Help desk
< November 5	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 7 >

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.

November 6

Template and IE/Firefox formatting

I suppose this is already answered for a thousand times, but...

I made the template template:Case Closed names and used it on List of characters in Case Closed. The spacing under eact section is correct under IE, but was wrong under Firefox, so I added some empty row spaces to correct formatting. Today there was an edit [1] that removed such white spaces since replaced excessive white spaces; they appear to be here to compensate for bad formatting. Since I think this edit is good faith, I wonder if there are template codes that can help with this problem?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 00:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt to fix it to how I think you want it to look, by adding a {{clear}} template above every {{Case Closed names}} template, to make sure the box lines up with the paragraph about the character (now I think about it I should've just added it to the template itself, doh!). Just say if it isn't right. -- DatRoot 11:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Keller

Please unlock this article. Why lock this article? There is no reason to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanispay2 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can simply wait until your account is four days old, then you can edit semi-protected articles. If the article was fully protected, you may request unprotection at WP:RFPP. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 00:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading: Wikipedia:Protection policy

example of a good article on a (non-university) school

I frequently run across articles on high schools, junior highs, elementary schools, etc. While most of them are poorly written, I'm not altogether sure what information to remove and what to attempt to NPOV, eg [2]. Also, I'd like to be able to point authors to a good example (of course, if I manage to create one, then that will serve the purpose). Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I would start with this link. Yes most of them are universities, but you'll find a significant number of secondary schools as well: Westfield High School (Fairfax County, Virginia) and Aquinas College, Perth and De_La_Salle-Santiago_Zobel_School and so on.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, move on to the really, really good articles, including: Plano Senior High School and Stuyvesant High School.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for the feedback

thanks

How Wikipedia can help the environment

Hey. You may be aware of the site "Blackle" www.blackle.com, how it cuts power consumption on rear projection monitors by providing google with a black background. Wikipedia is a site vistited by ALOT of people every day.

I think it could be an easy step to work towards less power consumption if we could possibly make wikipedias blackground black for a week or two, or even permanentely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winebarrel69 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. If you would like to propose a change at Wikipedia, the village pump might be a good place to go - probably either the proposals or technical sections might be appropriate. Most decisions at Wikipedia are based on the consensus of our editors, and a major change like that might require agreement from a large proportion of users. Note that our article on Blackle mentions that power conservation was mainly on cathode ray tube monitors (as you mention), rather than the increasingly popular liquid crystal display monitors. In the meantime, you could use a skin to change the appearance of Wikipedia on your account if you prefer a dark background. -- Kateshort forbob 10:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we should all try to save energy I'm skeptical of this method, especially since CRT monitors are being replaced by LCDs, to which this doesn't apply, and which use much less power anyway. Indeed, the site http://www.blackle.com seems to be being a little deceptive in the way it shows the amount of energy saved. -- DatRoot 15:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett's Miss Pawhuska

I was adding information of the missing horse Garrett's Miss Pawhuska with complete pedigree and horse info box that was used for all the other Quarter Horses listed under American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame. This is the only horse that was not completed from this list and I was just supplying the same type of information that all the other horses already have listed. Poco88 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Poco88[reply]

I'm not quite sure what your question is, but that page was speedily deleted under CSD A1 - "Articles with very little or no context about the subject". You probably need to add a little more information about the horse - for example, why it is notable, and several reliable sources for verification. You may want to see WP:STUB for information on what we consider the minimum amount of information for an article. If you contact the deleting administrator, they may be willing to restore the text of the article to one of your user subpages for you to continue working on it. I hopes this helps you sort things out, if not, feel free to post again. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trying to attach a copyright tag to an image.

