Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 January 29

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

January 29

print to pdf

Hi, how can i print an article to pdf? I can do it, but every time i do it it seems like it cuts off a page in the middle if the document is 5 pages (example). please help me prevent that break in between pagesNippon22 (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the method at User:Pediapress? DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Were the replies from last time you asked not helpful? Algebraist 01:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also the Wiki-to-PDF tool. Whitehorse1 12:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

why is there nigger article

its offensive for me becxause i'm black i don't like it there—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.77.45 (talk • contribs)

Because this is an encyclopedia and not censored. – ukexpat (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

its very sad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.77.45 (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you would rather not read it, there are plenty of other articles, or Google is ----> this way  – ukexpat (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, it's an article about the term. We don't ignore that it exists, any more than we ignore that Nazis existed or other awful things. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I worded that very badly. The term itself is awful, and should be remembered for how it was used to denigrate an entire people. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you rather it be buried and forgotten? Kinda hard when everyone, including black ppl, say it. Ltwin (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

yes your right good article becxause there is also a article for farts its fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.77.45 (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I look at it like this: if you forget history, you are doomed to repeat it. We should never forget our sad history, we should learn from it. Ltwin (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

general notability guideline

can someone please help me understand how these tags are removed? verifiable links have been added but the tag remains.03:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordfarmer (talk • contribs)

Can you link to the article in question? Often tags are part of the text of the article, often at the top, which are in braces. Items such as {{wikify}} might be one such tag. It is possible to simply delete the tag, but it's always best to check the talk page to see if there is discussion about that particular tag. Ched (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Hello. Such a tag is best removed by an uninvolved person (this could possibly be you, but given the context of your post, as well as your post to Rich Farmbrough's talk page, I suspect otherwise). When you say you've added "links", do you mean you have cited to references verifying the information and showing that the subject itself has been discussed substantively in reliable sources? If so, great, However, I put it that way because many times I have seen external links added to an article which simply show usage of terms appearing in the article, but which are not about the subject itself, as well as multiple citations being added which do discuss the subject, but which are not at all reliable sources. So, please post what article you are asking about. You have not disclosed that, and you have edited no articles under the user account you used to post this question.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Font Size

For some reason, every page on wikipedia looks like I'm zoomed in. The font and everything is way too big. It wasn't like this earlier and I have no issues with other sites. Would anyone know how I could go back to the original size? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.118.223.249 (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the browser you are using, look under one of the drop down menu boxes ("View" in IE), check the "Text size" item and see if it is set to a larger-than-normal size. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Other possibilities: Hold down Ctrl while scrolling your mouse wheel down, or hit the '-' key on the keypad to the right, or clear the entire cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Another browser, Firefox, has the text size options in the View=>Zoom menu. Or, holding the ctrl key and selecting 0 + (3 keys) may reset the setting, depending on what computer you use. Whitehorse1 12:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

new account

isigned up for a new account and it said i didn,t have conformatio n code —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.133.9 (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference name / citing reference twice

Hi there! I am editing an article and I find that I am relying on the same source several times. I don't want to have the same source over and over again in the references. I've seen other pages that refer to a reference twice, but simply jump to or refer to the same reference again rather than creating a new one. Looking in the source, it seems to have something to do with ref name in carrots (or whatever you call them), but I can't figure out how to do that. Thanks! RMJ (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Footnotes#Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of IPs

Why is there some much persecution of IPs here on Wikipedia? Every logged in user is reverting edits of an IP! I've seen that squillons of times on the history of Talk:Main Page and in the contribution history of User:Braingle. 84.13.214.106 (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know many quality editors who have never created an account, and whom are not reverted. A large volume of vandalism at this site does come from IP-only users; it makes sense that a person who's only purpose is to vandlise the site isn't much interested in creating a user account. However, merely because someone is removing the vandalism caused by some IP editors does not mean that ALL IP edits are being reverted! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at those IP edits by clicking "prev" next to them in the page history? The most recent IP edits to Talk:Main Page are: [1][2][3]. They were reverted for good reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing with an IP address is one of the "warning signs" of vandalism; others include editing high-profile articles, not providing an edit summary, and making large changes. In general the Wikipedia community does a good job of reverting vandalism without rejecting all IP edits. That being said, the system does fail on occasion, but those problems can be sorted through standard escalation procedures. Help us improve a page or two and you'll see that IP edits aren't reverted out of spite. – 74  19:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How to make an article more notable?

