Help desk
< April 26	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 28 >

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.

April 27

ARA Libertad (Q-5) Image

Hi, I have created the Ara libertad article and I don't know how to put the image that is hosted in wikicommons, the image's url is this: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:Q2ARALibertad.jpg Any help will be appreciated.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bcartolo (talk • contribs) 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry forgot to sign Bcartolo 14:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is uploaded to the Spanish Wikipedia at the moment, not Commons. I think that you need to upload it to Commons so that anyone can use it. Incidentally, to maintain chronological order, please add new posts at the end of the page by using the Plus tab or the New Question link. Adrian M. H. 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for skipping the line, I didn't do it on purpose. I have uploaded the image in wikipedia english Bcartolo 23:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link incorrect

Hi

In the article about the Workers Film & Photo League, there is a link to Sam Brody's biography. This must be a different Sam Brody, who died in 1967, because the WFPL Sam Brody died in 1987. (See http://www.sambrody.com/)

I'm sorry, I've never edited on Wikipedia before, and have no idea how to separate one page's link to another.

thanks

Archiving talk page

Well, someone said I should archive my talk page, and gave me a link. I followed the instructions at the link to move my page to Archive 1, however, this made my talk page a redirect, so I undid it, then I deleted my talk page and put something like "this is Archive 1" in the edit summary, and now, apparently, I've disappeared my talk page or something. Couldn't someone just put instructions for those who don't know how to do it already on pages like how to pages? After all, if I were computer savvy and new how to do it, I wouldn't need the directions. I tried once before archiving, but lost the page that time, too. I also once created a sandbox and can't find it. KP Botany 02:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was the undo, I think. Just manually edit to remove the redirect, and it should work fine. I reverted the edit on the archive page, though, so it should be there now. -Amarkov moo! 02:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think it was voodoo, though. Anyway, I asked on your talk page if you could explain it to me, but just ignore that. I now have a talk page, and an archive, and a link to it, so that's more than enough this month. And if you don't answer on my talk page, it will be even longer before I have to do it again. KP Botany 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on image license

1. Someone goes to the local Sears store and gets a portrait of themselves. 2. They give it to me with permission to use in an Article. 3. They are OK for other people to use the image.

Can someone PLEASE tell me what license category this falls under? I keep trying and the image keeps getting deleted. Thank you Smonzavi 03:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject of a picture, unless it is transferred. Do you know if Sears transfer the copyright? Notinasnaid 06:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most photostudios definitely don't transfer copyrights. DreamGuy 20:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parameters of a template can't contain HTML tags?

I am editng a simple template which looks like:

 {| style="background: #ffd; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; padding: 6pt; margin: 12pt 8%; width: 80%; margin: auto;"
 |- valign="top"
 | style="width: 58px;" | [[Image:Circle-question.svg|40px]]
 | {{{1}}}
 |}

When I was trying to use it like:

{{MyTemplate|
<font color=red>'''red'''</font> + <font color=green>'''green'''</font> = <font color=blue>'''blue'''</font>
}}

I was expecting it to show something like:

red + green = blue

But what I got is:

{{{1}}}

Where did I go wrong? Please help! PegasusRoe 03:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The equals sign is throwing off the parser -- when using variables containing an equals sign, use |1= (or else it'll think you're naming a variable, if that makes sense). – Luna Santin (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, it works. -PegasusRoe 06:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insane Clown Posse

i was just wondering on the ICP section under the albums the Amazing Jeckel Brothers album says gold but when you go to the albums section of that album in the writing it says its went platinum i was wondering which is write. i think its platinum though

Sounds like someone edited one without changing the other. Do either of these claims have links or other sources to back them up? - Mgm|^(talk) 07:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change wikipedia color scheme?