I have uploaded an image several times and tried to attach a copyright tag to it from the drop down menu. Each time I am told the image has no copyright tag and will be deleted. What am I doing wrong? Jpeastman 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been corrected for you by User:Hersfold. - Rjd0060 04:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure, as usually the menu works and your log entries clearly show that you meant to apply a {{GFDL-self}} tag. I've fixed the tag in the meantime, but I'm not really sure how to explain what went wrong without being able to see what you did. If the menu misbehaves again, however, you can always manually type the code you want using the lists here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Snow

I just wanted to tell you that I looked up the name Phoebe Snow. My dad worked for and retired off the MO Pacific Railroad. When my Mom was expecting me, he came home from work and told her that if they had a girl he wanted to name me Phoebe after the boxcar. I lost my dad 5 or 6 years ago, so it makes my memory special because of my name. He calle GE on the railroad. :)

Phoebe

<email removed for your security> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.200.12 (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? I've removed your email address, as putting it here puts you at risk of getting spammed and we don't reply via email anyway. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you are reflecting on how great the Phoebe Snow (character) article is, see: Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great. And now that you have us feeling all sentimental, I might mention that I picked my username after the Teratornithidae article. Just imagine what your name might have been if Wikipedia had been around for your dad to read (may he rest in peace). --Teratornis 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to a Category page

I have a page that I want to redirect to a Category page, so I place #REDIRECT [[Category:xxxxx]], but then the redirect page becomes part of that category, which I do not want. What is the best way I can get around this, without creating another page for a list, keeping it on the category page? Oddeven2002 05:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to avoid the page being part of the category, you need to add a colon in front, like this: #REDIRECT [[:Category:xxxxx]]. In the case of the link from an article to a category, I'm not sure if it works or if it is even appropriate, though. Maybe there are better ways to achieve this, from a usability point of view. — Sebastian 05:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, right. I keep practicality and standardization in mind. It is not for Wikipedia, anyway. Thank you for the response. Peace. Oddeven2002 05:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

contacts

wanted to know according to the country and state and city the list of individuals of different profiles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.18.22 (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for, but I do know you're in the wrong place. The reference desk should be able to answer your question, if you ask over there. They deal with knowledge questions, we only tell you how to use Wikipedia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Searches of ANI

Question moved here from Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. --Lambiam 08:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Administrators Noticeboard Incident" search that shows up on each ANI archive page is apparently not searching achives more recent than #235, which was archived Spring 2007.

Can you please tell me if there is an alternate tool, or who can "fix" the current tool?

Thank you. Wanderer57 06:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try http://www.google.com/custom?domains=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'--Fuhghettaboutit 12:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to use Image:Suicmezmuhammed.jpg in German Wikipedia and how can I do it?

Hallo dear English speaking users. I hope I am right with my question on this page. Does anybody know, if and how I can use the Image Image:Suicmezmuhammed.jpg for my german article about Muhammed Suiçmez? I would be very thankful, if somebody of you would look at the image-license and give me a hint. Greetings and Thanks a lot from --Projektil 08:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save the image and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. You can use it any language Wikipedia then. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks a lot. You alreddey did it for me? --Projektil 14:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saving search history

Is there a way to save my search history (or bookmark certain articles/topics/subjects) to come back to them later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bperunovic (talk • contribs) 09:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can add articles to your watchlist (click "watch" at the top of the page). To view pages in your watchlist, you can click "My watchlist" at the top right of any page when you are logged in. You can't watch search results; probably the best way would be to bookmark them in a "Wikipedia" folder in your browser or use a service like del.icio.us. -- Kateshort forbob 10:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might find something useful in Category:Desktop search engines, such as Google Desktop, Spotlight (software), or Beagle (software). For example, Google Desktop allegedly indexes your Web browsing history for later searching. I don't know how well that feature works because I have not tried a recent version of Google Desktop. If you find a desktop searching tool that does what you want, please let us know, because the question you ask comes up occasionally on the Help desk (search the Help desk archive for: save search history). --Teratornis 16:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image help