My article related to my organization was speedy deleted as per the A7 guidelines.What are the points on which notability is measured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahanvi1382 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ORG (and probably WP:COI as well). Deor (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reading through WP:N might help you see the fine points. Writing about your own organization can be very difficult due to WP:COI good luck Ched (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Identity on contributions

I wish to be identified on my contributions by my name "Anand Datla" instead of my user name dabraju. How do I do this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabraju (talk • contribs) 07:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You can ask for a renaming of your account, or if you just want that name for signatures on talk pages, you could customize your signature. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing my deleted edits

I was just looking at my SQL tool summary and saw that a bunch of my edits have been deleted. I know it has happened recently, because I watched all the pages I edited until about a week ago. Also, I haven't gotten any notices that I was doing anything wrong. A few questions then. If I asked for old sandbox-y userpages to be deleted, is that probably the source of the deleted edits? Also, is there any way I can look at a history of my edits that have been deleted? I'm pretty curious. SMSpivey (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:DeletedContributions is a tool only available to administrators. However, from what I can see, your last 50 deleted edits include three sandbox articles which were deleted per WP:CSD#U1. Probably more, if I went back further. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Helpful, and lickety-split, too! Thanks! SMSpivey (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• The only other deleted entry that is not in userspace is Lists of solo piano pieces.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Awesome. I was worried someone was going and deleting all of the assessments i've been doing for Wikiproject: Comedy. I guess now I can sleep at night... okay, that was a lie, I was sleeping just fine. SMSpivey (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:American electric guitarists

In April last year someone removed this category from an article I wrote calling it redundant. I have yet to see why it is redundant. And there's no deletion log for the category nor does there appear to be any related deletion discussion. Any ideas? Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, looking at Category:Guitarists, no category called "Electric guitarists" exist, let alone "American electric guitarists". Weird. Maybe electric guitars are classified under some other name there? :P Chamal ^talk 11:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no sign Category:American electric guitarists has existed. Are you sure it was a blue category with that name? It is possible to add an article to a non-existant category but it should not be done. The category will be red at the bottom of the article, and the "non-existant category page" will both say there is no such category and show pages belonging to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to Grant Austin Taylor? You commented out the category [4] because it didn't exist. Later somebody claimed in an edit summary [5] to "remove redundant cat." but actually just moved the comment. It is still there. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• So it's actually not redundant.. Figures. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not possible to rename the page

Hello, My name is Floropoulou, and I would like to rename the current page CITY College ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_College_Thessaloniki) into CITY College, Affiliated Institution of the University of Sheffield, but I cannot do that, althought I have enought edits. Can you please help me to rename this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floropoulou (talk • contribs) 10:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is really no need to rename that page to the new title you proposed. Please see WP:Naming conventions. If you think it is really necessary, discuss this move on the article talk page and see what others think. Help on moving a page can be found here. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 11:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

CITY College, Affiliated Institution of the University of Sheffield already exists so you cannot move another article there. The two articles should be merged, and CITY College should probably redirect to City College. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

New categories

How can I get a list of recently created categories please? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends how recent you want. Newpages has a list going back a month, though beyond that I don't know. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How do I change the coordinates of a location?

The black mountains, south of Cairns in Queensland, Australia are located at coordinates -15.664478, 145.230117 however the article states they are at coordinates -16.785278, 145.639722 which is off by almost 200 kilometers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TV0912 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Click "edit this page" at top and change the parameters to {{coord}}. I don't know why {{coord}} appears twice with different parameters. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears twice because on is used to display coordinates at the top right of the page, and another inside the infobox. Chamal ^talk 13:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama Editing

Dear Sirs,

How can I edit a semi-protected page? The Barack Obama page states that he is the first African American in the office. This is a factual error as Barack Obama is the first African European American to serve the office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Progressive tom (talk • contribs) 14:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In order to make edits to semi-protected pages before you are autoconfirmed, place {{editsemiprotected}} on the article's talk page, along with the edit you wish to make. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 14:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is busy so {{editsemiprotected}} is not necessary to draw attention. He is called African American by lots and lots of reliable sources so it looks fine that Wikipedia also does it even though some people might prefer another definition of the term. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If it is a factual error, than a preponderance of reliable sources will report the correct fact. Simply gather enough mainstream, reliable sources which use the term you feel is the correct term, and bring them to the talk page to initiate a civil discussion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There are 247 Google hits on "Barack Obama" "African European American", and 6,220,000 on "Barack Obama" "African American". I don't expect a suggested change will get support. See also African American#Who is African American?. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I see from the article you linked to it say's "55% of European American's classify President Barak Obama as biracial... while 66% of African American's consider him black". I know he self identify's as African American, but a large percentage of American's place him in a different category. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Those of you who want to take off the "African-American" seem to be ignoring the grim reality of American political life, which is the "one-drop rule": if you are seen as having any African ancestry, you are classed as "black"/"African-American"/"Negro"/"Afro-American". Even a more heterogenous person, such as Tiger Woods, falls prey to that basic attitude. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not American but I think many Americans would consider "African American" to be a subset of blacks with Barack Obama included in the former, and never use the term "African European American". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised at the figures. 66% is a rather small amount of people who regard him as a fellow African American. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

