113 (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on playing card doesn't suggest any such connections, and gives some alternative explanations for the design of a deck. However, the place where you're most likely to get an answer to your question would be on the Reference desk, as this is the Help desk for answering questions about using Wikipedia, not general knowledge. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(addendum) There's apparently a song that covers such a topic, based apparently on an old tale. Hope that helps, Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

different languages, different accounts?

Problems with different languages. I seem to be able to sign in in the Emglish and the Dutch section, but when I try to go French, Italian or German, my username and/or password or not recognized. Must I make a separate account for each language, or do I do something wrong?

Poldebol (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer: Yes. You do need to register a new account at every language. Good Luck. Soxπed Ninety Three | tc db 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly less simple answer: this may not be the case for ever (see meta:Help:Unified login), but don't hold your breath. Algebraist 04:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your English and Dutch accounts were created December 29 and 31 in 2006.[1][2] I assume you chose the same password. If the username Poldebol is in use in a language then you must pick another. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The List (anons edition)

Is there a list of unregistered Wikipedians by edit count? –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP with the highest number of edits of all is 202.156.6.54, which up until August 2006 (no edits since then), was shared by over 300,000 Singapore users. There is a top ten list of anonymous users on http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm, fifth table down, although that page hasn't been updated since October 25. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page

When I click on Main Page, I will be referred to the Main Page of that language. How to go easily to another language, or to the wikipedia.org page. Ideal would be of course if I could make a personalised page where I can list all languages I use to search in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poldebol (talk • contribs) 04:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could make a list of links on your userpage, like this: fr:Accueil, de:Hauptseite, etc. If you only use fairly major languages, you could just use the interwiki links in the sidebar at Main Page. I didn't entirely understand your question, but I hope this answers it. Algebraist 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how do companys get listed on wikipedia

the questions is how do companies get listed on wikipedia and is there a format that need to be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acarrjo (talk • contribs) 07:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What company were you thinking of listing? The Transhumanist (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do companies get listed? Someone writes the article. Then the tricky part comes - they write it so that it doesn't get deleted for not appropriately demonstrating the companies notability with references to reliable sources. As for formatting, there is an entire style guide for articles, but the idea is that at the beginning an article just needs to be reasonably written, and all the fancy stuff like wiki-markup and infoboxes can get added later, by other editors. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 10:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at our featured articles and good articles - these are articles which the Wikipedia user community has judged to be our best and next-best, respectively. We have a few featured articles about businesses, for example: Microsoft. If you can write an article of similar quality about another business, it is unlikely to get deleted. (Unfortunately, someone new to Wikipedia probably has a lot to learn before being able to write articles to that standard, and the best way to learn is to make small edits to existing articles first, while reading and re-reading our extensive manuals. Creating whole new articles from scratch and surviving the deletionists requires some fairly advanced skills, or dumb luck in some cases such as an article I created very early in my editing experience when I had no idea what I was doing.) Among the many reasons why new articles get deleted, business articles are especially prone to peacock language and lack of reliable published sources. You might want to look at Wikicompany, which unlike Wikipedia wants to be a comprehensive listing of every legally incorporated business. (Wikipedia only wants to list companies which are "notable" and can be "reliably sourced.") --Teratornis (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also read the second paragraph of Wikipedia is not Google. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 23:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page : LUC MOREAU , it desapeared

I created a page named : Luc MOREAU, with text , picture : Luc_moreau_glaciologiste and

a link to his site : www.moreuluc.com (in --- External links---).

