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.
Have been a Wikipedia user ever since it first came on-line. I'm a military historian and have explored the possibility of becoming a Wikipedia Editor/Member for many years. To be honest, the several times I've poked around Wiki's "back room" (for lack of better term to call it)it has been so overwhelming (and appears time consuming)that I've pulled the plug and backed out.
Well, I logged-in today to look-up some information and stumbled onto to Wiki's Military History Project site. I was speechless when I saw the staggering amount of pending work to be done! I have always been a service-oriented person purely for the love of doing things for others and the small gratification from providing a few moments of ease in someone else's life. But, I inherited my paternal grandfather's philosophy that I don't want my help to be wasted or spent on someone or something that is not interested in helping themselves. Clearly, Wikipedia is a place, event, continuum, collection of knowledge and most importantly, a collection of minds with heart & soul, that wants to help itself! I would be honored to contribute my rime and money.
I was immediately hooked...galvanized to become a member of the Military History Project right on the spot. So, here I am.
I'm pretty much a self-serve kinda guy and pride myself that with any function I join, I go in with both feet and want to become well-versed in the genre as quckly as possible, so I can move away from being helpless to helper in short order. One of the first things I discovered here is there's an almost limitless amount of support, resources, FAQs, and do-it-yourself instructions. I totally get the concept that Wikipedia is 24/7 and never sleeps. The whole thing would never work on this massive of scale if it took a human being to drive every stage of activity like a manufacturing line. For the fully initiated editor/member to function most efficiently, everything has to available at their fingertips.
The problem I found after joining is, the system is kinda designed to jump in anywhere and start stroking. That works for me, too. But, if I find myself in unfamiliar territory after jumping in, I try to back myself in reverse until I find a place to start that makes sense, and then start forward from there. I hate to say it, but I did that with Wikipedia and found myself backing-up, backing-up, backing-up, and so on. I was not finding the spot that was understandable enough to me that it clearly was screaming, "START HERE!!!"
At that point I went off to see if there was a "new person" program or mentor system. I found the mentor system. I thought I should find a mentor from the Military History Project. I did not readily find that person. It might be overly simplistic, but in my zeal to help, I was thinking that rather than me walking in the door and telling the coordinators for the Military History Project what I wanted to do, I could ask them to tell me that with my Wikipedia novice level, what could I do that would most help them?
This is where I'm at. I want to help, but don't know where to start, who to talk to, or what I can do to be most helpful. No doubt, there will come a day that I will have passionate ideas and opinions just like any other Wikipedia long-timer. But for now...I just want to help.
Welcome!! You're no doubt referring to WP:MILHIST. Each page, including that one, has a "talk page" which is confusingly labelled "discussion" at the top. For MILHIST, that talk page is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Feel free to ask there if one of the military history editors will be willing to take you on as a mentor, even though they may not be an active contributor to the mentor project as a whole. And welcome again! Dismas|(talk)00:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a relatively new editor myself, my advice when unsure of what to do is simply check existing articles and see how they did it. That is the fastest way to learn the conventions and policies in effect in Wikipedia.
And a very important reminder for new editors is simply to be bold (but not reckless). The volunteer structure of Wikipedia, while also conducive to bureaucracy, moves forward largely through the initiative of the individual editors. If you see a problem, try to fix it; if you see room for improvement, improve it, etc. Don't wait for someone else to tell you what to do. There will be mistakes, of course, but as a community, the worst that could possibly happen is that you get scolded. Most of the times, your mistakes will simply be quietly corrected by other editors. It's not possible to break something permanently in Wikipedia.
There is no 'authority' in Wikipedia, some users have more rights or are deferred to more by virtue of experience but at the end of the day, everyone must bow down to consensus and the policies. Every editor is subject to the same rules, regardless of whether they are a two-day old new editor or a 5-year old administrator. If you edit in good faith and strive to reach a common ground with other editors when conflicts arise, you will not ever have to worry about being blocked or banned for your mistakes. Just try to remain open to guidance. A good way to start would be to read everything here: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines
Of course, it's best if you start small. Editing grammatical errors, sourcing information, etc. Once you have reasonably understood the basics, then you can start writing small needed articles and whatnot. And as always, even without a mentor, simply ask in the talk pages of other editors and chances are they will be willing to help (or at least point you in the right direction). And welcome as well. :) -- Obsidi♠nSoul01:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that some pages that are about people that are worthless and/or not even worth mentioning in one part of the country get approved because someone messed up and gets a picture in a newspaper, but a musical pioneer doesn't get a chance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.177.157 (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia makes no judgment about whether people are worthwhile or not. Notability depends entirely on whether other people (outside Wikipedia) have thought the subject worth writing about, and whether publishers of reliable independent organs have thought that writing worth publishing. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected for things I think are clearly in the article?
