Help desk
< June 26	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 28 >

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

June 27

Getting new unreviewed articles reviewed

My first new article, Isaac Wunder order, was put up in mainspace in 17 June. This being my first, I don't know how long it normally takes for a new article to get the eye of a reviewer who can remove the {{Userspace draft}} template, presuming the article is OK. I put a request for feedback. I know it can take a while, but I'm not sure how long such a while should be before I ask again, or if there are other steps I should take. Rhsimard (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My usual advice is to be patient, there is quite a backlog of new articles for review. – ukexpat (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a quick look at it and made a few minor changes. The list of "See also" links should probably also be pruned to remove links that already appear in the text of the article. It is not clear to me how the external link is relevant. – ukexpat (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sucrose and Diabetes

I have had Diabetes for many years. I have been using Glyburide l.5mg tab. A fewmonths ago my sugar count began to rise. My doctor changed my Glyburide to 2.5 in early May. Since then my sugar counts has risen on most days to 160 or higher. I also take other prescriptions such as simvitation Lisinpurinal Allopurinal and als Tums.When I checked the Tums for ingredients it had sugar2g. It also had sucrose but did not list it's dosage.I take 2 Tums each morning. Could my taking Tums everyday cause my sugar count to rise. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.174.91.203 (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not give medical advice. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to ask such wuestions, that belongs at the medical desk. Also, next time you decide to ask a question, please read the top section to see if this is the right place. Please wait until someone shows you a link to the medical desk. Thanks, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A medical desk? What medical desk? doomgaze (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Deletion - But Information Correct!

I am not 100% sure why I have received an automated e - mail (RE: Wikipedia page User talk:Whitbycolin has been changed by SunCreator). I have created a page with information about Mary K Roberts, a survivor of the Titanic and also the SS Rohilla. The information is truthful as I have family descendants of Mrs. Roberts who gratefully supplied me with the information.

I am clearly new to editing documents in a great form and admit that the help pages do not often help. I would like to add a reference link to my Rohilla website but am lost as to how best to do this. Not to be outdone I do hope to learn how best to work within the guidlines.

Regards

Colin Brittain

Dear Whitbycolin,

The Wikipedia page "User talk:Whitbycolin" has been changed on 24 June 2011 by SunCreator, with the edit summary: Notification: proposed deletion of Mary K. Roberts. (TW)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Whitbycolin&diff=0&oldid=406534316 for all changes since your last visit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whitbycolin for the current revision.

To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SunCreator

Note that additional changes to the page "User talk:Whitbycolin" will not result in any further notifications, until you have logged in and visited the page.

            Your friendly Wikipedia notification system

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitbycolin (talk • contribs) 01:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the big issues is that the page is completely unsourced. Remember, wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Add references to the article, then you should be able to remove the PROD tag as it is no longer completely valid. The editor who tagged it also mentioned some notability questions. I do think that the notability issue is controversial enough that it should be addressed at WP:AFD, not as a PROD. For now, your biggest thing to worry about is adding references. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with two links posted on the net by hackers using wikipedia to install spyware and viruses

Over the last 2 weeks I clicked on two links I thought were directing me to Wikipedia, instead they destroyed 2 of my laptops. I hope there is something you can do about it to block them. Here they are. Thanks in advance for looking into it. AAC.

List of cities in Malaysia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Kuala Lumpur is by far the largest city as well as the largest metropolitan area in Malaysia. Other major cities with a population of more than 500,000 include Ipoh ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_MalaysiaList of cities and towns in Malaysia by population - Wikipedia ...

The following is a list of urban areas in Malaysia by population. Only the fifty ... "Malaysia: largest cities and towns and statistics of their population". World Gazetteer. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Malaysia_by_population — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.191.85 (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with either of those links. Most likely there's some other software on your computers that has redirected you to sites unaffiliated with Wikipedia. You could try checking out Malware or ask for help at the Computing reference desk. Remember to give them plenty of detail. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On linking to those emails?

What is our stance on linking to those recently Leaked Emails? Obviously not for any article but in project talks spaces? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is vague. Various emails leak all the time. Which ones do you refer to, and what projects do you have in mind? If something is not suitable as a reliable source for Wikipedia, how does linking to it from a talk page advance the encyclopedia project? Everything we do here must somehow contribute to building the encyclopedia, even if only indirectly. Also check the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist to see if you are able to link to them - links to some sites are forbidden on Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...what are you talking about? You're welcome? A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Interwiki Watchlist

I primarily edit wikipedia; however, I have made a few contributions to other areas in the Wikimedia project. Is it possible to add my talk page on those projects and other pages I am interested in to my watchlist? Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just redirect the page to wikipedia:User talk:Ryan Vesey or en:User talk:Ryan Vesey as a soft redirect. Not sure if possible to do a hard redirect. Any one else aware of a way? Kindly Calmer Waters 03:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I searched and found the page Wikipedia:Integrated, interwiki, global watchlists. I know nothing about this; maybe the page or its talk page will give you something useful. --Teratornis (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Within that link there was another link to a script which allowed me to import my other watchlists, thank you. Ryan Vesey (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could alway add the relenvant interwiki to you talk page, which should produce a similar set of interwikis to those on my user page. So for you Dutch wiki talk page you'd add [[nl:Overleg gebruiker: Ryan Vesey]], for your French Wiki talk page you'd add [[fr:Discussion utilisateur:Ryan Vesey]] etc, etc. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If its actual articles you want to keep an eye on, the one way is to create a subpage of your user page, link to the articles there and then post the url of the relevant related changes special page on the relevant wiki. Recent changes to articles on my Dutch account article sub-page. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Signature button in edit toolbar

