Help desk
< May 9	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 11 >

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.

May 10

finding ancestors

I need help on my family heritage and there history! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.204.244.198 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- Sorry...this isn't the geneology center. You also need help with distinguishing there from their. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or Genealogy, even. ;) Adrian M. H. 17:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screen appearance

Is there somewhere else I can get help? I put thsi new skin on my screen but it's messing things up. The buttons are all on top of each other and stuff. Marcus Taylor 00:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes skins don't appear perfect with certain browsers. What browser(s) are you using? I personally like to stick to the default MonoBlock. Scottydude _talk 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer. Marcus Taylor 05:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What version? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia style

Is there a consensus of British versus American English in wikipedia articles? For example, any set rule over spellings such as color/colour or edema/oedema? Please answer here or preferably on mu usertalk. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the manual of style entry —Mitaphane _?|! 01:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Password

I've lost my password. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.127.239 (talk • contribs) 04:00, May 10, 2007

Did you give your email address when you signed up? If you didn't you're out of luck. Sorry. Please register a new account and make sure you give an email address so the software can send you a new password if you forget it. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do i create an article about a company?

I am trying to create an atricle about a company and I want it to put it in proper category. But unfortunately i am not able to do this is there a template to do this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.200.7.2 (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See Help:Starting a new page. To add article X to category Y, edit article X and at the bottom include [[Category:Y]]. For more info, see Wikipedia:Categorization. Confusing Manifestation 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOS help

Can anyone point me to anything in the manual of style or elsewhere that speaks to whether or not to use codes in articles where the plain text symbol is available. For instance, is it preferable or not (or neutral) to use "& #93;" (which renders like this: "]") instead of a plain text bracket?--Fuhghettaboutit 06:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't clash with wikilinking, I'd say use the regular bracket so the source is readable to newbies. On the other hand: if the article is primarily English and you need a Chinese or Arabic name to render, you're probably better off using codes, so it displays even if someone edits the page who would cause those letters to display as boxes or question marks, but that's just me. Is there any specific article you are talking about? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am thinking of a particular article I just wrote but there really is no need for specificity. It comes up often. I write an article and an editor will come along and make an edit solely to change a plain text symbol to code and the purpose baffles me. Of course I see the reason with foreign names, but brackets? em- and en-dashes? See what I mean?--Fuhghettaboutit 12:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if someone doesn't have the character fonts and they edit the page, the characters will not change; it will only display as boxes on their screen, but the coding will be saved regardless of what form it is in. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 17:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messages about spamming

hello. i have tried to add some links to websites such as "neck face" or 'rigo 23" we are a non profit arts organization, where these artists have had shows. i see that commercial galleries have links. why can we not have a link to either the gallery if the artist has shown there or make a link to an article. keep getting messages that i am spamming```` many thanks, laurie lazer luggagestore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luggagestore (talk • contribs)

Thank you for asking. Please note that you should never add links to any organisation you are connected with. This is certainly called spamming, whether the organisation is non-profit or anything else. You can propose the link on the talk page of each article if you want. Please read Wikipedia:External links. Notinasnaid 08:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Deletion

This article --> The_ASBO contains swearing and is pointless. There is no need to reply to this. This article just needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maple7212 (talk • contribs) Notinasnaid 11:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this to the end of the page, where it will be seen. I notice you have not completed the Article For Deletion process, by following the instructions in the box. Unless you (or someone else) do this, nothing will happen. Notinasnaid 11:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Winning the "Ballynacally music festival" may not be enough to have this band listed, but vandalism is not a good reason for deletion. I've fixed the article and see if there's enough vandalism around to protect it. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

24.59.44.205 My Lai Massacre this guys messing up articles, could someone warn him --McNoddy 11:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. _ Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at this Wikipedia:Cleaning_up_vandalism. WP:TWINKLE is a good tool to combat vandalism yourself. ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 13:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

use of my work without citation or reference

On this social change page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_change I wrote several parts of this page, years ago, before there was a lot of the newer requirements about reliable sources. The sources I cited were my reports (which of course I consider reliable, and if you take a look, I'm sure you will too). For example, the wiki social change page says "These changes did not happen equally throughout the world, however. For example, in 1960, infant mortality rates were more than 4.5 times higher in developing countries than it was among industrialized countries. In 2000, infant mortality rates in developing countries was about 10 times higher than was IMR in industrialized countries. That is, infant mortality rates declined faster among the more developed countries." This is directly from my summary report http://gsociology.icaap.org/report/repsum.html

In the last couple of years, editors removed my reports as references, but left the material I wrote. I would be more than happy to have my material on this page as long as my work is property cited. However, if my work is not cited as a reference, it is unfair to leave the stuff I wrote. I have discussed this on the talk page, but the people who edit this page will not list my reports as references. I've also indicated that my reports are widely cited by governments and so are easily considered verifiable and reliable.