Hi, I did a page for author Thomas McNulty and re-edited it to include inline citations and links to reliable sources yet still get reviewed by Alpha Quandrant and rejected? I don't know how to please this reviewer. He offers no one single clarification or idea just rejects. I see other pages for authors who have far fewer credits than Mr. McNulty in the same field and this has become quite frustrating to me. How do I get another reviewer to look at my page? I think it deserves some feedback if there is something missing? Inclusion seems to be a hit and miss affair based on the reviewers apparent prejudices. If it i s a matter on putting the links a certain way, I have had no help or feedback just rejection notices that show a cause I believe I had met already. I see other pages accepted with less on them and nothing apparently different in their construction. What gives? Davidwthompson (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know:
1) After applying data clustering method to software development life cycle data, what will be the advantages, apart from knowledge management, incremental learning?
Based on previously developed project data, it is feasible for analyst or the entire team to forecast about the new project details, generate knowledge if the data is available in clustered format. I am refering to data clustering here and not the search based text clustering.
2) weight assignement methods / techniques
Entire data of software development life cycle is not in numeric format. So what is the technique to convert alphanumeric data into purely numeric to execute statistical data clustering? are there any specific weight assignment algorithms exists.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our policy here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. —teb728tc05:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
1) After applying our new algorithm for clustering only numeric data on software data related to cost of projects only, it is observed that the input software projects data is divided into two clusters one related to product based software development and other pure software development [like websites, CRM,SAP etc]. On arrival of new projects for development data divided into two clusters were useful to understand how much cost will be required to handle the new project. Similarly number of days required for project implementation data is also clustered and incremental learning is achieved. Developed patterns to aid incremental learning.
2) For converting alphanumeric data related to software development projects like technology used, CASE tools applied, name of team leader, clients name related to project etc. need to be converted before applying our new numeric clustering method. One way is to assign numeric weights initially, introduce noise and as the method is statistically at the last computation subtract initially introduced weights. Second method could be assigning min mean which will not hamper the clustering results. Third is to get the matrix of weight assignment from experts / analyst who are experienced and working on various projects from the same organization.
This is the Help Desk, intended for asking questions about using or editing Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. I don't think your question is clear enough for anyone here to give you a proper answer. I am intrigued, though, by the phrase "our new algorithm" - who is "our"? -- John of Reading (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recently nominated List of polygons, polyhedra and polytopes for Afd (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of polygons, polyhedra and polytopes). The discussion closed with "no consensus". I still think this article should be deleted, because in its current form it is not useful and I have no idea how it could be improved to become useful. It was said in the AfD, the article should focus more on classes of polytopes, rather than grouping individual ones. I still think, however, it would be better to recreate the article from scratch rather than wasting energy in trying to improve this article. I have already begun drafting an article in my userspace at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/List of polytopes, where I tried to group classes of polytopes by dimension. So my question is, should I simply renominate the article for AfD (again the article is completely unreferenced and is in my opinion absolutely unhelpful in its current form) until it gets deleted? Should I try to get my userspace draft ready first and then renominate for AfD? Fact is, information in Wikipedia should be verifiable, and this article is not. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why waste time on afd? If you simply replace the article with your draft once it's ready, the current content can still be salvaged for later use and you get a referenced article at that location. - 194.60.106.38 (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers guys, I've been on that page countless times without noticing the unprotecting section. Posted there, thanks for the help. doomgaze(talk)14:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to know more about Anshuman Jha, a young theatre & film actor, from India. And he has successfully been part of the theatre circuit in the country & made his Bollywood debut in 2010 in the much acclaimed "LSD". Why can't I see his Wiki profile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.59.135 (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After several hundred hours of studying our friendly manuals and the missing manual perhaps. How many people who do not yet know that Wikipedia is not "Wiki" and use the word "profile" to mean article would have read enough about the intricacies of creating a new article to shepherd a biography of a living person through the minefield of articles for deletion? That can be difficult even for an experienced editor. Also from a practical standpoint, it can be surprisingly difficult to find some of the most basic biographical information about a semi-famous person, such as his or her date of birth. It's hard to write biographical articles about someone for whom there is no already published biography. Most of the latter are about historical figures. Perniciously, it is often easier to write biographical articles about people who died a century ago than about young people who are just starting their careers, even if the young are far more culturally relevant to more of Wikipedia's readers. However, almost any problem can be overcome if the person trying to overcome it is sufficiently determined. --Teratornis (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to publish an article on wikipedia. I am the author of this article
that is already published on my website. What is the procedure concerning the copyright ?