How do I add username after comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xzuiko (talk • contribs) 04:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add this after comments: --~~~~ GroovySandwich 04:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally you sign posts on talk pages using ~~~~, as described at Wikipedia:Signatures. That produces your signature and a timestamp. If, for some reason, you want to omit the time stamp, you can sign using ~~~. Remember to only sign in talk pages, not articles. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou :) Xzuiko (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can also click the signature button in the edit toolbar. See image to the right. Also see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --Teratornis (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is something every Wikipedian needs to know: to sign all comments with four tildes (~~~~), AND to encourage others to do so. You just type <nowiki>~~~~<nowiki> . Also, remember to include an edit summary, as Ryan Vesey says. Thanks! A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romagnola

Hello My Name is Mary Flanigan. I am Secretary/Treasurer to the Romagnola & RomAngus Cattle Association. I did not find the breed Romagnola on your list of beef cattle. The Romagnola is probably the oldest beef cattle in the world. Can you please add to your list. Also need to ad RomAngus Cattle. They are a breed of Angus and Romagnola. Been around for the past 15 years. See our webb site at www.romagnola.org and email me at (Redacted) Thank you Mary Flanigan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.221.114.91 (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your email address: it's not a good idea to post your email address online, as it may be harvested by spambots. We only reply on this page, anyway.

Romagnola is already listed in List of cattle breeds, both under the Used for multiple purposes and the Used for beef sections. Under which section should RomAngus be listed?

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you were most likely referring to the section Beef cattle breeds in the article on Beef cattle. I've added Romagnola per your request. I think RomAngus needs its own article before it is added to Beef cattle breeds. You could list it at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

estate of george harrison (ex beatle)

A few fays ago I put a question about how to contact the estate of GH and want a reply from someone please. I want to publish a song about him and it includes a quote from one of his songs. Please advise who administers his estate so I may ask them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.136.173 (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Teratornis (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLease reply to xxxx re any infor re this question (se e above) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.136.173 (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the reply to your question at WP:RDE#estate of george harrison. —teb728 t c 05:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help answering my question guys, 75.118.136.173 (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk creation

I just posted a PROD message to an editor's talk page. It was the first edit and therefore created the page. Everything with that went fine but I was surprised to see that a welcome message was appended to my PROD. Does this happen every time a user talk page is created with something other than a welcome message? I've created many user talk pages and this is the first time I've seen this. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 05:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not every time, as it's happened often automatically to me as well. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle's documentation states, "Twinkle does not give the creator a welcome message, even if their talk page does not exist." I guess it wouldn't say that unless there is some other automated prod notification system that does do so. A bit rough, really, since you've implicitly agreed to respond to any questions the user asks you at your talk page. Maybe just use Twinkle if you don't want this to happen again? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template you used adds a welcome message to blank pages unless "nowelcome=yes" is set. See {{proposed deletion notify#New users}} for more info. —Tommyjb (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Booker

Ref 28 has something wrong with it. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, what was wrong is that the "cite news" was repeated twice. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace page in Google search

I have recently moved a page into the mainspace after working on it in my userspace. The new page shows up nicely in a google search but so does my original userspace page. Is it possible to stop the userspace page showing up? If so could you advise me how please? Also, the subject of the article (a person) has a relatively common name and is listed in the 'other people' section in wikipedia when I search for him. I think he should be listed in the 'music' section of people with the same name and would like to know how I can make that change please? Thanks.--Maggiemorgan1969 (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the redirect at User:Maggiemorgan1969/David King to a move message. You can request deletion of the page with {{db-u1}} if you want. In either case it will soon disappear from Google search results when they update their index. If you don't want a userspace page to be indexed by search engines even when it has real content then place {{NOINDEX}} on it. David King is a manually edited page. You can click the "Edit" tab and edit it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

embedding a file in an article

Hello. I'm currently experimenting with the possibility of providing enhanced locational information for readers interested in contemporary naval vessel home port deployments. I've asked in the naval section of the military history wikiproject but seemingly this technical issue is not in their ken. Basically, I'd like to know if it's possible to use the embedded file option in the edit browser bar, or otherwise by some (hopefully user friendly technical means), to 'embed' or otherwise link to a '.kml' (keyhole satellite metadata file) usable in Google Earth to store a list of GE global place-marks related to the vessels being discussed in the article, which might typically be about a class of vessels rather than just a single vessel.

I appreciate it's possible to use the co-ordinates framework protocol code to make a single place-mark link to the 'Geo Hack' page which then has a further link to GEarth in its links-to table . However, that link I've found is subject to some serious failings (a) if you use the 'open' link some species of a 'preferential' software 'glich' takes over, which instead of taking you to the co-ordinates you've been given, goes instead to the location of the nearest 'existing' Google Maps place mark, which is typically miles away, even though you've just opened GEarth instead, but which in GMaps would then ask you 'did you mean this place instead ?' And (b) if instead you select the 'with meta data' option, a host of embedded additional materials (not however including the view date timeline preference and altitude of viewpoint data which the editor would like the reader to appreciate). Accordingly, it seems to me that the only user friendly option would be to allow the reader to download a keyhole metadata file (from within the article) created bespoke by the editor with just the information on it relevant to the vessels and places dealt with in the article.