Is there a feature to change the wikipedia color scheme. The white background and black text is really hurtful on my eyes so is there a way to reverse the colors? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.251.152 (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for a good answer to that question. :) Registered users can select one of several Wikipedia schemes (or "skins") and can further customize those skins through user CSS subpages. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as changing your "skin", have you considered turning down the brightness on your monitor? Many people do run their monitors way too bright. It would hurt my eyes too, but properly adjusted I use a monitor all day. Notinasnaid 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

I'm Checco. I'm not able to log in anymore. I was logged until one hour ago, but at one point I was suddenly logged out. I didn't change my password, but they say that the password I entried is "incorrect". What can I do? --151.16.141.62 09:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if passwords are case-sensitive, but you should try with a lower-case first letter if you entered it like that when you signed up. Did you give an email address when you signed up? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried both the options (capitalized and non capitalized). The problem is that they say that I didn't give my e-mail. It seems strange to me, but it is so. If I give you my e-mail, could you help me? --151.16.141.62 10:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody help me? Do I need to create a new account? --151.16.141.62 11:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your password isn't the same as your username, is it? If it is, and you haven't set an email, it'll need a bureaucrat to sort out. (All the usernames who had passwords the same as their username were blocked by developers for security reasons (this is a very recent development); requesting a password reminder will unblock the account if the email's set. A bureaucrat could solve the problem by temporarily renaming the account to cause it to be different from the password.) --ais523 13:02, 27 April 2007 (U T C)

not able to view my page made in wikipedia through google search

i have created a new page in wikipedia. the page was a link from another site of wikipedia which exists. i saved the new page. when i tried to search the same page in google i am not able to view it but when i open the existing page and then clicked the link, then my page is visible.

i am not able to view my page directly from google.203.99.42.141 09:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google needs time to find the page and pick it up in its search index before it can be found through Google. Please be patient. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google indexes pages in its own good time. It could be hours, days or even weeks until it indexes a page. To index a page, Google must be able to find it. This is one of the reasons that it is essential to make sure that other Wikipedia articles have relevant links to your article. An article that has no links to it may be invisible to Wikipedia. What is the name of the article? Notinasnaid 09:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I thought there would a special script that needs to be incorporated in wikipedia page. That is why i was confused. now i am clear. Thanks a lot.

how to use tami font in wikipedia site.

Please tell me the process of usage of tamil words in my site in wikipedia webpage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.99.42.141 (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Invoolvement of Junior managers in company planning

$Insertformulahere$ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.129.67.169 (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Requesting an audio file pronunciation to be made

Where can i request a pronunciation to be made into an audio file?C hris_huh^talk 10:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested recordings or if that isn't too active, Wikipedia:Spoken Wikipedia (who do full articles). If you ask at my talk page and I know how to pronounce it, I'd be happy to do it tonight. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion needed for redirect?

User:Splash has removed all content from Epigram (newspaper) and redirected it to University of Bristol; on this latter page there is no mention of Epigram at all. I (and another user) asked User:Splash about this on their talk page, to which they replied:

Delete and redirect are not the same thing at all - AfD does not need to be used for simple redirects. The article was excessive detail on a minor point about the University (it's not like Epigram has actually ever done anything famous outside the Uni). It bears a brief mention in the main article, and no more.

As far as I can see, this is not a simple redirect, and has effectively deleted the whole article. Any advice? Tim (Xevious) 11:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a sound redirect. The alternative would be to nominate for deletion, since the article that was there [1] makes no assertion of notability. Notinasnaid 11:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But let's look at your options if you wish to challenge that editor's view that the subject is notable. Take a look first at Wikipedia:Notability to decide exactly how it is notable. You are free to revert the redirect, but to avoid edit warring you should explain in full your reasoning on the talk page. Also, quickly add something to the article that emphasises the notability of the subject: for example a reference to a published book written about the newspaper, that sort of thing. If you simply redirect without doing this the article may stay there; or it might be nominated for deletion, a formal process of discussion of whether the article should stay based on Wikipedia's policies. It's up to individual editors what happens, nobody is in charge. Notinasnaid 11:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll have a job finding a book about *any* newspaper, let alone student ones! Nevertheless, a quick search did reveal a citation to Epigram in The Times : http://e-paper.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/student/news/article640320.ece - so there may well be somethin out there. Cheers. Tim (Xevious) 12:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is mentioned in the see also section which doesn't make sense if the link just redirects back to the uni page. How about merging? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