Can someone clarify the image policy for me; I have real trouble understanding it? Last night I uploaded Image:Martial arts troll.jpg to Commons, a photo I had taken to illustrate the Troll doll article. This morning it was tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio of a creative work. I had wondered about this, but checked other toy articles, which seem to have pictures, so (foolishly) assumed it was alright. My question is, if a picture taken by a user of something which has a copyright/trademark is a copyvio, how does any article about a product etc. have a picture? Why is there a photoreq tag on articles where presumably any image would violate copyright? Sorry to be asking what are probably very basic questions, but I want to make sure I'm not breaking any rules before I upload any more pictures. Thanks -- Kateshort forbob 10:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From reading Commons:Derivative works, it seems a toy like that is considered a three-dimensional work of art which can be copyrighted. However, Wikipedia does allow using non-free content where no free alternative could be created. So make that image smaller (as per the "Minimal extent of use" policy), and stick a {{Non-free 3D art}}, or {{Non-free character}} template on the page as well as a {{Non-free use rationale}}. Does this make things clearer? — Ksero^{t c} 10:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the information - that makes more sense. I understand that commons doesn't allow non-free use, so it (and the other similar image I uploaded) will probably be deleted there soon. I'll try to upload to Wikipedia with the qualifications you suggest when I have the opportunity. Thanks again --Kateshort forbob 11:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

submiting an article ???

Hi, I have been trying to submit an article for Wikipedia. I have saved the article in my user page 3 times now, and it does not seem to be submitting. I can not work out how to actually submit the article for review, so it can be published as a 'Wikipedia' article. It is very confusing to me and I am getting frustrated. Can you tell me in simple words exactly how I submit an article.

Honestly, I'm not even sure how to submit this question. Down the bottom, all I can see is the same buttons; 'Save Page', 'Show Preview', 'Show Changes' ??? Also, how do I insert an image and how do I make a link to other information pages on the internet. When I click the buttons along the top, they just automatically insert some 'Example' images or links, like it is a practice page or something???

I don't know what I am supposed to do regarding the squiggly lines for signature etc either. I have gone through the tutorials and how to edit and all that stuff carefully, and I am none the wiser.

I think Wikipedia is great, I even donate to it... but submitting an article has got me stumped. I know I'm going to get a whole bunch of people telling me how dumb I am now. That's ok, I know that. I have a doctorate in science and 4 other Uni degrees, just means I'm intelligent, NOT SMART... big difference!

I'll tell you how dumb I am, I'm even going to have trouble finding my way back to the answer to this question.

Hope you can help me Thanks regards Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argentriol (talk • contribs) 12:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 12:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have done all those things you recommended. I have also written the article from an objective point of view, to ensure it simply presents the information in an unbiased manner, and as information that can be extrapolated and researched by the reader at their own discretion. I believe it is a very pertinent article, and I have researched to see if any other articles already exist as the same, and found none. Effectively, I believe I have addressed all the appropriate criteria. I read in the information about 'writing articles' , that an article can, or is, submitted for review, which I encourage. However, I do not know how I identify, when the article is approved or declined, and if approved, does it just then appear as an article in 'Wikipedia' when people go searching for that subject. If you could let me know, because I am anxious to have the information published, as I already am considered the world authority on the subject and have people constantly asking me about the subject. So I believe it is high time that a basic overview about the subject was readily available for anyone interested in knowing a about it. There are other people around the world who inform and teach on the subject, but for some reason they all turn to me as the foremost authority. Perhaps because the subjects I lecture on at University, encroach on the prime subject, and it seems to permeate throughout most subjects in the disciplines of Science and Art I teach. So essentially, I just want to know, how to submit it, if it is accepted, how to insert some images, and how to create links through words or phrases within the article, to other sites with more educational value on the subject. And, also if I need to add any codes etc when inserting artwork that is my own original work, purely as visual aids to enhance the subject matter. I have a philosophy of 'Education through Entertainment' so images help exploit that. Thanks again regards Chris Argentriol 13:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the proposed article and it appears to me to be quite firmly in the realm of original research. Other sites may be appropriate for such material but I do not think it belongs on Wikipedia. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source. Thus, articles must be written by synthesizing primary and secondary sources that are already pubished. Novel theories, religions—new things—should never be announced on Wikipedia, which includes the use of published and reliable sources to come to a conclusion that the original sources did not; an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material". All that having been said, there are two ways to post the article. One is to move your user page to the correct article name. Or, since there is no GFDL consideration here, you can create an article here and paste the material into the page you create.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the page you have in mind is this one. I'm not sure it's appropriate as an encyclopedia article. Its biggest weakness is the lack of reliable sourcing. If you cannot provide published sources for the article's claims, it might be better on another site. The various policies and guidelines are linked in NASCAR Fan24's posting, above. AndyJones 13:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]New articles do not get declined or approved; they simply appear. Now to answer your questions:

To insert an image: You can type [[Image:Example.jpg]]; but if you want to specify a size, you can type [[Image:Example.jpg|XXpx]]; then the picture will appear in the article, but at the size you specified (XX by XX pixels)
To link to other articles or sites Type [[Article name]] to link to other Wikipedia articles. To add a link to an external site, you can type [http://www.example.org], which will display as [3], or simply excise the brackets and it will display as http://www.example.org. You can also specify a name for the link by typing [http://www.example.org Example.org], which will display as Example.org.
Your artwork: to insert your artwork, just upload it as an image. Remember that we only accept GFDL-licensed, Creative Commons-licensed, public domain, or fair use images. If you decide to freely license it (i.e. GFDL, CC, PD), upload it to Commons instead. You may want to consider licensing your work under the Free Art License, in which case you enter {{FAL}} in the "summary" section while you are uploading, again, to Commons.

Hope this helps! NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 13:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks again. I am impressed by the rapid response to these queries. I do empathize with your opinions and considerations for the article. Yes it is the Article you presume. There is actually a lot of ancillary information and reference to this subject in all manner of publications, from the 'Book of Revelations' in the Christian Bible, the Koran, The SinSet, The Kabbalah, through to modern spiritual and theological publications and symposium. However, collating that work to support or validate the concise work on the specifics of the Argentriol, is a veritable nightmare embroiled in chaos. So I am not prepared to go to those lengths at this stage. However, both of you (I am assuming that Fuhghettaboutit & AndyJones, are two different people) suggested other vehicles where it might be more appropriate to initially publish this article. I wonder, if you would be kind enough to perhaps point me in a few directions (publications) regarding that proposal. Perhaps, if I can established enough generated interest through other publications, and we are able to accumulate additional evidence and argument, then we could reconsider an entry as a Wikipedia article. I essentially work from a platform of science, so it is in my nature to gather evidence to support any theory or theosophy. I am responsible for the development of 'Transverse Magnetic Poling', the 'Photomic Energiser', and the gravitational dynamics principle in the 'G-Ions theory'. I did not stumble across these, it took years and many uncounted hours of hard research, calculation and development, just to form sound basic theories, let alone substantial operating platforms. So I am not about to unleash information on the world without at least a reasonable degree of research into the subject. It is however, a subject of disputable argument. But then so are nearly all theological presentations and arguments, and also many scientific theory. I work in a field of science that has more holes and questions than a our own solar system, 'Quantum Physics and Cosmology'. Yet we carry on, searching , extrapolating, pondering, postulating, theorising and contemplating, until we find answers. So if you are able to assist me in getting this little bit of information out and accessible to any one who is interested in learning about it, then I am in your debt. with respect Chris Argentriol 14:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your comments, it appears to me that you may not realize that submitting work to Wikipedia means that you will have absolutely no ownership of the work in any way. It will be public and everyone else will be able to edit it, delete sections, append new sections, and so forth. You've repeatedly made references to it being "your article" - not just "an article". So, I want to ensure that you won't be back in a short while asking how to keep people from changing your article. -- kainaw ™ 14:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No! I was under the impression that any article I submitted was open for discussion, amendment, addition, etc. I was encouraged by the concept that the article could be published in a domain where people could add to it and debate it. So I had no reservations about people making changes to it, I expected that other peoples opinions and submissions on the article would only serve to help develop an education and awareness of the subject matter.