Why does it desapear ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMIG-ENG (talk • contribs) 07:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted, twice, once by Mecu and once by Od Mishehu. You could ask them, on their talk pages, why they deleted the page. Those pages are User talk:Mecu and User talk:Od Mishehu. I'm afraid I cannot look at the deleted page, to comment on why it might have been deleted or what you could do to improve it, though. AndyJones (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website does not exist - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does exist - the OP made a slight typo in his post. The link is at [3]. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All your edits have been about Luc Moreau. If it's you or you know him personally then see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I know how to request deletion for an article, but how can I request deletion for a section? 138.217.145.45 (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss it on the article's Talk page. If no one objects in a reasonable amount of time (5 days is typical) you can remove it yourself. -- 68.156.149.62 (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting

Why don't any articles say that something is disgusting? 138.217.145.45 (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because "disgusting" is a matter of personal taste. If you're asking why Wikipedia allows material that some may consider disturbing, Wikipedia is not censored. -- 68.156.149.62 (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Articles are allowed to cite reliable sources which say negative things. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright

I have seen that user "The Man in question" (not me) uploaded the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Inducks.png I own the copyright for this image and agree to release it under a Creative Common license, so that Wikipedia can use it freely. How should I proceed? (I'm also not completely sure which licence to choose but I will check this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.113.41.45 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email from an email address associated with the website to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, and people will take care of it for you. As for which license to choose, I recommend the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license (which is one of the permitted licenses on Wikipedia), sometimes abbreviated to CC-by-sa; here is their web page about it. Note that not all Creative Commons licenses are allowed on Wikipedia (the ones that restrict commercial user or derivatives aren't), but that one is allowable. --ais523 12:00, 7 January 2008 (U T C)

Different types of references allowed on Wikipedia.

After searching the Help Desk, Google, and a few other places I have to ask here, can someone list the different types of references that are considered valid on Wikipedia? Namely I want to reference media (A movie, TV show, video game, etc...) directly, but I didn't find a matching template. So I'm asking to clear the wind for me so I don't go to a lot of trouble for nothing. Thank you. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for what's considered reliable, and Special:Prefixindex/Template:Cite for a list of citation templates. {{cite video}} (redirected from {{cite media}}) may be the one you're looking for here. --ais523 11:54, 7 January 2008 (U T C)

Using a citation template is optional and anybody can create a template. {{Cite email}} for unpublished emails was clearly invalid but existed for more than a year before being deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 19#Template:Cite email. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know how I would format a multimedia type reference but would there be direct opposition to referencing a movie or a game? I haven't seen other articles do so which is why I wanna ask before starting a debate over the "validity" of my citations. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an article about a movie or a game, the movie or game has often been used as reference for its own content without stating it directly. Other than that, there should rarely be reason to use a (fictional) movie or game as reference. Some people like trivia listings about in which movies, games, etc. an article subject has been mentioned, but this is controversial per WP:TRIVIA, and if the movie or game is named then adding it to the reference section may be unneeded. What is the situation for you? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references I want to make wouldn't be for the intent of trivia, I'm already aware of Wikipedia's policy on trivia. The current project I'm working on is the Dance Dance Revolution series of articles, and since I saw no direct mention of video games on the citation template page I wanted to make sure it was even allowed or if it was viewed negatively by the community. A great deal more information could be provided about these games if I reference them directly. I extended this question to include all types of multimedia so that I could already know the answer for project I may get into down the road. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing official game manuals or independent reliable sources would be better than referencing the game itself. But beware that Wikipedia is not a game guide. Have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines? Discussions specific to video games may be best at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the no strategy guide rules, and I agree that referencing the booklets would be safer. Yet there are still times where referencing the game as a game would be useful to reader to provide a concise article. I will take this up on the talk page you mentioned and keep watching here for a while longer. Thank you. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Interested in learning how to use Wikipedia: The Free Online Encyclopedia. But new to the internet and after looking at the site I am not certain I have the skill level to achieve results. Is it possible to make contact with contributors in my locality, area, region to get support?121.220.60.112 (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to. All the help you need is at your fingertips online, right here.

See:

Welcome to Wikipedia

Wikipedia's Tutorial

Learning the ropes

Wikipedia's Help Menu

And if you get stuck along the way, come back here and ask any questions you might have.