I can't believe but that this kind of issue of the practical linking of wikipedia article information, which has an especial relevance to a physical place or places location(s) on Earth, to an ability to visualise those locations in Google Earth (or possibly some other equally well used application - is there one?)hasn't arisen in many many guises before. I'm hoping therefore that you have a worked out solution ? I promise that I've look for it for hours in editing guideline materials and elsewhere, without success. sorry for rambling. thank you.

--John Eight Thirty-two (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editors with the technical ability to respond tend to hang out at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). It sounds intriguing, I hope you will ask the question there.--SPhilbrick T 13:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious that this kind of ephemeral information (the current position of a movable object) is encyclopaedic. But by all means ask at VPT. --ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes won't form a new line

Sometimes when editing text, and I start a new line, it doesn't work. Wikipedia does not do the line break, the text is run on into the previous paragraph. My workaround has always been to add an additional blank line. Any guess as to what is going on / what I am doing wrong? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your workaround is correct; see Help:Wiki markup#Line breaks. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just type two “enters”. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking Spanish and English versions of Wikipedia pages

Hi there, I am a Spanish and English speaker, and I recently created a Wikipedia Page in Spanish. How do I link it to the English version as well? When I am on the Spanish version, "Other Languages: English", pops up on the left hand tool bar, but when I am on the English version, "Other Languages" (which should now say 'Spanish'), does not come up.

Does anyone know how to update this? Thanks in advance! http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mautner_Project — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrw22 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as you were posting your question here, a bot came along and made this edit for you. See Help:Interlanguage links. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback needs help

Some of the regulars who help out at Feedback either aren't active or aren't as active as they have been (that includes me). My unscientific review of the backlog suggests that over half haven't received any response. Anyone willing to help?--SPhilbrick T 13:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided some input there of late. ArcAngel (talk) ) 13:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian desert

Help! There is an error at the bottom of the Syrian desert page! Solarmax19082 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in this edit. – ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find Tequila Avion

Hi Help Desk,

I had started a page for Tequila Avion but I cannot remember my user name or anything else to do with it. Do you think you could help me in some way. I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks so much

Caroline McCormick Tequila Avion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.117.98 (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Caroline mccormick. See also Wikipedia:Your first article. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you still have access to the account where you created it, you can ask for a new password to be sent to it at the login screen.Naraht (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to a subpage at User:Caroline mccormick/Tequila Avión. – ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links to reviews

I was adding links to a podcast that reviews Star Trek episodes. I happen to be on that podcast.

Thus, I added links to the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Who http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Measure_of_a_Man_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)

I received the error notice about possibly spamming on TOS Balance of Terror, which ended up not being edited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_Terror

I thought it would be appropriate to add reviews to the list of External Links. We had done 9 shows, and I was trying to catch up with that, after which it will be a show a week.

If this is inappropriate, please let me know and I will gladly remove the links. I saw reviews on

Thank you very much, Chris King / Cynical Prophet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynical Prophet (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you have a conflict of interest you should not be adding these links, doing so could be seen as spaming no matter what merit the link may have. You should instead suggest the links to the talk pages and an independent editor may add them to the article for you. But seeing as the website is a fansite/personal blog, I do not see them passing WP:EL. Rehevkor ✉ 16:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit templates?

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit the template at the bottom of the page for the NWA Force One Heavyweight Championship that says "Force One Pro Wrestling championships"? Kris (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would edit Template:Force One. – ukexpat (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 76.116.139.12 (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The v · d · e links on the left side of the template titlebar are view, discuss, edit. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sort problem (numbers vs charters)

in exploring the article List_of_tallest_buildings_by_U.S._state there are 3 numerical columns (height in feet, height in meters, levels) For the levels column, when sorted ascending it sorts by numbers (i.e. 3 then 11, and at the bottom 76 then 102 then 110, as it should be); but when sorted descending it sorts by characters (i.e. 76 at the top, then in the middle 30 then 3 then 26, and at the bottom 12 then 110 then 11 then 102.) which is obviously incorrect.

Does anyone have any idea wat is happening and how it can be fixed? Dakker44 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are, I believe, sorted correctly if there are only numbers in the column (the reference on WV may be screwing things up). You xan make certain by putting all numbers into the nts template. For example, change 69 to {{nts|69}}. See Template:Number table sorting for more information.Naraht (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I went ahead and removed the WV reference and it worked fine, then I placed the reference back and tagged all numbers in the column with {{nts}} and it works fine as well. I've left it that way (since it's working), but feel free to revert - frankie (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

large number of small edits

Is there any guideline on en-wiki that gives preference to avoiding large numbers of small edits on one article by one user? I have always thought that putting a lot of little changes together in one edit is better, for instance for keeping the history synoptic etc. But I can't find a guideline on it. - Dick Bos (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a guideline on it? Probably, it seems there is a guideline on just about everything :) Generally speaking, I think it is good to do small edits, rather than multiple changes in a single edit for the reasons you suggest. However, there can be some exceptions, although they do not conflict with your reasoning. If you decided to reorder an article, it should be done as one edit, otherwise, intermediate versions will look silly. If you were making a series of related edits, for example, a table of items which are capitalized and shouldn't be, then do all the changes in a single edit. The general rule – as much as possible, any intervening version should stand on its own. (I occasionally violate this myself, but if I need to, that's when an under construction tag" makes sense.) Keep in mind that some editors wills ee every edit on their watchlist, so multiple edits when a single combined edit would make sense could be annoying.--SPhilbrick T 21:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No official guideline status but see Help:Show preview, Wikipedia:Pruning article revisions, {{Uw-preview}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Submission