Therefore, it is fair to remove the material that I wrote, based on my reports, unless it is properly cited. I've made some changes to the page to reflect fair use, but several editors just change it back. What are my options? How can I make sure that either my work is fairly cited, or my work is removed if not fairly cited?

thanks, Gene Shackman gsociology 12:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question. Probably the best thing is to simply add the citations - inline, rather than just listed as references. That way, they are much less likely to get separated. Inline citations are highly desirable; indeed, everything without them is liable to deletion. However, you have no right to remove material that you added (beyond the right of every editor to edit, and be edited or reverted in turn): you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL (it says this at the bottom of every edit, and presumably has done for years). And you agree to merciless editing. Of course if someone else copies your words from another source without attribution it is plagiarism, something we take very seriously. Notinasnaid 12:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, this introduces a new problem: this appears to be a Primary source, which Wikipedia frowns on. I would say, unless someone can find a citation for this in an independent Secondary source, it needs to be removed. Further, by putting his own work on the page, there is some conflict of interest concerns. -- Kesh 18:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notinasnaid wrote "However, you have no right to remove material that you added". I would be happy to have my material remain on the social change page, AS LONG AS it is propery cited. That is the problem. When the editors removed the citation, they did not remove the content. If they keep the content, they should keep the citation.

Notinasnaid also wrote "Of course if someone else copies your words from another source without attribution it is plagiarism". Here is another problem. I wrote this section in Wikipedia, from my summary report. In fact I pretty much copied sections from my report. So the social change page says "For example, in 1960, infant mortality rates were more than 4.5 times higher in developing countries than it was among industrialized countries. In 2000, infant mortality rates in developing countries was about 10 times higher than was IMR in industrialized countries." My report says "For example, in 1960, infant mortality rate was more than 4.5 times higher in developing countries than it was among industrialized countries. In 2000, IMR in developing countries was about 10 times higher than was IMR in industrialized countries." As long as I wrote it, and my report was cited as the source, this is fine. Now that my report is not cited, well, it's not exactly plagairism, but it is 1. unfair use of my work, and 2. Wikipedia using a source without proper attribution (or any attribution).

Regardless of whether your book is the same as the text you submitted to wikipedia, when you submitted text to wikipedia, it was not under the condition that it be referenced to your book. It was under the terms of the GDFL, which allows it to be modified in any way (including the removal of the references), subject to other restrictions. It would be better for the purposes of this encyclopedia if it were referenced, but all the credit required by the GDFL is to you as the author of the article text itself, which is preserved in the history section of the page. Calliopejen1 23:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kesh wrote "Further, by putting his own work on the page, there is some conflict of interest concerns."

It is fine with me if this material is removed. I can't do it as the page editors have pretty much ignored any changes I made, so if one of you help desk folks would remove the material, that would be fine with me. It would also be fine with me if one of you help desk folks added the citiations to my report.

Kesh also wrote "this appears to be a Primary source, which Wikipedia frowns on."

I'm not sure I follow that. My reports are all based on other sources, like reports from the UN, or US census data (all of which I cite appropriately).

Use of wikipedia information in a book

OK, I know this is a tricky one, but here goes:

I'm writing a book about Wills. In the process of researching it I analysed section 20 of the UK's Finance Act 2006, and being a long-established wikipedian I put the fruits of my research in the table which can be found here.

My question now is: what do I do if I want to use that table in my book? Clearly I've released my own copyright under GFDL, so I cannot use it in my own right and claim to be the owner of it. Equally, though, since Wikipedia has free content, I have as much right to use wikipedia info in my book as any other author would have.