The Transhumanist 11:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not clear whether a random questioner will need personal, face-to-face instruction in addition to Reading The Friendly Manuals. Of the 48,462,860 registered user accounts, most have few or no edits; Special:Listusers shows that most registered users have not yet created user pages, suggesting that many haven't gotten much past the dabbling stage. We cannot predict how many of these people will eventually figure out what to do here; presumably a number of them find Wikipedia confusing right now. As to how the questioner may locate experienced Wikipedia users in his or her locality, that depends on the locality. If the questioner lives in a major city in one of the G8 countries, other Wikipedia users should be nearby; if the questioner is typing from a mud hut in a remote east African village, there may not be many other Wikipedia users around. To find Wikipedia users in one's area who want to contact other Wikipedia users, see: Wikipedia:Meetup and Category:Wikipedians by location. --Teratornis (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that if everybody could self-educate solely by reading instructions, there would be far less need, or perhaps even no need, for such familiar real-world fixtures as schools and business meetings. Probably the vast majority of people have never learned anything as complicated as how to edit on Wikipedia solely through self-study. It's an open question as to how many people could do this. A person's IQ is probably a predictor of his or her capacity to self-educate. Wikipedia is very genius-friendly, but then again so is most of the real world. --Teratornis (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a CDROM

Hello, is there a citation template suitale for citing a CDROM version of an encyclopædia? Citebook doesn't seem quite right, as one doesn't have page or volume numbers in it, the same for the cite encyclopædia template. I asked this already on the Village Pump (Assistance) but no answer there as yet, so I though I'd try you good people. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If {{cite encyclopedia}} isn't quite right, you could try the generic {{citation}}. WODUP 13:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking a specific citation template at Category:Citation templates, there's a guideline for doing it manually in this edu pdf, which offers the following examples:

Bodyworks: Discover the World Beneath Your Skin 1995, CD-ROM, Softkey International, Wimbledon Common, London.
Rosen, M. 1998, CD-ROM, 'Marx, Karl', in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. Craig, Routledge, New York.
Interactive Physiology 1999, CD-ROM, vol. 2, Muscular System, Instructor's edn, ADAM Software, Atlanta, Georgia

Note that I have not incorporated formating. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that looks good - many thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to articles in other WP languages

What is the format for linking to a Dutch article http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Bredius from within an article written in English. Rotational (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To link to the article in the text, [[:nl:Abraham Bredius|this]] produces this, and [[nl:Abraham Bredius]] adds the interwiki link to the languages section (on the left side of the page with the monobook skin). WODUP 13:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said, please know that other Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources and shouldn't be used to verify any information in in article. WODUP 13:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random science article

I can find a random article by clicking 'Random article' on the left, but is there any way I can restrict the results to specific contents? I'd like to find random articles about natural and physical sciences, geography, history etc...

Thanks for all answers...

Please help! I'm working on a school project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.217.48.179 (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a way to do it with the 'Random article' link I don't think, but there are several other ways to find what you want. Portals are one way. Try Portal:Science (and Portal:Contents/Natural and physical sciences), Portal:Geography, and Portal:History. Categories are another: using the same examples again, try Category:Science, Category:Geography, and Category:History. There are many many subcategories to those to refine it to exactly what you want, although I'm not aware of any way to have articles selected randomly. Also take a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles, which is divided into broad topics and is shorter and more navigable than the categories. I'm sure starting from just one of those pages, you'll find many hours of fascinating stuff. =) • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 15:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about the categories... But I was really hoping for a random search. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.109.124 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only know of an off-site random search for mathematics articles here. I got that from the user page of User:Cronholm144. Arthena^(talk) 18:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For an actual solution which is somewhat brute-force, see: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 December 6#random article options. This question comes up semi-frequently on the Help desk. --Teratornis (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

image tab sometimes broken on image discussion pages?

Description of the problem:
Sometimes the tabs at the tops of pages seem to stop working for images when following tab links.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Visit the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KDE_logo.svg link.
2. Click on discussion at the top.
3. When the page has loaded click on image at the top.

Expected result:
Contents of the KDE Logo page visited at step 1 to be visible.

Actual results:
"Permission error" is displayed.

How reproducible is the problem?
It is reproducible every time.