animal ethics

I have just spend literally hours writing and creating a new page called Animal Ethics in Wikipedia. A notice has just appeared on the page saying it may be deleated because of copyright:

"This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement of {{{url}}}, and no assertion of permission has been made. (CSD G12)Speedy concern: This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement of {{{url}}}, and no assertion of permission has been made. (CSD G12)"

I wrote the page and based it on stuff I have also written at Brute Ethics: http://wwww.animalethics.org.uk. There is no copyright problem.

I am too exhusted to search and read all though your guidelines on what I should do, though I have tried. So either you CLEARLY tell me what to do or you can damn well delete the page and incur my wroth never to contribute to Wikipedia again!

My email address is gluecat@yahoo.ocm

gluecat Gluecat 11:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no way of knowing that you are really the copyright owner. If you want to release your text under the GFDL, free for anyone to reuse, sell, or rewrite, you can add a notice to that effect clearly on the original page; then it is will be clear that Wikipedia is allowed to use the material too. Of course, other editors will start changing it, so it may soon be nothing like your original text. However, even if we overcome the copyright issue, this appears to be a personal essay rather than an impartial encyclopedia article. Statements like "The injustice humanity is doing to animals amounts to an animal holocaust (Patterson 2002) that we have to confront" seem to imply an editorial view, which breaches the neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia. (This could be written as "Patterson asserts that..." but this is only one example). It might be better to continue to use a different platform if you want to have articles that support your point of view, unless you are happy to have it mercilessly rewritten to be fully inclusive of the all points of view. Notinasnaid 11:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this probably should be redirected and merged (that is, whatever is neutral POV and reliably sourced) to Animal rights#Philosophy, which already has coverage of the same issue. Calliopejen1 12:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm wondering about the thought process that leads someone to spend hours editing on Wikipedia before reading through the guidelines. What is it about Wikipedia's user interface that encourages this behavior? Choosing not to read through the guidelines before editing at length is equivalent to betting that one already knows what the guidelines say. My question is how a person's previous life experiences could have engendered such confidence. Such a person must have enjoyed vastly more success at guessing how unfamiliar things work than I have. Generally before I meet a new person, for example, I cannot accurately guess that person's favorite food, taste in music, place of birth, educational attainment, or any number of things. I have to try not to assume too much, and let the person tell me about himself or herself. Similarly with a new software package, Web site, etc., I expect the new thing to have any number of features that work differently than I expect based on my earlier experiences with other things that defied my expectations. If I need to get something done in a hurry with a new system, I try to find someone who has more experience with it, so I can run my idea by them and find out if I'm on the right track. Whether I can find expert help or not, I expect to RTFM. Every complex software package, development tool, and so on typically has lengthy manuals, and reading them is the most efficient way to learn. However, on the Help desk we have an endless parade of new users who couldn't be bothered to RTFM, and then feel offended after running afoul of Wikipedia's intricate rules. The odds of a brand-new user being able to write new articles from scratch on Wikipedia without reading the manuals first, and having the articles "stick," is probably low, and getting lower all the time as most of the potentially "encyclopedic" topics get written about, leaving the remaining topics ever more