However, your comment does raise one issue. This article is an excerpt from a much larger work that is being published, and the copyright belongs to the entities that have publishing copyright, intellectual and creative ownership. In saying this, I have total authority of copyright ownership to re-produce or copy any portion or whole of this works, to whatever publication or public access vehicle I feel appropriate. So in terms of copyright issue to Wikipedia, there is not one. But does the publication of this article on Wikipedia, mean it is then ineligible to be published in the original works? You said I/we would no longer have ownership of the article. Is this in the context of it being accessible to anyone who wishes to edit the article via Wikipedia? If that is the case, there is no issue. Or, is it in the context that Wikipedia would then own the reserved right of copy, including creative and intellectual ownership? If that is the case. we can not publish it on Wikipedia anyway.

I am however, interested to know your recommendations for other vehicles you feel might be appropriate for the article, as you mentioned earlier. Thanks again. By the way, I really appreciate the time and consideration you have all devoted to me on this issue tonight. with respect Chris 124.180.200.238 14:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "ownership", I was referring to copyright ownership. Anything on Wikipedia is public. If I wanted to, I could publish a book using nothing but Wikipedia articles. The authors of those articles have no legal standing to block me from publishing the book or requesting payment for their work. I would ensure that this does not interfere with any business you are currently doing. I wouldn't want you to give a good article to Wikipedia only to have your publishing deal get hindered because of it. -- kainaw ™ 14:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you are submitting something to Wikipedia, you are licensing it under the GFDL. You don't retain the copyright on the text you've submitted. Also, Wikipedia does not want such material directly copied from other sources, as it's extrememly unlikely it would meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your options include publishing your content elsewhere, or perhaps create your own wiki. Leebo ^T/C 15:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the article in question, you'll see that this is all irrelevant anyway, as the article (aside from inappropriate tone) is blatantly Original Research, and therefore not suitable for an entry here. --Orange Mike 15:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

song "Satin Sheets"

You have it wrong on who wrote the song. How do I make sure the right song writer is recognized for her work and not the song writer you have posted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.83.191 (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can change it by going up to "edit this page" at the top. Be sure to cite reliable sources. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 12:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading: Wikipedia:Citing sources

Should red-links be red?

Here's an interesting one. I recently created the page American Company, and in doing so linked the names of four people who are potentially notable in their own right, namely:

I then realised that someone looking for, say, Lewis Hallam, Jr., would want to find my page rather than be told there wasn't one. So I turned all four names into redirects to American Company.

However I then realised that the links are no longer red: they're blue, and they're just circular. So all the benefits of red-links (mainly that someone will come along one day and write the article) may be lost.

On the whole, I think I made the right decision in redirecting: but does anyone have another view on this? AndyJones 13:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the redirects should be deleted. As you noted, what you have done is create a loop and guaranteed that some who might start these articles would not as they appear to already exist. Red links are not a bad thing at all and appear all over the place, including in featured articles, as an invitaion to write the articles, and as markers telling readers that the articles don't exist. See WP:RED for more information. You can have the redirects deleted by tagging them with {{db-author}}, or better yet under these facts, using {{db|explanation}}.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair enough, but isn't that trumped by the argument that the person who types "Lewis Hallam" and presses "GO", or the person who finds Lewis Hallam's name linked in an article, actually gets some useful info about him, rather than a message saying Wikipdia has no info. (Agree with you that red-links are good in principle, of course.) AndyJones 13:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's conceivable that someone would be looking for the Hallams, then just leave the redirects but take the brackets off of their names in the article. If someone sees that their names redirect to the company article and they feel that they have enough info to create an article about those people, they'll just go to the redirect page and edit over the redirect. They would then add the link back to the American Company article. Dismas|^(talk) 13:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects are not necessary. Yes - someone searching for one of the names will be told that the article doesn't exist, but they will also be shown articles that contain the name they searched for. So, you get the best of both worlds. Red links tell users to create the article. The search function directs users to the article. -- kainaw ™ 14:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of six of one, a half dozen of the other. In any case, if you decide to leave the redirects, consider tagging them with {{R from member}}.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having given this a few days' thought, I've decided to {db} them, and see how that looks. Thank you to everyone who commented. AndyJones 19:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered user edit approval