I am a retired reporter and columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times. Some months ago, I noticed the glaring absence of a noted colleague, Roger Simon, chief political columnist at Politico and a best-selling author. In an attempt to right this, I put together a bio submission, and the rest has been not easy going. I am attempting to help Wikipedia here. My submission is currently at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Roger_Simon

I have been enforced that my submission lacked references (although a quick look at Google would have solved this. In any event, I have now put together a list of references that should do more than buttress the bio. I am having trouble working with Wikipedia formatting and protocols, so I am left with a bio and reference links. Frankly, I would appreciate it if someone from Wikipedia took over now and formatted the entry properly. Following are the bio and the links. Is there any advice as to what I can do next? (I do not have a lot of spare time to help Wikipedia.

The bio:

Collapsing draft article content

Roger Simon, an award-winning journalist and New York Times best-selling author, is the chief political columnist of Politico. Based in Washington, D.C., Simon contributes articles to national magazines ranging from The New Republic to the New York Times Book Review and speaks nationally. His work has also appeared in Slate, The Washington Post and the Washington Monthly. Simon has appeared as a political analyst on numerous television and radio programs including "Meet the Press," "Face the Nation," the "Today" show, "Good Morning America," "Hardball with Chris Matthews," the "Charlie Rose Show," "Reliable Sources," and the "Diane Rehm Show." Simon was also a regular weekly panelist on CNN’s "Lou Dobbs." Simon was a columnist at The Baltimore Sun from 1984 to 1995 and first gained major notice as an investigative reporter and columnist during his 12 years at the Chicago Sun-Times. In 1998, he became the White House correspondent of the Chicago Tribune and covered the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In 1999, he joined U.S. News & World Report as chief political correspondent and then political editor. He joined Bloomberg News in January 2006 as its first chief political correspondent and later joined POLITICO as its first chief political columnist He has won more than three dozen first-place awards and twice won the American Society of Newspaper Editors Distinguished Writing Award for Commentary. Also, he has won the National Headliner Award three times including 2005 for his coverage of the 2004 presidential election.

He won a National Headliner Award in 2008 for his coverage of the presidential campaign and in 2009 was a finalist for the National Journalism Award for commentary.

His work has been included in the "Best Newspaper Writing in America" in three different years. In reviewing a collection of his work titled "Simon Says: The Best of Roger Simon" (Contemporary Books), Martha Jablow of The New York Times compared him to H.L. Mencken and Russell Baker. The book, published in both hardcover and paperback, has been translated into Japanese. His first book on presidential politics titled "Road Show" was published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux and received praise from the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Newsweek and Time. His book on the Clinton administration and national politics titled "Show Time" was published by Times Books/Random House and hit the New York Times best-seller list on March 29, 1998. His book on the 2000 presidential race, "Divided We Stand," was published by Crown Publishers/Random House in 2002. The Boston Globe said, "Simon is known for his droll humor and bracingly pithy distillations of complex issues." The Associated Press has called his work "sensitive, relevant and written with understated elegance." Simon's column, syndicated for more than 25 years, is distributed by Creators Syndicate to newspapers throughout the world. Simon is a three-time winner of the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award, a three-time winner of the Peter Lisagor Award from the Chicago Headline Club, an eight-time recipient of the Page One Award from the Chicago Newspaper Guild and was the first non-black journalist to win a national writing award from the National Association of Black Journalists. Simon has also won five United Press International Awards and four Associated Press Awards. He has won three Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild Awards, a Maryland-Delaware-District of Columbia Press Association Award and is a three-time winner of the Society of Professional Journalists Maryland Professional Chapter Award. He is a two-time winner of the Washington Monthly Journalism Award for political reporting. Judges from the Ernie Pyle Memorial Award competition cited his "extraordinary ability to capture the story in terms of ordinary people." In 1995, Simon won first-place awards from the Society of Professional Journalists and the Chesapeake Associated Press. In 2005 he won the National Headliner Award for magazine writing for his coverage of the 2004 presidential election. In 2004 he won the Washington Headliner Award for magazine writing. Simon was born in Chicago, Ill., and has a B.A. degree in English from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. He has also worked for the Waukegan (Ill.) News-Sun and the City News Bureau of Chicago. In April, 1999 Simon was inducted into the Chicago Journalism Hall of Fame, whose members include Carl Sandburg, Ben Hecht, Ring Lardner and Mike Royko. Simon has been a Poynter Media Fellow at Yale University, a Hoover Media Fellow at Stanford University, and a Kennedy School of Government Institute of Politics Fellow at Harvard Un

The references:

Roger Simon bio at Politico: http://www.politico.com/reporters/RogerSimon.html

Roger Simon bio at Creators Syndicate: http://www.creators.com/opinion/roger-simon-about.html

"Face the Nation" transcript with Roger Simon appearance: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FTN_091309.pdf?tag=contentMain%3BcontentBody