marginal. Perhaps someday Wikipedia will require new users to pass some sort of quiz before being allowed to create a first article, just some basic questions to see whether the new users are at least aware of policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:OR. --Teratornis 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a rhetorical question? I'd wager if we asked seasoned editors if they read the manual, or just edited, at least 90% would be in the latter group. Editing wikipedia without a manual is easy - just examine the markup code in a few random articles and go to town. Your ability goes up with practice - I still read and reread manuals now, but for my first hundred edits I probably hadn't seen a page that was Wikipedia:Some Topic. WilyD 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spent quite a long time - over the course of a week or so - reading guidelines and watching how the fundamentals worked (editing methods, etc.) before I even created an account. Perhaps that is unusual, but I saw the obvious need to be prepared, and I had been a Wikipedia user (without editing) for some time. I was able to create a reasonably decent first article and be confident that it would not be deleted forthwith. Apart from anything else, I didn't want to stand out as a complete newbie. I remain naively in the vain hope that all new editors (those with genuine intentions, at least) will want to take the same preparatory approach and be willing to learn before jumping head first off the highest diving board! Oh well. C'est la vie. Adrian M. H. 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And notice how the questioner begins: "I have just spend literally hours writing and creating a new page..." My question for WilyD: did your first few hundred edits consist of spending literally hours writing and creating a new page? It's easy to make small edits to existing articles without reading any manuals. Fixing typos, for example, is pretty obvious. New users who make small changes to existing articles are guided by the structure of those articles. Problems begin when new users try to create new articles from scratch, with no existing structure to guide them. Not everybody will understand the necessary structure by looking at other existing articles, nor will everybody understand what topics are suitable for new articles. Wikipedia's 2000 article deletes per day proves that. It's easy to observe in business and academics as well as on Wikipedia that people vary widely in their ability to look at some new complex system and "get it." People should at least be aware that whenever we are new to something that is different than anything we have used before, serious misconceptions are possible, and it's better to discover our misconceptions before we sink hours of work into something. This reminds me of a story I was told about a group of students who were attempting to drive from southern Ohio to Florida. After several hours of driving, they were surprised to see a sign that said "Welcome to Michigan." This meant they started off driving in the wrong direction, north instead of south, and they ignored all the subtle indications of their error (such as the mysterious disappearance of the Ohio River) until they finally received an indication that was impossible to ignore. When starting off on any journey, it is extremely important to be sure one is going in the right direction. The less familiar the surroundings are, the more independent methods of checking one needs. In the case of Wikipedia, that would mean: look at existing articles, read the manuals, ask experts, find out how other new users are doing. --Teratornis 08:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I don't know that everyone will jump in the same way. It only took me a few hours to move off talk pages to articles, but a couple months before I participated in any other process (an AfD after two months) - as far as I can tell, apart from putting a babel template on my own page, I didn't start a new page for almost a year. But I only ever learnt policy as it came up, at least in my first year or so. I do try to make a point of reading all the finer points now. WilyD 16:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia acsess problems