What it boils down to is: what credit do I need to give to print information taken from Wikipedia. Presumably the answer to this question would be the same if a different editor had submitted the information in the first place?? AndyJones 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you submitted the content yourself, it's a pretty easy situation. You can multilicence your contribution under GFDL, so all you have to do is say to yourself 'I licence this material under the GFDL, and also under a licence that lets AndyJones do anything they like with it.' You can't retract the GFDL licence that the work is published under yourself (so Wikipedia can use it as much as they like), but you can use your own content under any terms you like even if you've submitted it to Wikipedia (unless it was based on Wikipedia content in the first place.)

For the general question of reusing Wikipedia material that another person's written, see the full legal details of Wikipedia's licence. The main problem here is that one of the conditions of reusing the material is that you include an entire unchanged copy of the licence, and as you can see it's rather long, making it somewhat impractical in a book. (There are a few other terms that might cause problems, such as the requirement to produce machine-readable copies and to keep track of author information; see Wikipedia:Verbatim copying for more information.) --ais523 12:59, 10 May 2007 (U T C)

IANAL, but the short of it is - you still own the copyright to stuff you license under the GDFL, you just allow people to republish it under those conditions. But as the copyright owner, you can do whatever you want with it as well. Republish it, release it into the public domain, cover your bedroom's wallpaper in it. You don't need to say anything about it being here, or released under the GFDL if you don't want to - but I'd definitely note it somewhere that you're you, so that nobody here gets uppity. Bottom line : You still own the copyright to stuff you license under the GFDL - so you can use it as anything else you own the copyright for. Releasing it under GFDL only affects what others can do with it (i.e. they have certain rights to re-use it and modify it) but does not affect what you can do with it. WilyD 13:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks, both. Very useful information. AndyJones 17:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are external links allowed on a disambiguous page?

Look here: Basha. ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 13:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link removed. ~~I remember a guideline stating that external links shouldn't stay on disambiguation pages, probably WP:D~~. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Pea ceNT 15:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding deletion discussions

If an article has been deleted or proposed for deletion then how do you find the deletion discussion without spending hours and hours trawling through archives? I thought there was a quick link based on the name of the article but now I can't seem to find anything that works. Thanks, Matt 13:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Do either:

Go to the page that was deleted. Then press the history tab. Click View logs for this page, then find the date it was deleted. Then search Wikipedia:Archived_delete_debates for discussion arround that date.
Or search wikipedia for the article name in google (using the link I gave). ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 13:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two much easier methods:

(1) Insert the article name in the form "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARTICLE NAME"
(2) Create a link for the article ARTICLE NAME, click on it, and then click on "what links here" - the AfD debate should be one of only a few links.

Hope that helps. Carcharoth 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm still a little confused. There are massive (and on my PC virtually unnavigable) lists at, to choose a date at random, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_7. Then there are individual pages at, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gia_Getsadze that seem to replicate the information in the main list. How does this work? Is there some mechanism that copies every entry in the list to its own article (or vice versa)? Does every new entry added to the main list automatically get its own page that you can find through "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARTICLE NAME"? Matt 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What you're seeing is something called transclusion. A page is 'inserted' into another, much like a template is sometimes used to substitute in complex wikicode. The /Log/Day pages transcluded all the deletion discussions started that day, as you'll see if you hit the edit button on one of them (don't save/don't change anything, of course). Transclusion is implemented through the use of curly braces: {{ }}.

As for your second question, you can almost always find the deletion discussion at the type of link described above, but it may have been deleted via some other method, which should be described in the logs for the page name. Also, sometimes pages are put up for discussion more than once, and the only good way to find the final result is either to look at the deletion log, where the deleting admin should link to the discussion, or use Whatlinkshere. -- nae'blis 19:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I didn't think to look at the source... thank you very much for your help. Matt 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

How can I make it so my user talk page doesn't go out of the window to the right...