66% of course is not a small amount of people, but percentage wise it's much lower than I would have thought. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The question was: "Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, is being heralded as a potential presidential candidate in 2008. Senator Obama’s mother is white and his father who is from Kenya, Africa is black. In your opinion, is Senator Obama, black, biracial, mulatto, multiracial, white, or none of the above?". I'm guessing more than 66% of African Americans (however those are selected) would consider him "African American" which may just imply some African origin to many. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, it should be noted that ethnicity or race or whatever "category" you want to place him in is not determined by quantitative measurement of his ancestry. Sure, we can factually report that he's 3% German, or whatever, but that does not capture what the reality of being Black in America is. Race is entirely about one's relationship with one's home culture. People in America (or any culture) will relate to individuals differently for different reasons. In America, physical appearance is a primary determining factor as to how people will react and relate to each other. As such, since Obama and Tiger Woods (from the examples here) both display outward charactaristics of being Black, then that is a defining characteristic of them. This is true even if we wish it weren't so. Since he has about 50% (or in Tiger's case, 75%) "non-African" ancestry doesn't matter; people in their daily interactions and visceral responses aren't holding his family tree in their hands when they have their feelings and understandings about "who" Obama is. It is because of this tendency in America to place such an emphasis on racial appearance and not on quantitative measures of ancestry, that the article mentions in the lead his status as the first "African American" or "Black" president, and not on his European ancestry. As verified by the status in reliable sources, it is clear that America doesn't really care much about his European ancestry... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is a shame. I worked with a black guy who was asked where he came from. He answered Scotland. The woman who asked just couldn't get her head around it. She actualy asked him twice more, receiving the same reply. She never asked me the same question, and I'm Scots/Irish/Dutch. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I used to ride bikes with a white guy from South Africa. He called himself an "African American." If truth is determined by popular vote, then in articles about the United States we should state that the Earth is approximately 6000 years old, that Christianity is the one true religion (never mind that it comes in approximately 20,000 distinct flavors), and life begins at conception (although certain passages in the Bible strongly imply that "life" is already present in semen). That we do not present these popular ideas as "fact" suggests that as an encyclopedia, we take a somewhat elitist view toward truth. That is, Wikipedia's working definition of "truth" is really what seems truthful to the tiny minority of people who are smart enough to write an encyclopedia (don't think for one second that the average person can do this). Word to Progressive tom: lots of people have lots of opinions about what Wikipedia should say. Having an opinion is easy; convincing the other 48,309,422 registered users to accept your opinion is a different story. It doesn't matter whether the Obama Barack article happens to be protected; if you made your proposed edit, it probably wouldn't last five minutes, for all the reasons outlined above. Wikipedia can be a cruel place for people with oddball opinions about things, and I should know because I have never met anyone who thinks like I do. --Teratornis (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple watch lists

Is it possible to create multiple watch lists? I want to have one for things I check several times a day and one for things I check a couple times a week.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The best way to do that is to create a second account. Wikipedia does not forbid the use of multiple accounts, ONLY the use of multiple accounts to deceive, disrupt, or dodge a block. As long as you are in good standing, just create a new account, like "TonyTheTiger2" or something, and state on all of your userpages the list of accounts you operate. As long as you are upfront about it, and aren't trying to do any of the stuff forbidden at WP:SOCK, that seems like the easiest solution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Or you can create a list in your userspace that you check regularly using the recentchangeslinked feature. e.g: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Articles UK. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

alumni lists

What is the policy on wikipedia about alumni list inclusions? Yesterday User:LiamE, made two additions to the List of University of East Anglia alumni, neither of which had their own articles, but rater linked to other articles. For example the user added Polly Graham, journalist, which in actual fact links through to an article about 9 gossip columists, Polly Graham being one of these. I removed this addition giving my reasons in the edit summary but this was reverted by the original contributer on more than one occasion. Not sure whether I should leave it be, or remove the addition once more. 79.75.154.89 (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty much determined by the notability criteria. See here for detailed instructions. Chamal ^talk 15:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a bright idea to post link to a user's page and then vandalise it, is it? Unless you want to be banned of course. --LiamE (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Link for "jump to top of page"