my friend somehow dosen't have accses to wikipedia. she is very upset and would like to acsess it. please reply back as to how she can acsess it once again.

thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.43.230.133 (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's very difficult to help without more details. What exactly happens when your friend tries to access Wikipedia? If there are any error messages, please quote them exactly. Notinasnaid 12:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And can she access other Web sites? --Teratornis 20:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rochester. ny

rochester, ny —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.187.128.207 (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Rochester, New York indeed! Dismas|^(talk) 14:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about New York, New York? *Cremepuff 222* 14:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer New New York. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forest aid

Hi I would like to set up a new article about the organisation forest aid, which aims to halt deforestation.

Its key aims can be seen below. • To secure lease agreements with governments in the equatorial belt. • Leasing forests and managing them for future generations. • Making use of local knowledge by working with indigenous people to manage the forests using renewable sustainable techniques. • Instigate replanting programmes Can you help me set this up?

Maybe the page WP:YFA would be helpful to you. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 15:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extra space

I can't seem to get rid of an extra space at Template:Basketballbox; for example, if everything left blank, there should be no space at the bottom but it exists. For an example, see Talk:2007 NBA Playoffs#Dallas-Warriors series, where right before "If needed", an extra empty row is seen. --Howard the Duck 15:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of answers suggests this question is not easy for people to answer. When asking for help with a coding problem, the general rule is to create the shortest possible example that illustrates the problem. That way people can help without first having to slog through lots of irrelevant code to find where the problem is. Sometimes you can solve your own problem by making the smallest possible example that displays the problem, because when you remove all the distracting irrelevant code, the problem becomes obvious. Try copying Template:Basketballbox to something like User:Howard the Duck/Basketballbox (which you can transclude on another user test page with {{User:Howard the Duck/Basketballbox}}, I think), and try cutting out everything in the template unrelated to the problem. See if the problem persists when you cut the template down. If it does, the problem must be somewhere in the (hopefully few) lines of code in your small example. If cutting it down makes the problem go away, then the problem must have been caused by some line you cut out. --Teratornis 08:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I figured out the problem on this one. --Howard the Duck 10:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Staying logged in

I created an account "graymc" and can login successfully but as soon as I click a link to go to another page - to say, start a new article, I am logged out. So I cannot start a new article.67.142.130.43 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that cookies are set in your browser, and then try using the 'remember me' checkbox. If neither of these solutions work, use the alternative (slower) interface; this seems to help especially for people using satellite ISPs (although it's worth a try on any ISP). Hope that helps! --ais523 15:55, 27 April 2007 (U T C)

Move page button not showing

I want to capitilize the title of my article on 'Narinder dhami' to 'Narinder Dhami'. I've read your help but no 'move tab' is showing despite your note:

"With the correct page displayed, click on the "Move" tab near the top of the page. "

I'm using MS I Explorer 7 in case Firefox did not display it properly. There is nothing listed in the quickbar either. I've given up. Can you help?

thanks

Robbie999

The 'move' feature becomes available once your account is at least 4 days old. In the meantime, you can request moves here or at WP:VPA; I'll just make the move for you. --ais523 15:51, 27 April 2007 (U T C)

WP:VPA? WP:RM (aka requested moves) makes more sense, I think. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

add my bio to wikipedia

thanks for accepting my email. i am interested in adding my brief but important(to me) data on your site. how do i do so?

Shelleypd 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AUTO to see our policy on adding an autobiography. You may also want to check WP:BIO to see if you are notable enough for an article. Dismas|^(talk) 16:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

I need help with everything on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bubblegum9898 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

For general guidance, the Introduction and Tutorial are good places to start, with the help pages being available as a more in-depth guide. If any specific questions come up, feel free to ask back here or use {{helpme}} on your talk page. --ais523 16:18, 27 April 2007 (U T C)

Linking

how i can link name,place etc in wikipedia with each other

If you are asking what I think your asking, when editing a page simply putm two brackets around text to link to that title in the English Wikipedia.

By typing this:

     [[Apple Inc.]]

You achieve this:

Apple Inc.

I hope this is what you were looking for, if not ask again. (Also, please start a new section when asking a question or posting a comment on a talk page.) Scottydude _talk 17:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you need to read the Wikipedia:Tutorial page. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how do i

i want to see videos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigsexxxysoldier (talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Buy a video player. AndyJones 18:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating a deleted category

Are there any Wikipedia rules/procedures when recreating a deleted category? Pointers to information would be welcome. — Jonathan Bowen 18:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use WP:DRV, just like with articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ibid