Roger Simon column as run by CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/24/politics/main2393677.shtml

Interview with Roger Simon in Chicago Reader: http://www.facebook.com/l/2782bKMPWOfBjFtda3RiX6HgnXA/www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/roger-simons-new-house-two-thumbs-in-the-eye/Content?oid=895268

Roger Simon appearance on CNN "Reliable Sources" http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1104/03/rs.01.html

Roger Simon appearance on MSNBC "Hardball": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24792359/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-thursday-may/

Roger Simon appearance on NBC "Meet the Press": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5086094/ns/meet_the_press/t/transcript-may/

Daily Kos story about Roger Simon: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/06/12/875225/-When-life-brings-lemonsRoger-Simon

List of books authored by Roger Simon at amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Roger-Simon/e/B001KHPKFC

New York Times review of Roger Simon book "Showtime" https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/08/reviews/980308.08shribmt.html&OQ=Q5fQ72Q3dQ31

Photo of Roger Simon in conversation with England's Prince Edward: http://www.flickr.com/photos/haddadmedia/5856868143/

Roger Simon column in U.S. News & World Report from 2005: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050912/12simon.htm

Zaynsmith (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add your references to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roger Simon. – ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ukexpat's reply was a bit unfriendly, since you said that you couldn't work out how to add the references yourself. But they would be better, even in their current form, in the article than here (where there is no reason for anybody to look at them). And if you have a look at WP:REFBEGIN, it's not actually too difficult to add them properly.

But looking at the references you have given, it appears to me that many of them are either primary sources or not independent. The Wikipedia criterion for notability is that the subject have been written about in multiple independent reliable sources. On a quick glance through, it appears to me that only the NYT interview and the Chicago Reader item meet that criterion: it's not that the other references may not be used, but they do not establish notability. Those two probably are enough to do that, however (though the Chicago Reader should not be linked via Facebook!).

Though the referencing is important, there are other issues with the article as well: no wikilinks (links to other articles in Wikipedia), no division into sections.

You ask "someone from Wikipedia" to come on over and work on it: there is no "someone from Wikipedia" - we're all the same as you. I realise it's frustrating when you go through the proper procedure, and get little feedback; but that rather comes with the territory of a collaborative volunteer project.

I'll see if I can do anything with the article: but don't expect quick results! --ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and created a Roger Simon (journalist) article, using the contributor's material above but pared way down. I agree that the wiki markup is confusing to deal with for a first-time editor. The problem with Simon's article, based on a quick Google search I did, is that very few people seem to have written about him - and according to Wikipedia: Notability, that's what we need to have a valid article about a noteworthy person, not merely a copy of their resume. But I think the stub article, with references, that I made tonight is good enough to stand on its own, and perhaps other editors who want to take more time will add to it. Textorus (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today

it shows the wrong date — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.216.129 (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see "Monday, June 27,2011" What do you see?--SPhilbrick T 20:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You posted that comment at 19:34 UTC on 27 June. If you are somewhere which is more than four and a half hours East of Greenwich, it was already 28 June for you; but Wikipedia uses Coordinated Universal Time, according to which it was (and is now) still the 27th. --ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

This was such a difficult page to find I have a feeling it won't work or you don't want to hear what I have to say anyway, but here goes. When I make references to important and controverial events like Presidential assassinations, the revision of the Jews lives in Nazi Germany,or 911 amongst others, these articles are written by people with obviously uninformed prejdice. Wikipedia seems to be either publicity written by showbiz agents or propaganda of the most outdated and irrelevent nature. If contrary views aren't allowed no mater how overwhelming the evidence, shut Wikipedia down, you're just looking silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.161.51 (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can understand the difficulty of responding specifically. Wikipedia takes seriously the need for evidence when adding or changing information in articles. If you'd be willing to share a specifics example, someone will be happy to discuss it with you, although generally, such discussion s belong on the talk page of the specific article in question. If you feel that your suggestions are not being addressed properly, we can advise you regarding the next steps in dispute resolution. However, there are no edits to Wikipedia by you, other than to this help desk, so I cannot guess the nature of your concern.--SPhilbrick T 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Could you please give an example? It's hard to respond without knowing exactly what the problem is. You seem to have wandered off midsentence. What happens when you "make references to important and controverial events"?

Nonetheless, I recommend you read Wikipedia:Describing points of view and WP:Verifiability. Additions to controversial issues must be referenced to a reliable source, otherwise they can be removed immediately. Note that opinion and original research are actually very much discouraged. WP:Neutral point of view also ensures that there is no bias. Wikipedia operates on consensus not on the opinions of its individual editors.

Wikipedia, however, can not entertain fringe theories. Again refer to the previous requirement of having a reliable source to back a contrary viewpoint. While they can be mentioned, they should not be given undue weight as a "valid" theory if the bulk of scientific consensus or the majority opinion is against it. In other words, dubious information should not be presented as fact.

What you view as 'overwhelming evidence' might not actually be considered as such by the majority or all of the other reliable sources. But by all means, if you have doubts on the truthfulness of the contents of an article, please raise the issues in the talk page of the article and provide your reasons (and sources) on why you think it is wrong or should be changed. See Help:Using talk pages.

You might also be interested in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is and WP:What Wikipedia is not.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 21:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged article - can an editor please remove?