Additional query:
Is this expected behaviour?
87.112.74.244 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little bit annoying I agree. It happens for images which are hosted on Wikimedia Commons (rather than on Wikipedia) because the image page doesn't actually exist on Wikipedia, it's just transcluded from the the Wikimedia Commons description page. So linking to the image description page normally, displays it, but clicking the RED link on the tab invokes the edit action, and that doesn't pull up the description page. The solution is to use the back button in your browser instead of the tab or remove the action=edit from the URL of the page.

I tried to find an existing mention of this bug at Bugzilla but couldn't. I assume they must know about it though - as you say, it happens every time. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 15:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I put comments on the Peer Review page

I'm one of the people who has been working on bringing an article (Manga) up to GA status. There's a peer review section on the talk page, and we've been through most of the suggestions. Now I want to explain, on the Peer Review page, what we did and didn't do about the suggestions. There are too many to list on the talk page, and that list won't mean much without the suggestions directly next to them. Advice? Timothy Perper (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could always create a separate subpage for that purpose. I think it's fairly common practice to break off a discussion that would get really long into a separate page to avoid cluttering up the main talk page. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on stamps

I made a list of people on Ciskei and Transkei stamps both were deleted as they were deemed to be too short an article. However they are no different as to the info you already have on various countries in this category.

Galjoen (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on stamps of Ciskei and List of people on stamps of Transkei were deleted as "very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1)". Both contained a single entry (I wouldn't call that a list) when tagged for deletion, although one of them had a few more entries when deleted. But there was no introduction and no category like for countries in Category:Lists of people on stamps (adding the category with [[Category:Lists of people on stamps]] at the bottom of the list will show other editors that such lists are common). Try clicking "edit this page" at one of those lists and modify parts of the source for use in new pages, and don't create a list when it has a single entry. You can also contact Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately for advice. I'm not sure whether Ciskei and Transkei should have their own lists or be part of List of people on stamps of South Africa. Do you want the source of the deleted pages? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ailsa Craig Engines

Dear Sirs,

Our family Company biographer has attempted to input some data about the Company on Wikipedia. For some reason it has been removed.

I am the Grandson of the founder of the Company and have agreed for the link/input to happen.

Please would you reply to Mr Sayer and give the reasons for this deletion of entry.

Yours faithfully Chris Kisch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.19.130 (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given for deletion of Ailsa Craig Engines is "This item appears to be a copyright infringement of http://www.ailsacraigengines.co.uk/index.php?page=history, and no assertion of permission has been made." Wikipedia has to be very careful about copyrights, so text copied from another website usually isn't allowed. DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as someone closely connected to the company, you have a conflict of interest with regards to this topic. Therefore, copyright issues aside, the article could be considered spam and deleted. Wikipedia is not meant for advertising or promotion, and is written from a neutral point of view. Articles that serve only to promote a company or are written purely as advertising can be speedily deleted from the encyclopedia. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 16:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Watson (officer of arms)

Dear Sir/Madam,

When searching on the net, I sometimes find my own Wikipedia article on my family memember John Watson[Sometime Bluemantle at the college of Arms in London]

I note that since I submitted this article, various messages have been added to the page, re requiring it to be Wikified or cleaned up. My recent visit informs me that the article may be beleated?

I am at a loss as to what is wrong with the article, as I have researched this man thoroughly, and quoted all the souces used in my research!

Yours sincerely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.128.142 (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is John Watson (officer of arms). I guess you mean "may be deleted". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the article, wikified it, and removed the tags. It would be helpful if the ISBN of the texts could be given and the specific page/year of the Oxford National biography. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifying it means adding in square brackets as appropriate to link the article to other articles. In any event, the chap passes the notability criteria. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is wikilinking those links that are neccessary which is the core of wikification. Adding in section headers and formatting the lead whilst converting the refs to wikimarkup is another aspect. As you say though, meets the notability criteria and now looks alright as well. Woody (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logos, fair use and SVG format

I recently uploaded an SVG version of Image:Skype logo.png (tagged with {{Convert to SVG}}) at Image:Skype logo2.svg. Now I discovered this section at WT:Logos where someone brought the imo plausible argument that copyrighted company logos, under fair use, should not be uploaded in SVG format. WP:LOGOS says "For SVG formats, versions of the logo that contain significantly more detail than is necessary to display at the desired (low) resolution should be avoided." I'm not sure what exactly this means, and whether it applies to Image:Skype logo2.svg.