I just made this edit. My question is, how do I deal with the practicalities of providing several (often consecutive) sources from the same book or article. Clearly I can't say "ibid" because another good-faith editor can easily come along and either remove the first sentence with its source, or insert an intervening sourced sentence. However it seems a bit odd to have to repeat all the book details in each footnote. Is there any guidance on this one? AndyJones 18:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several was to handle this issue. One is to create a "Sources" section in which all cited books are listed in full, then each foot note need only refer to the title, author or other short distinctive tag from the sources section. That may be best if there are lots of citations to a few works. If ther are only a few, jsut repeat the citation info. See WP:CITE for more, particualrly the section Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes". DES ^(talk) 18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are citing the same pages in the same book, you can use the same ref in multiple places. Format the first ref as usual but begin it with <ref name="Descriptive Name"> instead of <ref>. Then, for all the others, just use <ref name="The name you chose before"/>. If you are citing different pages in the book though, I would recommend doing each one individually or as DES said above. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new template providing a solution to the problem of an article cited many times and which you want to provide the page numbers but keep the citation as a single entry. Follow the instruction of Mr.Z-man above, but after each subsequent cite (i.e. after each iteration of "<ref name="The name you chose before"/>, just add {{rp|page number(s)}}. This will make it so that in the text the footnote citation has a page number appended. As an example, if you were citing to page 282-3 of the article's third citation, the footnote would look like this: ^[3]:282-3. Fuhghettaboutit 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great-- I had been doing it manually by putting in the page number in parentheses following the <ref name=whatever />

And the other way--the truly professional way, in my opinion, giving results very close to professional composed material-- is Harvard referencing, but then the whole article has to be done that way, and most people find it much more work.DGG 06:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self Promotion

I see a rule against self-promotion, but I also see many articles about companies. How does one who represents a new company post a factual, new page about the company without violating the self-promotion rule? Find "Express Scripts" for example. It's hard to believe that anyone other than the Express Scripts company created that page. Does a company have to pay to create a page about itself? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JREiseman (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See WP:CORP for the relevent criteria on whether companies should have articles. Companies often mess around with their own page, but editors are encouraged to mercilessly force them into a neutral point of view - editing articles about yourself is discouraged. Express Scripts seems to be traded on a stock exchange, which is (I believe) a criterion that allows a page on a company. WilyD 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:CORP page changed, but companies with NASDAQ listings used to be considered worthy of an article. The key point in the self-promotion rule is not to write the article when you're related to the company (so no, they don't have to pay, because they wouldn't get something in return). I removed the promotional tone from the article you mentioned. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Express Scripts. The article isn't at all ideal: it has no references, and doesn't sufficiently assert its notability. But I don't see why you feel it must have been written by a representative. Its text looks balanced in subject and tone, and the sort of thing that could have been written with a little research on the company web site and financial newspaper sites. If I felt a company was notable I might write an article very much like that one. Do you have an example of a company article which you feel is different, a good model for company articles? Notinasnaid 07:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking this question as a company representative looking to create an article: firstly, thanks for asking here before ploughing ahead - it reflects well on you and your organisation that you've taken the time to familiarise yourself with our policies rather than inadvertently being responsible for spam. Secondly, you may wish to take a look at our guidelines on Conflicts of Interest and an interesting essay by one of the administrators who often deals with COIs entitled "The Dark Side". In general, it may be best not to create an article about your own company to avoid the appearance of impropriety, even if you're careful to remain neutral. If your company is notable enough to warrant an article, it's likely that an independent party will decide to write one at some point. --YFB ¿ 07:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories displayed at the top?

Hello,

How can I have the categories listed at the top of an article instead of at the bottom? I know it should be possible because I read something about it a while ago, but I can't figure it out. Thanks, S Sepp 20:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:US. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had never seen that area before.S Sepp 13:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Could someone please get me one of the proton packs from Ghostbusters? Sgt. Bond 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Ebay? WiiAlbanyGirl 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but those are fake proton packs. I mean a real one where if you cross the streams it causes total protonic reversal. NOTE: For those who don't know what I mean consider this: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously & every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. Sgt. Bond 19:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting this on WP:BJAODN! →Ed Gl 22:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My body has a lot more molecules than neurons. Since I use the neurons to imagine the molecules, it's hard for me to imagine all the molecules doing something at the same time. I also have a hard time imagining the speed of light. But you did only say to try to imagine it. --Teratornis 08:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how do i save?