Is there a template which enables the reader to jump to the top of the page in a long article? Thanks. --Coosbane (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In many browsers you can just press the "Home" key (and "End" to get the bottom). I don't know about a template and I don't think it should be done in articles, but [[#content]] (rendering as #content with piping possible) makes a link to the top, and [[#footer]] (rendering as #footer) to the bottom. It may not work in some data users. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Images in list articles

Some articles are simply a list of names, places, etc use a template for inputting data such as List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni and List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. The articles use to have images displayed along the table, now the images are displayed and the table of names are displayed below the images. This just occurred within the last week. I have also check other list that use tables for input and they no longer work as previously.--Ccson (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The change appears to be caused by edits to {{AlumniStart}} on 26 January. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is probably my fault, as I fixed some similar templates and my changes have been copied to this template but not tested. I changed the default table width to 80%— this should fix the problem. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Guidance required.

Hello to everyone. I am new to Wkipedia and want to create a new Project regarding the development of science in ancient India. Can anyone please tell me what to do and am I permitted legally to initiate the project? Anirban16chatterjee (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You should raise this issue on the WP:WikiProject India talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean to create a new WikiProject then see also Wikipedia:WikiProject and Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrespective of how you end up implementing the "Project" you have in mind (that word has a specific technical meaning on Wikipedia, and we aren't sure if you are using the word in its Wikipedia sense), you can create a user subpage right now and start accumulating notes and references on it. That page can be your workspace as you collect material and work it into various Wikipedia articles. See for example my notes at User:Teratornis/Energy and User:Teratornis/Notes. It's useful to keep notes whenever you are trying to do something on Wikipedia that is more complex than a one-off edit. Your notes will help you stay on track as you poke away at something for months on end, and they can be useful to other editors who want to understand what you are doing. If you discover any new techniques that nobody else has documented yet, then your notes can be useful source material when you add to Wikipedia's imposing collection of friendly manuals. --Teratornis (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that this isnt exactly the place to talk about this but I think it is ergent

I tried to go to the Zoo Tycoon Wiki (adress zootycoon.wikia.org) and the home page had been taken over by something like "I cannot be stopped, I will not be stopped...something something something" and a picture of something I may not repeat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.97.219.138 (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is vandalism earlier today.[6] It look like any unregistered user can fix it by themselves by just clicking "Undo" on that link. Wikia is not a part of Wikipedia and as you indicate, it is out of our "jurisdiction". PrimeHunter (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I like "ergent". Tan | 39 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too, but then I am only slighly more civil than a deletionist. (I admit to being endlessly amused by Wikipedia's having a "civility" policy while simultaneously deleting enough articles to fill the sizable Deletionpedia - it's like an elephant who casually tramples thousands of ants all the while viewing himself as a congenial chap). --Teratornis (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what did that have to do with either a) vandalism at Wikia, or b) my amusement at a misspelling? Tan | 39 23:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I took it as c) on the general subject of amusement. —teb728 t c 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would deletion of inappropriate material be akin to incivility? It's like calling the gardener rude because he pulls weeds and trims the hedges. By that measure, Michelangelo was an obnoxious bastard because he took nice blocks of marble and then threw a bunch of perfectly good stone away. The really incivil people are the ones who casually dismiss other editors with epithets like 'deletionist'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about what it takes to get banned

Are users allowed to edit pages with vandalism and not get banned for it? I mean the bot thing fixes it as soon as we post it if we have commited vandalism so who even cares??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHarvinator (talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be the Internet equivalent of Somalia -- without any sort of order -- if we just let a bot revert vandalism all day. If a user continually vandalises, then he is likely to be blocked by an administrator -- perhaps a day or so for anonymous IP addresses, up to indefinite for registered users. Xenon54 (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Somalia is more orderly than what Wikipedia would turn into, since Somalia has warlords and the possibility for some organized human activity (such as pirate attacks). An unprotected Wikipedia would probably turn into useless garbage where even pirates would be hard-pressed to function. TheHarvinator: see WP:EIW#Enforce for everything you could want to know (and more) about Wikipedia's procedures for blocking and banning unconstructive users. --Teratornis (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is disruptive, and not welcome here. Not all vandalism revisions are automatically reverted. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do I appeal a deletion if an administrator is abusing his positotion?