Look here: User_talk:AVTN. ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_{V A} 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on the user's talk page. Specifically, text in a <pre> tag will be printed exactly as received. If there are no line breaks in the text, then it will print as one line and scroll to the right. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange red-links

Is it just me, or are all the links in Waltham Abbey (abbey) red (though they lead to articles)? Carcharoth 15:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all articles links are red (though not as bright red than the links to non existing articles). I'm also wondering why. --Xedi 15:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Am I, I suspect that ther has been a change in one of the skin or css files. DES ^(talk) 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering the same thing. Some pages I see they are light-read and not underlined, while others remain normal. Is it just for people with the Cologne Blu skin? Cheers, Rothery 15:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This just happened to me too! blue > red. -Indolences 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it has anything to do with the page being marked as a stub. I looked at the HTML source and found that all of the links had a CSS class of "stub". I removed the stub template from the article, and the links started showing up as blue instead of dark red. Maybe that's a recent addition...? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brown, actually. And not even with all links, just certain ones. Seems to have happened to everybody (I'm using monobook). Orderinchaos 15:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about the same issue is going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Redlinks that aren't. The link appears red to everyone :P Pea ceNT 15:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to hook up with image I have uploaded.

Many apologies if this question is not new - I have checked as many FAQ pages as possible but I'm still stumped.

I noticed that the page on Triumph Spitfire was lacking a photo of a Spitfire 1500. I wanted to amend this and so uploaded a jpeg image and called it Spitfire1500.jpg. As far as I can tell I have followed all instructions re licencing copyright etc.

After this I edited the article to try to include the picture. The code is there, but the image is not being displayed.

There is something I've obviously missed or done wrong. Please can someone help? GJAW 15:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. The image should show up properly now. Pea ceNT 15:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I can see you've removed the extra image line I left in. I shall be more careful another time. GJAW 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

considering using Wikipedia to catalog case studies

Dear Wikipedia, I am working on a manual for Low Impact Development in North Carolina, and we need a way to organize and tag case studies for use in the manual to illustrate LID concepts. I am asking others if such a database already exists but have so far come up empty handed.

If indeed no one has done this yet, Wikipedia would be ideal as it would enable multiple participants to edit and refine the case studies, and the keywords that will help us keep track of the case studies, and also because this is work that would be very valuable to the broader professional community (of many disciplines, globally).

The only difficulty I can see is how the case studies would be linked to the article. I would like to see them be separate from the article, sort of like references, but with short writeups and the keywords for searching.

Please let me know if you think there is a way to make this work.

Many thanks, ~sarah Sarahbei 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news: you can't use Wikipedia to organise your own information unless it makes for a good encyclopedia article which everyone can edit, with all the information sourced (to published references).

Good news: The "Wiki" in Wikipedia is a kind of software, that is, a wiki. Wikipedia is just one of thousands of wikis, and you can run your own. That might be exactly what you need.

I hope this helps, Notinasnaid 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See No original research and Reliable sources for restrictions on what we are allowed to do on Wikipedia. However, as Notinasnaid mentions, there are thousands of wikis, including a number of public wikis catering to environmentalist topics (which you seem to have in mind). A wiki could certainly be a viable option for a collaborative editing project of the type you describe. Your main options are to find an existing wiki you could use, or to start your own wiki. WikiIndex generally has the most complete list of public wikis, but WikiIndex is down at the moment; when it comes back online, you can search it for suitable wikis for your project. In the meantime, you could search on Wikia. I see this one that maybe you could use. Depending on your project needs, you might consider starting your own wiki (although be aware this is orders of magnitude more difficult than using an existing wiki). If, for example, you want to build wiki applications that use databases, then you might consider starting a structured wiki with the TWiki software. The MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia is certainly powerful, but it is optimized for the needs of an encyclopedia project. If your project deals with lots of structured (repetitive) data, it might fit the database model better, and you might be happier with a structured wiki. But any wiki is better than no wiki at all. --Teratornis 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links

I just noticed that now in all Wikipedia articles all links have turned from Blue to Black. Is there anyway in your settings to change them back? Kris 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the section on "strange red links" above. There seems to be soem sort of global change going on, for reasons i at least don't understand yet. DES ^(talk) 15:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, okay, hopefully it will change back soon. Thanks, Kris 15:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed now :) -Indolences 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All wikilinks are red

For some reason, all Mainspace wikilinks are showing up as dark red. The articles they link to are intact, and Wikipedia: links are still blue. Why is this happening? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 15:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the questions above. Jacek Kendysz 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get a poem in this website

How are you going to get a poem in this web site. and also find someone without using the quote and etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.123.187.113 (talk • contribs)

Could you please make your question clearer? Pea ceNT 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POETRY might help, but I can't be sure as the question is unclear. --Teratornis 22:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness of links?