Has English Wikipedia implemented the rule where unregistered user's edits have to be screened first or is it still being tried out on German WP? --Seans Potato Business 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still being tried on German Wikipedia. Martial BACQUET 22:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and I pray to God so that that's never implemented here. --Agüeybaná 04:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine many vandals utter the same prayer. --Teratornis 14:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Flagged revisions for more information about the various plans for extensions that could do this or something similar (I think they could also be set to show the unscreened version by default, but have a link to the screened version available). --ais523 14:19, 13 October 2007 (U T C)

When will the testing be deemed complete? --Seans Potato Business 15:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're actually stepping in the other direction, since unregistered users will be able to create articles beginning November 9th. Leebo ^T/C 15:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! You're gonna have to start drafting admins to pick up the fewmets. --Orange Mike 15:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been suggested, but I'm not sure it will cause an immediate floodgate response in new pages. Leebo ^T/C 15:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That raises a whole problem with the administrator process. Instead of targeting users who are highly active, the current process looks for people who want to nominate themselves. That falls into the trap of those that would make the best use of power are those who who will not actively pursue power. So, as mentioned in that discussion, attempts to draft active users need to be improved. -- kainaw ™ 15:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me from some folks' comments on RfA debates that they believe self-nomination (or at least repeat self-nomination) is almost per se a disqualification. --Orange Mike 15:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The original idea was that users would be so impressed by someone that the great user would be nominated. In practice, it is a "you nominate me and I'll nominate you" or a "self nomination" system. If you have an idea for targeting great (active) users without a flawed nomination system, please let us know. -- kainaw ™ 16:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

science fair project

HI! I am doing a science fair project for school and have referenced Wikipedia quite a bit for information. I now have to create my bibliography and can not find the information for it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank You.Lin428mic 15:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Citing Wikipedia -- DatRoot 15:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict Well hello there! Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia will be of interest to you. Alternatively, you can go to the article you wish to cite, then click "Cite this article" on the left-hand side of the page. Hope this helps! =) NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 15:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry, my initial reply was rather terse -- DatRoot 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image FU

Can somebody go through removing deletion notices from images and add fair-use rationale (the proper rationale, of course) on their own? I think there is no problem with that, but wanted to double check. - Rjd0060 15:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean browsing the category and adding the rationale when the uploader didn't? Of course that's okay, assuming you can supply all the information. The goal is to get appropriate rationales, not to delete good images. Leebo ^T/C 16:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is what I mean. Actually I cheat, and use User:Betacommandbot's contribution list, because it adds the deletion notices to all the images. Here is an example of what I'm talking about. - Rjd0060 16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, that rationale is not sufficient, since it's pretty much just a source, without any of the other required rationale information. Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline outlines what's needed. Leebo ^T/C 16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, that's a template with pre-filled rationale. Didn't see it because I have my preferences set to not include the body of a page in the diff. Leebo ^T/C 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was wondering why you thought that. Thanks for your help. -- Rjd0060 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that rationale is sufficient, as the page it links to does not have that logo on that page. You should specify exactly which website page the logo came from. Corvus cornix 19:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong display of an image

Hi,

In the article "NLR National Aerospace Laboratory" subsection "Structure", the image that is being displayed is not the same as the one stored. Why isn't the correct image being displayed?

MaRuKo 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "stored"?