The following article is tagged as an orphan and for clean-up: Royal Collection Project. I shortened the headings as requested and there are 3 links back to the article. Can an editor help please? Thank you in advance. Artisforme (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor may remove a tag, including you. If you think that the issue has been resolved, remove the tag. But make sure you explain in your edit summary (or on the talk page, if it needs more length) why you think this is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little more clean up, fixed some wikilinks, delinked some unnecessary links and further shortened the headings. Tags removed. – ukexpat (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the feedback and I appreciate having the tags removed. Artisforme (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External Link Correction Not Accepted

I am webmaster for Rocky Hill (CT) Historical Society. I wish to correct the external link to our organization which is no longer valid. The wiki page gives this url as the link to our organization: [1] This web site is no longer in use and has been replaced by history.wordpress.com. However your bot does not allow me to make this essential change. The link to the page in question: [2]

Thank you...John Brush — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.129.85 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying, let me see if I have better luck.--SPhilbrick T 21:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm waiting to see if the bot is going to pick a fight with me, do you have any info about the John Robbins House. We could use an article about it.--SPhilbrick T 21:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've got some info. It's for this article, right? Maybe this could fix it. I also put a stub on that article. Thanks! A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, is it Massechusetts or Connecticut? Thanks, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this John Robbins House, which is a redlink at John Robbins House.--SPhilbrick T 11:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

language version

Hi

I have a two language version of my wikipedia subject (MARIAN HESS)- in polish and english. It is not show up on the left. what I have to do? As well what I need to do more to not show up errors in my sections. thanks for answer

Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Hess (talk • contribs) 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Interlanguage links. Just add [[en:Marrian Hess]] at the very bottom of the article in the Polish page, and [[pl:Marrian Hess]] on the English page.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 21:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also fixed your referencing errors. Please use <ref> and </ref> in conjunction with a {{Reflist}} template instead of <reference> and </reference>. Click here to see my changes. You might also be interested in reading Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

I have also done minor fixes to the article itself. One thing I find unclear: what are the awards? It doesn't seem to actually identify the name of the awards, just the date and who presented them. Could you provide these?-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 22:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phone app?

Is there a Wikipedia Java app for mobile phones? Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile phone, like, a cell phone, iPhone, or what? A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(In answer to Since 10.28), no just a mobile phone. --ColinFine (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page Help:Mobile access covers lots of these new-fangled devices. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map scale in infoboxes

How do you adjust the map scale in the infoboxes that accompany geography articles? I am aware of the scale feature within the simple "Coord" parameter, but that is not what I'm looking for. How does an infobox (with coordinates therein) get its scale? Does it default to a certain scale? When does it display also in the "title" (top of page)? Backspace (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the documentation for Template:Location map, and in Category:Geobox. Template:Coord has a display=title parameter. An infobox might use {{Coord}} as a subtemplate. Your question will make more sense if you specify a particular infobox template. Not all of them may follow a common standard, since many different people may edit similar templates on Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, to use a recent article that I edited, and attempted without success to change the map scale, Iztacalco has an infobox with a map that is at a 1:100,000 scale. How did it obtain this scale, since I see no obvious scale factor stated anywhere, and how does one go about changing the scale? Is there somehow a default value? Backspace (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving a specific example. The Iztacalco article uses the {{Infobox settlement}} template. You can temporarily click the "Edit this page" tab to open the article in an edit window, and scroll down to see list of templates that the article uses, and the templates they use. The {{Infobox settlement}} page documents the template, which seems to answer your questions:

The template displays coordinates at the top of the page depending on the coordinates_display parameter.
The coordinates_type argument specifies the map scale among other things. The argument is optional and does not appear in the call to {{Infobox settlement}} in the Iztacalco article, so the infobox template must be supplying a default value, perhaps passing it to the {{Coord}} template that the infobox template uses. You should be able to override the default by editing the template call in the article to add the coordinates_type argument, with the value you need. Note that this is much safer than editing the template itself, since any error you might make could only affect the article, and not all the other articles that use the same template.

Let us know if reading the template documentation and links therefrom does not answer your questions. As you can see, this infobox template is intricate and is built on top of other intricate templates. A person would need some knowledge of templates on Wikipedia to understand how this works. Templates are easier for people with prior knowledge of a programming language to understand. --Teratornis (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the coordinates_type parameter on Iztacalco and it worked. Thanks for the Infobox settlement link, which explained everything. Guess I'm a better geographer than software jockey. Backspace (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

censor?

This is just a quick question, but why is Wikipedia uncensored? Please do not direct me here, as I have already been there and haven't had my question answered. Thanks! Also, please respond on my talk page if possible. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much you expect from "just a quick question" but neither the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia nor the consensus of the editors want censorship. There are however different opinions of what constitutes censorship and whether Wikipedia has it. If you have something more specific in mind then you can ask a more specific question. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to offend anyone, but can you just tell me the answer? Thanks. I also stated WHY is wikipedia uncensored, not on the subject itself. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that editor consensus has decided that it should be uncensored. There is no other reason. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is right there: Wikipedia is not censored (or at least claims not to be censored) because the people who run Wikipedia want to run it that way. If you are asking why they want to run