Hi..

I am a published technical author as well as a self-publishing author and webmaster. I run a couple of highly-regarded technology information sites that provide extensive detailed information (thousands of pages) free of charge (though there are ads.)

I believe that a lot of people who read certain technical topics here on Wikipedia would benefit from links to sections of my guides because they often contain more detail or illustrations to help explain concepts. This would also benefit me as well, of course.

I consider these links to be a "win/win" proposition, but I also understand that they might be seen as a conflict of interest. I tried to research relevant Wikipedia policies as applicable to this situation, but didn't find anything I considered authoritative.

I'd be grateful for any assistance. Thanks.

71.192.96.106 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See our conflict of interest policy, and our anti-spam guideline. It is often advised in such a case, if you truly think that links to a site you run are helpful to articles, that you propose them on the talk page, and allow other editors to judge if they are a good idea or not. If you simply add them, particularly if you add them to many articles at once, they may be deleted as spam. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did read both of those pages but I didn't find the answer clear. There are a lot of different pages where the links would be appropriate -- not spam, as my material is free and relevant. I don't want to clutter up or create a ton of talk pages. I was hoping I could get a definitive ruling as I don't want to waste my time on something that will just be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.96.106 (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you want a definitive ruling, you need to give us a link to the page you want to link to, as well as the articles you want to add it to. Otherwise, we might have a situation where you and I are talking about two separate things, and that would just be awkward. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, nothing on the help desk will truly be definitive, as editors elsewher would not be bound by any discussion here. My advice would be to try the talk page route at one or a few articles where you think the relevance is very clear. If you get a positive response you can cite that in discussions on other pages. See also Wikipedia:External links. The problem is that the precise cirumstances are important in such issues, so a single definte answer is not easy to provide. DES ^(talk) 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each page is free to come to its own consensus, so there is no way to appeal and get an "authority" to add to all pages. There is enormous resistance to the mass adding of links as well, indeed many people are pretty anti-link altogether and only a fragle per-article consensus keeps any at all. What we would really like is that you choose to use your technical knowledge to improve the articles where important information is missing. I hope you'll choose that path. Notinasnaid 17:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, that individual links can always be contributed to Open Directory Project, and (generally speaking) WP contributors are more amenable to including external links to DMOZ, rather than links to individual sites. dr.ef.tymac 16:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikilink oddity

For some reason, the links in Passport to Pimlico are two shades of red, bright for missing articles and darker for existing ones. Yet, when I check the latest version in history, the latter are blue, as they should be. Any idea what's going on? Fixed already. Clarityfiend 16:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non linking pic wi/ text

<center>
<div style="position:relative; width:500px; height:330px; overflow: hidden;">
<div style="position:absolute; width:500px; height:575px; top:0px; left:0px; z-index:3;">
<div style="text-align:center; margin-top:1em; margin-left:19em; font-size:16px; font-color:blue;">
<span style="border: 1px solid black">
Text Text Text
</span>
</div>
</div>
<div style="position:absolute; width:500px; height:375px; top:0px; left:0px; z-index:2;">
[[Image:Aurora borealis over Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.jpg|500px]]
</div>
</div>
</center>

Gets:

Text Text Text

But how can I use less code and get the same affect? Razor c law 16:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make a template. -Indolences 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing lighthouse information and creating resource link

We would like to provide accurate historical information on lighthouses all over the world, and are qualified to do so as the oldest lighthouse preservation/educational organization in the United States.

However, we are a bit confused on how to update current lighthouse postings on Wikipedia pages. It seems every time we make an edit and cite our organization as a resource that this information is deleted over time.

Can you offer any advice as we are enthusiastic about contributing to your website. Thank you very much.

JeffUslhs 18:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Director, U.S. Lighthouse Society[reply]

Since it doesn't appear that you've made other edits with this account before, I can't tell you exactly what you're doing wrong. I suspect that you are adding links to pages, and they are being deleted because editors think they are linkspam. To reduce the chance of this happening, you may want to post on the talk page first and propose the link to be added, or at least make sure you use a descriptive edit summary that explains why the link is useful. If you are adding links to your own page, wikipedians may reject your changes because you have a conflict of interest. The best thing to do is probably to add content (i.e. sentences) to articles, citing reliable sources (which might include your website). If you have further questions, feel free to follow up here. Calliopejen1 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating new pages

When I see a "red link," am I encouraged to create an article there, even if it is little more than a placeholder with minimal information?