Another, related question concerns the use of fair use images in userspace. Since every instance of a fair use image needs a seperate rationale (and a good reason that necessitates the use of the image), it appears like FU images should basically never be used anywhere else than in articles, and sparingly there. Again, is there any specific rule with regard to that issue? Dorfklatsch 15:46, January 7, 2008

Not sure about the svg, I would think under theno high resolution think, it might be excluded? Don't know, in terms of fair-use in userspace, this is explicitly banned somewhere, a bot goes round and deletes them from userspace if I remember correctly. Woody (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(The bot is User:ImageBacklogBot which cites the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, in particular #9. Woody (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Dorfklatsch 20:06, January 7, 2008

Accidental reversion

Hi, I accidentally reverted this person's User_talk:86.152.204.0 edits, even though they were valid. I've tried to apologize on the talk page, but he seems to have taken offence and now (see my talk page) seems to want to leave Wikipedia. Could anyone else post something encouraging on his talk page to make him feel like Wikipedia is less of a hostile place?--RiverRubicon (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be mostly resolved. A couple different users stepped in to help out RiverRubicon. —Noah 17:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reporting NPOV vandalism by a dynamic IP

Rome: Total War is subject to daily NPOV vandalism by an IP in the 64.24.0.0 - 64.24.255.255 range which keeps editing the sentence "Hannibal Barca, commander-in-chief of the Carthaginian armies during the Second Punic War" to read "Hannibal Barca, the brilliant Carthaginian general during the Second Punic War". I suspect it's the same user since the edits are always the same and come from the same ISP, PaeTec Communications , but looking at the edit history most of the time only reveals this single edit, as they keep switching IPs. Where should I report this to? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best to report it RFP. Rudget . 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Conflict - If the IP Vandalism is persistent, you can ask for semi-protection at WP:WFPP. Otherwise I imagine you can warn the IP and possibly take it to WP:AN/I. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 17:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could request protection at RFP, if you're unfamiliar with how it works. Rudget . 17:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudget . 17:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of a response, then got word from Rudget that RFP was requested. I've thought about it, but I think it likely that the vandal will return after semi-protection expires if granted, which I've seen happen before elsewhere. Warning doesn't really work since they go back and revandalize using a new IP within the range mentioned above. I think it might be better to take action against the vandal himself, but I'm not sure how to do this since they're using such a wide range of IPs to vandalize from. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree partially there. By protecting the page, we're preventing any dynamic IP from adding it's POV per this thread. Rudget . 17:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's in the works, so let's see what happens. Another thing that isn't as consistent, various IPs I think have been changing the designation of Macedonia to something political; I haven't been handling these particular edits though and am not as familiar with the POV issues involved. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got a week off from POV reversions. Thanks for the report. Will monitor the situation. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotection to win a content dispute with an anon, yay! the system really does work!--172.132.108.224 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with an image

I've just come across this: Image:Tesco metro manchester.jpg. Clearly, it's in a place where one would expect to have little or no privacy- but I'm wondering whether the image is usable. As far as I understand (UK) law, when taking a group photograph, you must give potential subjects a chance to opt out, and I doubt this was the case here. What worries me (only a little) is that if someone in the photo sees themselves on Wikipedia, they may kick up a fuss. I've been unable to find any specific WP policy on this. Having said that, it's not very encyclopedic and I have commented it out pending advice. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been there, but I don't think that a good enough reason to keep. :P There's no policy per se but I'd advise bringing to IFD and quote absentee uploader, unencyclopedic etc, if you really want it deleted. See this. Rudget . 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content Deletion