how do you save a page on wikipedia or keep it as a favorite? {{help me}} signed, Brathailia23 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to post 3 times, just once is enough. (By the way, {{help me}} is supposed to be used on your user talk page. Since there's no need for it here, I've turned it into a link.) Anyway, to "bookmark" a page on Wikipedia, just click the watch tab at the top of the page you want to bookmark. It'll be added to your Watchlist, where you can track all changes to the page. You also get links to the page and its history from there. Pyro spirit ^Shiny! 20:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Tip of the day/January 28 - Your very own Wikipedia bookmark page. --Teratornis 08:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you make creating your own account easier

I have had so much trouble creating my own article and I was hoping you could make it easier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.88.108.118 (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I assume you're referring to the CAPTCHA?--VectorPotential^Talk 20:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What trouble did you have? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

film/charlie chaplin/1940/ the dictator

I am looking for the concluding speech[actual words] that charlie chaplin

gave in the 1940 film the dictator.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.207.77.74 (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Try here. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

freecell article

Someone has added graffiti to the freecell article. plase edit and delete. Thank you. Mitchell Katz 513 369-6909

Could you be more specific? It's a large article, and the graffiti is not inherently obvious. Thanks! WiiAlbanyGirl 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresented Article - Need Some Advice

I tend not to completely revamp an existing article without asking for some opinion first. However, this article is in desperate need for attention. Master_of_Public_Health is terribly written, and is misrepresented because people who do not understand what an MPH is have listed a plethora of schools. The issue is this: Only schools accredited by the CEPH offer a degree of Master of Public Health. Honestly, the list of schools on that page DO have public health programs, but these are not accredited by the CEPH, and therefore, do not offer MPHs. There offer other things, like certificate programs that do not require accredation. I am currently in an MPH program in Epidemiology, and I am well aware of the ins and outs of the CEPH, and what schools offer an MPH. For example, only 3 schools in New York offer an MPH - Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, SUNY Albany's School of Public Health, and the New York Medical College School of Public Health. NO other schools in the state have an accredited program, although SUNY Stonybrook is under review right now for accredation. Programs that only offer certificates and not MPHs should not be listed in the article specifically listed for the MPH. Obviously, schools outside of the United States are different, but those in the US are being greatly misrepresented. I have vast resources to fix this, but it will be overhauled substantially. I have a long list of intelligent contributions, as you can easily see. Do I have to go ahead and support to do this? Thanks! WiiAlbanyGirl 21:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of the article in question is a better venue for this. Friday (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article I have just submitted

I have just created an accounted and submitted an article about a young family band from Scotland called 'GiveWay' It then showed a notice for 'speedy deletion' There are lots of pages about family bands and sibling bands and I wanted to add this band and also put them onto to the list in 'Family Bands' but i don't know how to do that

I don't understand how this works Can you help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donnamacrae (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A wikilink would be helpful; I'll search for the article in a minute via your contribs. Anyway, questions that spring to mind: Is it notable? Did you provide a source? Are you personally involved? Did it read like promotion? Adrian M. H. 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that GiveWay has been tagged under G11 - promotion/advertising. And I can see why. I'd be willing to help you improve it if it has the potential to meet the minimum standards. I'll get into more detail if necessary; leave me a message (click my initials) if you would like my help. In the meantime, follow the instructions on the tag if you can offer a good reason to contest the nomination. Adrian M. H. 22:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Bands should satisfy WP:BAND and demonstrate that with references. GiveWay has no references at all. If you can add references to reliable sources then the article is more likely stay. PrimeHunter 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