MindstormsKid 16:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the pages get cached with previous versions of an image, and don't get updated as often as they should be. I've purged the server's cache of that page and it's displaying properly now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect URL for St. Jude Medical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Jude_Medical

The Profile box shows St. Jude Medica's website to be www.stj.com. That it incorrect, it should be www.sjm.com Can you please correct this? Thanks you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.237.60.105 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report

How do you report vandalisim on a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.145.114 (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can warn the user who vandalised the page by clicking on "history", then click "Talk" next to the username/IP of the user who vandalised; then copy some code from WP:WARN to warn them. If the user has already received a last warning, recently was unblocked, or you have reason to believe they are a vandalism only account (registered users only) then you can report them to WP:AIV. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 17:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflictWikipedia encourages you to revert it (or otherwise fix it) yourself. What you might try, since nothing you do on Wikipedia can't be undone, is to try fixing it yourself. If you're not sure how it turned out, post a link to the article here and I (or another editor) will take a look. In most cases, the vandalism can be undone by clicking on the page history and finding when the vandalism was placed (it is usually the most recent edit). Click on the date and time of the prior edit. When you see the old, unvandalised version up, click "edit this page" (ignore a warning about restoring a old version), enter an edit summary (rvv usually is abbv. for revert-vandalism), and save the page.

It is a good idea to then check the vandal's other contributions (again from history, click the "contribs" link next to their name.

I'd recommend trying the revert yourself. If I've completely confused you, or you really don't want to try, go ahead and post the link here and I'll take a look. But I'd be happy to look over your work as well. Thanks and keep up the good work, --TeaDrinker 17:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Military Conflict issue

Hi, Weird issue with the infobox for Iraq war and Vietnam war. The "casus=" field has information in it in edit view, but nothing is showing up on the article. The other fields "date=", "location=", etc all seem to work just fine. My guess is someone changed the infobox template to one that doesn't show the "casus="? Is this the case or is it something else? Thanks for the help. Publicus 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the Template:Infobox Military Conflict was edited on Oct 23 to remove that parameter. It looks like it was discussed widely on the talk page, Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict, before the change was made. The article is protected permanently, but you can still discuss the change on the talk page. Cheers, --TeaDrinker 17:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

somali boy

i am asking you how to go to london iam dreaming every day to go to london so i can not afford i dont have money even i dont eat food every day so i am refugee in uganda i am searching help from you thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.0.166 (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot give you the money or provide other means for you to travel. We are an encyclopaedia, not a charity. Sorry. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we are a charity, as the bottom of every page points out, but not the kind of charity that specializes in getting Somali boys to London. The stunning success Wikipedia has had at allowing millions of volunteers from around the world work together on a mighty project suggests wiki technology could do something similar for outsourcing mental labor to the third world, but this would require first-world businesses to massively adopt wikis first. That process of adoption may be underway, but it's going to take time, first for businesses to wikify, and then for businesses to realize they can use their wikis to farm out lots of grunt work to low-wage nations. But I wouldn't be surprised at all to see wikis someday playing a role in bringing technology jobs to places like Somalia. --Teratornis 06:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Barbershop Music"

Under the section "Notable Artists - Chorus's" you omitted one chorus- The Gem City Chorus, Five-time Sweet Adelines International Chorus champions from Dayton,Ohio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CLJordan1 (talk • contribs) 17:42, November 6, 2007

You may head over to the article and fix it yourself. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 17:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How I a report a user that is chaning External links made by me?

212.71.37.66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatt2dzire (talk • contribs) 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How I a report a user that is chaning External links made by me?

using with IP 212.71.37.66 is changing then all the links or references i have made and is pointing them to a different site. How do I stop that as him not to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatt2dzire (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the other User their reasons? Corvus cornix 19:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links were probably removed because the user thought they did not meet the external links guideline, which limits what sort of links should be used. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't remove them, they changed them. Corvus cornix 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a term to Wikipedia

Hi,

I'm a new user and would like to add a term that does not exist on Wikipedia. How do I go about this? the term is "commoneo"