I recently put in a request to PMDrive1061 for reverse the deletion of the Ism(punk band) page. He cited blatant copyright infringement while citing a website from CDbaby.com. I responded to him that this was not correct and pointed out how he was confusing the copyright of the CD for sale on CDbaby with the bio of the band which is on the official Ism website granting license to anyone who is wishing to use the bio in any way. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, you can easily see this:

http://www.ism-punk.com/historyoftheband.html

After several attempts to correct the administrator, he failed to respond after his first statement. Then he deleted all requests. I know there have been multiple complaints about him deleting articles and have no idea whether he was justified or not but in this case he was mistaken and refuses to confront the issue in an intelligent manner. It almost seems as if there is an agenda. Where do I get this correct by an unbiased person within the Wikipedia community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.181.219 (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review. Hermione1980 19:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me the exact link in deletion review to leave an appeal?

I just spent a 1/2 hour trying to figure it out and it's seems impossible to figure out where to leave an appeal. I wish they can simplify the process on Wikipedia so it can become a more inclusive forum. This is as complex as the IRS tax code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.181.219 (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this help? Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. (I took tax accounting in college...trust me, this is simpler. :-) Hermione1980 20:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia was simple enough for the average person to contribute whatever they wanted, without much effort, then all the people who are smart enough and industrious enough to figure out the stupefyingly complex Wikipedia in its current form would go off and start another wiki, which would then become the next top-five Web site, while the simplified Wikipedia would probably degenerate into useless nonsense and gradually lose popularity. You want to put your article on Wikipedia rather than on one of the other thousands of less-popular wikis because there is something uniquely valuable about Wikipedia. I am pretty sure this has something to do with the rigorous standards here. Consider, if the National Football League reduced its standards for players, would the product improve? Nobody wants to pay money to watch football played by average people who haven't spent years in training - instead, people want to watch the most talented players after they have invested their whole lives into maximizing their skills. Similarly, nobody wants to read an encyclopedia written by average people who didn't want to read lots of friendly manuals. Instead, people like a product when it represents the winning result from a ruthlessly Darwinistic competition. Wikipedia is popular because the material that survives here is usually written by smart people who have spent many hours studying the detailed instruction manuals. The material tossed in by people who expect everything to be quick and easy usually gets deleted. When it comes to building quality Web sites, TANSTAAFL. --Teratornis (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear! – ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. That's arrogant elitism. Don't bite the newbies. Help them. If they seem to have a case, help them build the WP:DRV request. Wikipedia is hard to understand. That's why the experienced Wikipedians should help the less experienced ones. --Richard (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

DRV has always struck me as being needlessly complicated and off-putting. I am an experienced Wikipedian, but would not be able to help anyone with it because I don't understand it myself. DuncanHill (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is arrogant and elitist, as anyone can plainly see by reading WP:AFD. Thousands of unsuspecting people get suckered routinely by Wikipedia's welcoming interface; they create new articles in good faith; and often the first hint they get that there might be more to it is when they discover their articles seem to have disappeared. I'm not "biting" the newcomers, I am explaining how Wikipedia devours them. Pretending to be friendly is different than being friendly. Being friendly requires more than claiming to be friendly, it requires some sort of proaction to see how one's attempts to be friendly are working out. It's not enough to say "I tried," one must actually study how the newbies are faring. Wikipedia is like a giant elephant that is barely aware of how many ants it smashes as it cavorts happily in self-absorption. Does anyone think that if Wikipedia as a system had any real concern for newcomers there would be anything like the WP:AFD process in its breathtakingly unselfconscious officiousness? How broken is our system, that we have to delete tens of thousands of articles? Why isn't this the first thing an aspiring new editor becomes aware of? I had been editing on Wikipedia for months before I became aware of the staggering scale of deletion that goes on here. It's just inexcusable. I'm reminded of the Vogon constructor fleet at the start of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when it announced the demolition of Earth to make way for an interstellar bypass. The Vogons had followed the correct procedure by having the plans duly on file at the Alpha Centauri field office if I recall the story correctly, and nobody on Earth had lodged an objection. (Never mind that Earthlings had not yet discovered interstellar travel...) --Teratornis (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Complementary contributions

--Faustnh (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys. Imagine I consider I could contribute a complementary text to an existing article that could help people simplify, clarify and understand some concepts, or that could help people with their search of more related information; but imagine that I don't consider this complementary text needs to be presented directly on the complemented article. Where should I correctly place such complementary text or contribution? Thx.

The only option is within the article itself, pages in mainspace are not supposed to have explanatory subpages. The other alternative is to create the article on the Simple English Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

kthx . --Faustnh (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)