Greetings Wikipedia,

I was looking at the list of notable online communities and noticed that Disaboom, a reputed online community for people with disabilities with over 180 million members should be represented. I have attempted to edit this list of sites, only to discover that within minutes, my entry is deleted. Disaboom has been a great resource for my family to cope with my sister being disabled, and I think it would be great if other families knew that this type of community existed. Thank you for your time and help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleenex0 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is list of social networking websites, where there is an established consensus that the list should only inclde sites that Wikipedia has articles about. The reason for this is to prevent spamming. (And, please note, I am not accusing you of spamming, but it is the case that that list has attracted a lot of people adding their own sites to it as a way of promoting them.) If the site meets the guideline for inclusion of articles about websites, please do create an article about it and then add it to the list, but please create the article and then add it to the list, not the other way around. (Full disclosure: I was one of the editors who removed Kleenex0's addition to the list.) -- AJR | Talk 19:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

180 million members sounds highly unlikely to me. Only add such an extreme claim with a very reliable source. I wouldn't accept the site itself for such a number. [4] claims: "Our network of 180 million and growing includes not just individuals with disabilities, but also medical practitioners, caregivers, employers, family members, teachers, and others." My guess is most of the 180 million in the "network" have never heard about Disaboom but are just people in their target group. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also question the claim of 180 million members; a Google search for: Disaboom finds a page that calls Disaboom "the first interactive online community for Americans living with disabilities." If "Americans" refers to residents of the United States, there are only about 300 million of us altogether, and I don't think more than half are living with disabilities of the severity served by Disaboom, or make their living as caregivers to that group. For perspective, consider that Wikipedia is a very large online project, and the English Wikipedia only has 48,462,860 registered users from the whole world, not just from one country. A site with 180 million members would be one of the top Web sites in the world, and would almost certainly already have an article on Wikipedia. This is not to say that Disaboom would necessarily fail our requirements for a Web site article, I'm just expressing doubts about the 180 million members claim, which seems impossible if Disaboom only targets "Americans." It would be hard to get 180 million Americans to join any particular Web site, even if the site covered the widest possible range of interests. There might not even be 180 million Americans who regularly use the Web. --Teratornis (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do wrong?

Recently I was warned for editing Jason Kidd's page when I added Mr. Mustache to his list of nicknames. The admin also said I was vandalizing his page. I have no idea how that would be vandalism...I didn't come up with the nick name. Mark Jackson did on the YES Network...so how did I vandalize his page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EH4L (talk • contribs) 19:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see two different users reverted your edits, presumably because they didn't think it was true. Calling someone "Mr Mustache" could well be interpreted as a derogatory/vandalism edit by vandalism patrollers who don't have time to check everything. It's also very important for biographical articles that all facts be sourced, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability. (Although in practice your edit might have been left alone if you had explained the addition in the edit summary instead of leaving it blank.) Since you were not actually vandalising the article you can safely remove the warning from your talk page. If you can find a reliable source for Jason Kidd's nicknames, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, and then you should replace the nickname and add the reference after it.

I hope this helps, and I hope you understand that nobody was picking on you, it's just a case of making sure all facts are reliably sourced. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should add a nickname if it's very rare as a Google search indicates. Has it actually been published by others than the person who created it? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protect

I want to protect a page. How Do I do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungwirthwillkillallrocks (talk • contribs) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only administrators can block pages. You can notify an admin and ask to have a page blocked if need be. What page is it that you needed blocked? ~ Bella Swan 20:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:RFPP and request protection there. :) Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 21:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget to look over the protection guidelines first to see if it really needs to be protected. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a Wikipedia article.