Thanks, mp777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpopular777 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. Andy^reply 19:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about www.commoneo.com, it seems highly unlikely that a new website still in beta is going to meet our standards for notability of web content. --Orange Mike 19:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary (whereas, our sister project, Wiktionary is a dictionary). This means that dictionary definitions are not suitable as stand-alone articles. Moreover, new words that are not yet widely used are discouraged to be used in any articles, much less the subject of an article. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Note that even at Wiktionary, words you made up cannot be added. They too require attribution and do not take original research or things "somebody made up one day". There are some exceptions to some of this. For example an internet meme such as lol has been written about in multiple reliable independent sources in detail that goes far beyond a simple dictionary definition, and thus is the proper subject of an article.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he wants to write about commoneo, a new portal website currently in beta. --Orange Mike 20:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got ya. The use of the word "term" gave a certain impression.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. so I know understand and thank you for clarifying things. How about the latin word commoneo itself which means to remind? Would that be a valid entry for Wiktionary?

mobile edition

Is there a lightweight mobile edition of Wikipedia available suitable for access from pdas or cell phones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.43.154 (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is, see WP:PDA for more information. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you just want to read rather than edit - widsets for s60 3rd mobiles is very goods. --Fredrick day 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WXXS, WLTN-AM, WLTN-FM Updates Appreciated

76.118.247.91 21:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to give thanks to NeutralHomer ^T:C for giving my three Wikipedia pages their much needed overhauls. Yes, much information has been omitted but I'm happy that those articles are less subjective and more informative. I mean, hey, perhaps some other people will come along and include some facts about those stations that I never knew myself. Although the two FM stations are my favorite radio stations, I'm sure there are people out there who know more about the stations than myself.

Thanks for the note. If you go to User Talk:Neutralhomer, you can thank him personally. Leebo ^T/C 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

internal links not linking to right page

Hi, I'm a newbie, so I apologize in advance if this is one is obvious--to me it's not! I have just expanded a current entry, "Gary Taylor (English literature scholar), and there is a banner at the top saying this is an orphaned page. I would like to create internal links to this page from other pages. However, when I go in to, for example, Stanley Wells, and double bracket Gary Taylor, the link takes me to Gary Taylor, strongman from Wales. Though there is a "see also Gary Taylor (English literature scholar) note at the top of the strongman page, this middle step prevents the Gary Taylor (English literature scholar) page from becoming "unorphaned". Is there a way for me to create the link to Gary Taylor (English literature scholar) without having to add "(English literature scholar)" after every occurrence of his name? I tried "moving" the Gary Taylor strongman entry by renaming it "Gary Taylor (World's Strongest Man)", but as this didn't solve the problem, and as I wondered if maybe this was impolite/inappropriate, I changed it back.

Many, many thanks for any suggestions!--1mmmh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1mmmh (talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, I'd suggest "Gary Taylor (academic)" instead of "(English literature scholar)". There's no reason, though, to privilege this Gary Taylor (or the strongman) above others of that name. --Orange Mike 22:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, disregarding the naming of either page, you need to provide the full name of the page if you are going to link to it. If I'm talking about George Washington, but specifically the inventor rather than the US President, I need to put George Washington (inventor). If I want to link to the inventor, but don't want the (inventor) to appear in the text, I need to use a piped link, which would be George Washington. Piped links look like this in markup: [[George Washington (inventor)|George Washington]]. Leebo ^T/C 22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict x2 You must type [[Gary Taylor (English literature scholar)]]. You can also type [[Gary Taylor (English literature scholar)|]] (note the added "pipe" at the end; you can type this by pressing Shift-Backslash [under Backspace] on a QWERTY keyboard), which will display as Gary Taylor. You could also move it like Orangemike suggested. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading: Wikipedia:Pipe trick

Thank you for these helpful suggestions! I will try the pipe trick.1mmmh 15:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)1mmmh[reply]

comments

i would just like to know where you can comment and where you can add information. i would also find a rating system of how researched something is extremly useful - is this possible for wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.100.220 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For leaving comments, you can click on the "discussion" tab of any page, as long as your comments relate to improving the article (or are generally discussing the encyclopedia, if it's a user talk page). As for ratings, there status assessments, which can also be found on the talk page. These assessment ratings can be seen here. The only articles that receive rigorous assessments for their ratings are featured status articles, the other ratings are not quite as thorough. Leebo ^T/C 22:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]