Would I be more strongly encouraged if the "red-linked article" were linked to by more than one other article?

I've seen the "most wanted articles" list, and figured that since they have not yet been created, despite being on such a prominent list, the creation of minimalist "filler pages" is perhaps frowned upon. Is this the case? Should I not create an article unless and until I am able to create a relatively complete one?

If I am indeed encouraged to create minimalist pages, I would like to do so, both because I find the red links annoying, and because people with knowledge of those topics may be more likely to add to an existing article than to create a new one.

Please advise, thanks. --64.222.222.25 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RED. Anybody can make a redlink. It may or may not be suitable for an article, and there may or may not already be an article with a different name. If the topic seems to satisfy WP:N and has no article, then creating a stub should usually be fine. Other editors may expand it later. PrimeHunter 18:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've bookmarked those three reference pages, and will make future redlink decisions based on what I find there. Thanks for the help! --64.222.222.25 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, anonymous users can no longer make new articles in the main namespace. You may want to create an account before you embark any further on this adventure. Happy editing! -- nae'blis 18:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how stubs are different from placeholders. You want the first, not the second. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please explain how I create a reference, or a link to a word, that is in the passage, so that it will link to another page, and so show that it is true. I could not find how to do this anywhere.

Thank you,

Tom Lodge 63.249.91.145 18:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you are either looking for Help:Links#Wikilinks or Wikipedia:Footnotes, but I'm not sure which. Please post back if neither of those pages answers your question. -- nae'blis 19:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or WP:CITE. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DONE/ANSWERED ALREADY: how does one use wiki e-mail?

A few editors have a link on their user pages. Some users mention that wiki-email is a contact option but how does one do that? I have a registered e-mail to my account.VK35 19:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the left side of a userpage under 'toolbox', you will see an option to email a user, if they have email enabled on Wikipedia. The key is that they must have it enabled, not just you. -- nae'blis 19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was looking at the wrong place (top and bottom)!VK35 19:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note to Wikipedians

I just found a coypright violation of of Myspace's copyright notice from this Myspace Profile, in this article. When you refer to the biography section of the myspace profile, it's word-for-word, and is blatant copy and pasting. I don't know the proper action for this matter, however, I thought an Admin should be notified.
Thanks a lot.
Curran (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC) It can be speedy deleted. If you didn't know about that check out WP:CSD and for the copyvio, the category is G12. Evilclown93 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has already nominated the article for speedy deletion, so nothing more needs to be done. Calliopejen1 20:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Me) Evilclown93 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship

who writes the articles

See Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 20:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want to cite something from Wikipedia, then see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. PrimeHunter 20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category help

I tried to find a specific category, but there's no categorisation wikiproject. Can anybody supply a good category for Robert Wiles? He's an accused attempted murderer who's not yet faced trial, and I'm looking for a category for alleged criminals, but couldn't find one. Thanks! Nyttend 21:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is already quite satisfactorily categorised. Having a category for people accused of crimes might be too transient to be really practical, given the legal importance of removing people if/when they are acquitted. Just my take on it. Adrian M. H. 21:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually ... Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. Confusing Manifestation 22:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create a wiki page

I would like to create a wikipedia page; how do I go about doing this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matian (talk • contribs) 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Assuming that the subject is notable enough and the information you want to add is attributed to reliable sources, then start with the advice at Help:Starting a new page, which you can also find via the VFAQs at the top of this page. Adrian M. H. 21:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small addition to the comment above (italicized). You don't attributed the subject, but the information. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dark red links

why are all the links on this page for That Petrol Emotion dark red? i've seen it in other places too but i can't remember them. is it just my browser? thanks 172.203.167.141 21:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an error earlier today, discussed above and in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Redlinks that aren't, which caused this on many pages. I have just fixed That Petrol Emotion with WP:PURGE. There are probably other articles that have to be purged, but I don't know how to locate them. PrimeHunter 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new page

Where in the web is the "Create a new page" button? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandslam3 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See Help:Starting a new page. PrimeHunter 23:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 May 10