Wikipedia that way, then we are off to the races in an attempt to unravel the complete evolutionary causal chain going all the way back to the Big Bang which led to their brains being in the particular states that produced their decisions. That's if you accept a deterministic view of the universe, in which the answer to every question about why something is goes back to some previous state of the universe which caused the current state. --Teratornis (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the Big Bang has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this. Please stop. You're welcome. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to close a conversation, you need to stop commenting on it yourself. GB fan (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's five pillars and many other rules became codified early in Wikipedia's history. If you are interested in learning about the original reasoning behind what are now the rules we accept largely without question, you can go back and read early versions of the various policy and guideline pages, as well as their talk pages which often contain discussion justifying the rules when they were still up for debate. --Teratornis (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Wikipedia's naming conventions on capitalization of article titles have an interesting history. The current guidelines (WP:LOWERCASE, WP:CAPS, WP:MOSHEAD) merely state the rules, but early versions argue in support of the rules. On Appropedia:User:Teratornis/Tasks#Naming convention I documented my findings of some of this early material about the title lettercase rules. That was interesting to me because on this other wiki (Appropedia), there is no consistent title lettercase convention. So the whole debate that took place on Wikipedia and is now largely forgotten would have to basically replay on potentially thousands of other wikis that do not follow Wikipedia's rules. Anyway, with reference to your question of "why?", probably every rule on Wikipedia has been extensively debated and you can dig up the arguments that won. Some of them are summarized in Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. --Teratornis (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't answer my question, but I'm dropping this discussion. I personally thought it is inappropriate to show such uncensored images, in an encyclopedia. Teratornis said, “The answer is right there: Wikipedia is not censored (or at least claims not to be censored) because the people who run Wikipedia want to run it that way. If you are asking why they want to run Wikipedia that way, then we are off to the races in an attempt to unravel the complete evolutionary causal chain going all the way back to the Big Bang which led to their brains being in the particular states that produced their decisions...”. The Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with this simple question. And why are you guys that rude? Honestly. Is it just my point of view (everyone has different POVs, but there seems to be a preferred point of view here), or what? Again, I do not mean to offend anyone. And what consensus here is there? As far as I'm concerned, there is none. As I said, this still doesn't answer my question here, which I would like to bring up why there is nudity in Wikipedia. It is at least slightly inappropriate to some people, and the discussion on some pages, have people being “appaled” with censoring of images. I feel like a single human among aliens in this discussion. The situation here is exactly opposite of the usually predicted outcome. People are looking for censorship as if it were bad, instead of uncensorship. Again, none of the above comments solves the question. I am trying to solve the question not talk about Big Bang. And PrimeHunter, “I don't know how much you expect from "just a quick question" but neither the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia nor the consensus of the editors want censorship. There are however different opinions of what constitutes censorship and whether Wikipedia has it. If you have something more specific in mind then you can ask a more specific question.” Is that an insult? “You can ask a more specific question”? I am appaled at what such a simple question has come to. Or, rather, am I reading this situation incorrectly? Again, I am not trying to offend ANYONE, I am only trying to get an answer to the question at the top of this section. Rather, should I ask, what do you guys view me as? Is it because I put too many requests (don't direct me here, respond here), because I see that you didn't fulfill my second request. If I seem rude, I deeply apologize, because I haven't eaten in a long time (maybe, eh, eight hours). Anyway, in all terms, I am done with this question, unless someone can provide me with an immediate answer. Anyway, I will be taking a very short WikiBreak. Thanks for any and all help, and I will see you...tomorrow? this afternoon? tonight? later? I don't know what time zone you guys are in. Anyway, I'll take a short WikiBreak, and if possible, please ANSWER the question above. Thanks, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy was first introduced simply as a statement of one of the limitations of running Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The rationale shortly after it was first added to WP:NOT back in December 2004 was simply: "Firstly, anyone can edit an article and the results are displayed instantaneously, so we cannot guarantee that a child will see or read nothing objectionable. Secondly, Wikipedia has no systematic system for the removal of material that might be thought likely to harm minors." The current wording of WP:CENSORED has evolved from there—discussions that affected the policy are spread all over the encyclopedia, for example the archives at Talk:Clitoris contain lengthy discussions about if/what kind of image to include.—Jeremy (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, thanks all for advice. I am dropping this question, okay? Thanks. As I said above, you guys don't have to be so rude. I'm just asking a simple question, and if every single person who visits or is related to Wikipedia has to read the Wikipedai contracts three times over, then I will be leaving. Again, I'm just asking a simple question, so please stop being so...assertive. Thanks. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "If you have something more specific in mind then you can ask a more specific question" because I suspected from your question and my help desk experience that you had a specific kind of censorship in mind. Your later posts indicate I was right: You had images of nudity in mind. Censorship is a broad term covering lots of things. Many editors have other things in mind when they talk about censorship. It was hard to answer your question before we knew what the question was about. The short and already stated answer is that Wikipedia works by consensus (you can follow links in replies to see more), and the editors of the English Wikipedia have rough consensus to allow images of nudity when it's relevant to the article. Individual editors may have different criteria for relevance, and different reasons, concerns and thresholds. This has lead to many discussions on talk pages of individual articles. For example, I opposed addition of the image commons:File:Scrotal epidermoid cysts.jpg (click at own risk) at Talk:Sebaceous cyst#Ballzac and the following section. I haven't been much involved in nudity discussions but in many other cases I would support images. Also note that editors come from different cultures around the world with different views on nudity. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean a worldwide view? Got it. Also, I'll view the images later, on my own computer (I'm on my friend's laptop AND they are watching me). Oh, so specific kind OF CENSORSHIP? Wow, I guess I really can't understand others' comments. You know, last week this other guy tryed to make a joke, and I absolutely did not understand it. I guess I've got a lot of catching up to do. Thanks anyway. To All: I am closing this comment for discussion. Any other comments that need to be made please go to my talk page. Thanks anyway, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, look at my second comment, “can you just tell me the answer”? I am still quite shocked as how far this has gotten. From a simple question to... a page-covering epidemic? Is it because I was being rude in my previous comments, because I was just trying to get to the point of the question, but unfortunately, Teratornis slightly elaborated. Now, wait a minute, I am NOT trying to ppoint fingers at ANYONE, I was just trying to get to the bottom of this discussion. Because I am looking at the other comments at the help desk, and they have not elaborated to this point. Or is it because they were extremely recent and have not “evolved” yet? I understand that this may be a slightly controversial subject, knowing the rarity of nude places in not only the U.S. but also in some other countries around the world. It is that you guys have come to a consensus AGAINST me? Or am I just totally thrown off track, totally not on the correct page? Because like I explained in the above comment by me (six indentations), there could be so many possibilities. Am I just not getting anything you guys say, or what? Or am I just treated like an old, pathetic, “noobish” slob that just started editing in Wikipedia? OR, do you guys have a possible secret hatred against me? I have this situation all screwed up, I just can't understand why this discussion evolved quite so much. Did you guys all have an extremely bad day (well, it's always pretty stressful at Wikipedia)? Now PrimeHunter here is stepping forward and telling a vague situation to me. Again, I am not trying to point fingers or shoot anyone (even myself) in the foot, much less directly critisize, insult or threaten anyone in this discussion, as I was saying, I am only trying to grasp the concept of this situation. As stated above, PrimeHunter's “story” is still not enough to see why this has evolved into quite a page-gulping epidemic article/question. Besides guys, this is the Wikipedia Help Desk, and I only want some answer. I deeply, sincerely apologize if I sound like a monotonious, lazy, repeated, droning, storylined, narrated voice/blob inside your head, but I just...hmm...how do I put this, YOU GUYS ARE MISSING THE POINT. My question was, “why is Wikipedia uncensored”, and still it is still yet left unanswered after about nine comments. And Teratornis drifted all the way to some baloney on the Big Bang, and even gave me a link for it. It was something on brains evolving during the Big Bang, when, I believe, humans DIDN'T EVEN EXIST, “that's if you accept a deterministic view of the universe,” quoted by Teratornis. Anyway, where he is steering this conversation is absolutely out of place. If you don't believe me, then you can scroll back up to his comment on the Big Bang. Go ahead. Do it, right now. I'll wait. Also, please don't tell me that I'M the guy who turned this into a page-covering epidemic, because I'm just explaining to you my opinion (in the form of long lengthy articles, at least I get some typing skills, that's not to say I'm doing this for the fun of it) and a simple request for the situation. Again, I am NOT trying to point fingers at anyone, except maybe slightly on TeraTornis, for steering the conversation to a whole new subject. I mean, CENSOR to BIG BANG in four comments? You've got to admit, that's at least slightly off-track, if not totally off the track (NOT the beaten track). Anyway, this is still really unbelieveable and incredible. First, CENSOR to BIG BANG in four comments, then five plus more lengthy comments follow. I mean, that's a *little* bit over, if not GROSSLY OVERAGED OVER OVER OVER. Also, this is the HELP DESK page. I want ANSWERS to my QUESTIONS. Not runarounds for hours, days, maybe weeks. After all this, I'm kind of frustrated. I mean, I totaally do not understand the situation here, and there's NO ONE on my side. I'm hopeless. Defenseless. I would hate to say this, however, I am actually extremely angry, and am trying to let my anger out on this here typing. I am extremely tired, it's 11:00 here in GMT -7, going on 12:00 in a couple of minutes, and am exhausted. My neck feels busted from craning over my computer, and my eyes have been transfixed on my computer for hours, and what feels like days. Sorry: I am not trying to make you guys feel sorry for me or give me extra conpensation, I am only de3scribing my side of the scene, so hopefully you guys will show me yours. Anyway, if you would like to tell me, even a sentence would do, what the bleep (I know, after a whole page on censorship) is going on here, you can visit my talk page, which the link is in my signature, a few words down. Sigh. I guess I'll take a short WikiBreak, like I said in previous comments. Again, I am not tryiong to offend, impersonate, or anger anyone here. I am also, trying my best to keep my cool, under extreme circumstances, to keep my cool. I have been typing continuously for hours. I am not trying to make you guys compensate me or feel sorry for me. Anyway, I deeply and sincerely apologize for any and all typos, I hope to all that it is still readable, thank you. God bless all of you, you are “dismissed”. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

block

Is there a limit to how many people can block? In other words, who has the right on Wikipedia to block other users? If you have the answer please respond on my talk page if possible. Thanks a million! A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:User access levels and WP:BLOCK. --Teratornis (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this user already gave me the answer, thanks. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

username change

What is considered “redundant” username changing? Is it once a month, a year, or what? Thanks, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fixed limit. Only Wikipedia:Bureaucrats can change usernames and I don't know the practice if a user makes several requests in a short time. I think it's rare to make any request after an earlier request was granted, so there may not even be an established practice. Considering [3], I would guess there is risk of rejection if you make a new request now. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]