I am unable to find an explanation of the expression, "It depends upon whose bull is being gored." Is that because the meaning is considered to be obvious to everyone? Or is it because Wikipedia does not list common expressions along with an explanation of their origins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.82.189 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be the second option. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on articles on various subjects, not a collection of random info. I highly doubt there is any mention of such a quote in Wikipedia, and definitly not an article on it. ~ Bella Swan 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could try looking for it on wikiquote, a separate Wikimedia project devoted entirely to collections of quote. They might have some information on it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the phrase is "... whose ox is being gored"; not whose bull. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can search the Web for variations on the phrase plus some keywords to hopefully narrow down the search, for example: "ox is being gored" definition of the phrase. Unfortunately I don't see a concise definition and etymology of the phrase in the first few pages of results from that particular search, but it's easy to see how most writers use the phrase. Basically it refers to self-interest masquerading as morality, as is common in politics and real life. Many people will claim that something is "wrong" when it harms them (i.e., when their metaphorical ox is being gored), while not complaining about other things that benefit them while harming others (i.e., when someone else's ox is being gored). See also: self-serving bias. The first time I can recall hearing this phrase was from an economics professor when I was an undergraduate. Economics is the Dismal Science because often the best economists can do is provide politicians with a choice of which ox to gore, with no option to make everyone happy. --Teratornis (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

815 state highway 37 hammond ny

i just bought this home just wondering when it was built.can u plz help me sincerly yours mr david biddle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.8.7 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the encyclopedia Wikipedia. Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you bought a home in the United States, you probably have to pay property taxes. If so, your taxing authority (the people you pay your taxes to) will almost certainly have records about your home which will include its construction date. Hopefully you also had the home inspected before you purchased it, and the construction date should be in the inspector's report which you should have received. You could also ask your real estate agent if you bought the home through one. This question sounds a bit fishy because in my experience with real estate transactions, nobody buys a home without knowing the construction date, which figures into the assessed value for property taxes, the appraiser's valuation, etc. You might also want to determine the age of all the major appliances, the roofing, and so on, so you can make sure you have money to replace them when their times come. --Teratornis (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cells

if a person were to put together an exibit that will help visiters to a museum understand the basic unit of living things [cells] how or where would they get the information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.234.199 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest asking at the reference desk. This page (the help desk) is just for asking questions about how to use Wikipedia. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cell (biology) is a good place to start. Some illustrations in that article are available as scalable vector graphics files, which means you can scale them up to poster size while retaining quality (assuming you can find a large-format printer). As the illustrations are under free licenses, you are free to reproduce them for your exhibit, while complying with whatever attribution requirements the licenses stipulate. See for example Image:Biological cell.svg. --Teratornis (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does wikipedia completely delete articles?

Recently my cousin created an article pertaining to a family activity. This article called "Operation:Groundhog" can no longer be found. It did exist for a few months until its dissapearance. Is there any way it can be retrieved? From M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2010mldoyle (talk • contribs) 23:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted under CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. It is very unlikely that it will be undeleted but you may be able to get an administrator to restore the contents to your userpage. NF24^{(radio me!)} 23:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see: WP:WWMPD. (Side observation: I think it is rather deplorable that the design of Wikipedia does little or nothing to insure that before people create their first new articles on Wikipedia, they are at least aware that Wikipedia deletes more than a thousand articles per day! Surely it could not be too difficult to put something in the software that detects when a user with few edits is creating their first new article, and show them a warning screen.) --Teratornis (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been an article called Operation:Groundhog. If you request a copy then you will have to give enough information to find it, for example the exact title or the username that created it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation: Groundhog with a space was created 10 January 2007 and deleted 2 February 2007. It was very unsuited for Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

If an article already has interviews in the external links section, why when I added interviews that were relevant and a good source of further information, removed? Why are some interviews allowed, and others not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oracle919 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that none of them are allowed, they just haven't been removed yet. Note that Wikipedia is not a collection of links. If the link contains some particularly relevant and/or useful find that helps the article then it'll be allowed. Or if it's the official website(s) of the subject in question, it's allowed. Other stuff, since it can be found with a simple web search anyway, isn't. See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google.

With regard to the specific interview links you added, I don't see anything wrong with them. I see you've already contacted Precious Roy about it, since he went on a spree of systematically removing them. Perhaps other editors here can give their opinion on whether those links conform to WP:EL or not. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with StatusBot

Lately StatusBot does not seem to be showing when I am online, and it used to show when I was... VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 23:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StatusBot crashed in September. A replacement, Chris G Bot 3 was put up but I've heard that's only been working very slowly. You could leave a note on Chris G Bot 3's talk page to let the bot operator know about it though. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 23:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]