opposite of {main|...}

Is there an opposite of the {{main|...}} tag? That is, to show the article for which this is a summary article? Bubba73 (talk), 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try {{Further}}, its fairly generic. If you need something really specific, I'd suggest making a custom one. I'd make a suggestion but I'm having a hard time picturing the context this would be used in. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the situation: You have a summary article (WP:SS) and it uses the {main} tag to point to other articles with other details. If a person comes across one of these other articles, it might be nice to know what summary article referrs to it, i.e. make {main} a two-way function. Bubba73 (talk), 23:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple incoming articles you may want to just use a See Also section with a bulleted list of incoming and related articles. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I was hoping that there would be an easier way of navigating back to the Summary Style article. In my mind, {details} or {further} should go to the article with the details and {main} should take you to the summary article, but {main} is used for the other direction. Bubba73 (talk), 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) At present, rules of chess lists draw (chess) as a main article and draw (chess) lists rules of chess as a main article. (I'm probably the one that caused this situation months ago, not understanding that main actually points to the more detailed article.)

Anyhow, I think chess has main article links to rules of chess and other articles, rules of chess has similar links to draw (chess) and others. draw (chess) has similar links to stalemate and others. There is no easy way for a reader to navigate through these in the "up" direction. That's what I'm talking about. It would be really nice if article X has a {main|Y} that a tag in Y would say that it came from X. Bubba73 (talk), 00:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User needs assistance

User:JuWiki left a request for help at my talk page. He is unable to login using his correct username/password. Was he accidentally blocked? or how would he get his password reset? Thank you, Postoak 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been an increase in login problems lately - not sure why, or if it's just coincidental. Have a look at Help:Logging in first, which lists a few of the most common issues, or suggest that he try the secure server login (for which I don't have a link, unfortunately). Adrian M. H. 11:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help pages

Some of the "how to edit Wikipedia" pages are in a bit of a mess. I fixed a couple of small things, and if I feel enthusiastic enough I might tackle one or two more, but there are a couple of points I'm unsure about.

In some places there is a confusing overlap between the "Wikipedia" help pages and a bunch of pages that are apparently "a copy of the master help page at Meta" (whatever that means). For example, under Wikipedia:How to edit a page there is no mention of, say, indents, numbering, bullets and section headings; for some unknown reason these are covered at Help:Editing instead. Some topics (such as bold and italic) are covered in different ways on both pages. Similarly, there is another "master" page at Help:Link that covers the link syntax and largely duplicates what's at Wikipedia:How to edit a page. There is no logic to it that I can see. Can anyone explain what these "master" help pages at "Meta" are all about, and why we need both these and "Wikipedia" help pages?

At one time there was at least one ongoing project to tidy up the Help pages. In fact I think there might have been several. Does anyone know if any of these are still active, and where the project page resides (if that's the right term)? I can't seem to now find where the project(s) lived.

If there's a more appropriate place to ask these questions then please let me know. Matt 23:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

This site, http://en.wikipedia.org, is the English language Wikipedia. "Meta" refers to http://meta.wikimedia.org which is a coordination site for the Wikipedia sites in all 251 languages currently hosted. Many of the help pages here (at en.wikipedia.org) are copies of the same page from "meta".

Wikipedia:Help Project is probably one of the help tidy-up projects you're remembering. It seems to be inactive at the moment. Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability is related and looks to still be active. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "master" help pages on Meta (such as m:Help:Link) are more or less generic to all the thousands of MediaWiki wikis. Individual wikis may further customize their own help pages. The result on a given wiki may well include lots of overlap and duplication as you see on Wikipedia. You can try to clean it up if you want, but with thousands of other editors adding new pages as they see fit, any master plan will be under relentless assault. Consider that all those duplicate pages were written by various people who thought they were addressing some need by writing them. Personally, I haven't had much problem looking things up in the help pages, and I'm not bothered by duplicate content as long as it is consistent. I think other problems on Wikipedia are in more need of attention, such as improving our outreach to new users who seem to create most of the ill-fated 2000 articles that get deleted every day. --Teratornis 09:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how much trouble newbies have with finding information, I think duplication is a good thing. It makes things easier to find. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]