This request concern the article "business in Cambodia". My website is www.cambodia-business.com. You can contact me at <removed>
Hi. For donation of copyrighted material please see the procedures outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. However, I don't think you should make the effort here, since the text at your website is unsuitable for an article even if you properly release the copyright, and would very likely be deleted soon after its posting if it was added as the content of an article. The text is more of an opinion essay than an encyclopedia article, is rather promotional in tone, and does not appear to have any substance that is not redundant to existing content about Cambodia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an account, jbrines, and been autoconfirmed, but I cannot upload the new crest for our school, I get the "Unauthorized" message, yet I am supposed to be able to do it.
Your user account is only 45 minutes old, and you've only made 2 edits (the above was your second). To become auto-confirmed, your account must be at least 4 days old, and have made 10 edits.
I only created the account to update our schools details and logo, you can see I have an email address for that school so what is the issue ? This is all I want to do so I may never get to 10 edits, and the details will be out of date for 4 days, whats the point of that ?. Can one of you not use a bit of common sense and maunally change my login ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.148.162 (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to make an addition to the main page summary section of the Karalundi Aboriginal Education Community with the includion of CEO David V Cowled but it does not show the change once page is saved, even though its in the edit summary list. Please adviseDelwoc (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article about visa requirements for Indian nationals & have entered info about the new Visa Waiver Proagramme by Ireland for Indian citizens. unfortunately the format has come all worng. I have no clue how to sort this out. Can ypu pls help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.225.192 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
Just two tiny fixes needed;
1. At the end of the table, it needs |} - fixed with this edit
2. You'd put a single quotation-mark ' instead of a double-quote " - fixed with this edit
the reader should be able to point their mouse at the movie titrle and find out what the movie is about,not click on it then click back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.246.111 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an account, you can turn pop-ups on which would give you a preview of the article behind any link, not just the ones for films. Dismas|(talk)20:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION: Re Solaris (1968 film) Article - Are The External Links To Film Trailer And Related Film Fragments *Completely* OK - Please Advise (And/Or Remove/Alter - In Order That *All* Is *Completely* OK Of Course) - At The Moment, My Search Through The Various Wikipedia Forums Seems To Be Unclear About This. Drbogdan (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, never okay. I presume the film and copyrighted, and I suspect "MrSovok50" is not the copyright holder. These should not be linked per WP:ELNEVER. Rehevkor✉21:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Q: Is it possible to change the appearance of a page when creating one?
And can you import copyrighted fonts and background colors and pics, under permission, of course?
I saw some examples of it among the featured wikipages and portals, but when editing one, no formatting was allowed. Thanks Bantaxaver. Bantaxaver (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bantaxaver (talk • contribs) 23:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We mostly like to keep things simple; Wikipedia articles are viewed on devices ranging from mobile phones to supercomputers; it's fundamentally just text, pictures, and a few fancy links. We've got a guide on presentation, the MOS.
We use background colours sparingly - mostly, in tables. Example shown here on the right, yellow. (from 4 Minutes (Madonna song))
We don't use background images. We can have images of whatever size, we can have 'clickable' images - but again...keep it simple.
Wikipedia is 'free' - for anyone to copy, for any reason. So, we avoid anything (pics, and text) which is not 'free'. See Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial.
Thus, we wouldn't mess with fonts. Users can set whatever font they want, to view Wikipedia; we leave that choice to the reader.
Anything is possible, but whether it is desirable is another matter.
This is a reference work, not MySpace; as I understand our Manual of Style, it encourages uniformity in actual encyclopedic content; most of what you see in the way of bells-and-whistles on portal pages and the like is imported graphics files used somewhat self-indulgently. --Orange Mike | Talk23:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A question above (about an AFC nomination for Borgore) reminds me of a general question that I have wondered about for some time: Suppose a subject has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, but those sources say little if anything that indicates why the subject is important or significant. How should the article indicate the subject’s GNG importance to avoid being speedied under A7? Should it just say, “he has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources”? —teb728tc23:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You satisfy GNG and avoid A7 by including refs that demonstrate sig cov in indie RS. Speedy is only for clear-cut cases, so if an article has several refs - that appear to be something approaching RS - then a speedy tag would (one hopes) be rejected, and we'd talk about it. Chzz ► 23:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and if an admin gets it wrong - speedies something that shouldn't have been - just ask 'em; they'll often restore it, allowing more time for discussion/improvement. Speedy is for clear cases, so if someone questions a speedy, it indicates it's not a clear-cut case, and can just be undeleted* - with no hard-feelings, and no prejudgement over whether other deletion mechanisms (WP:PROD, WP:BLPPROD, WP:AFD, etc) are appropriate. And if you really had a beef with a speedy-decision - the admin wouldn't undelete - then ask for more opinion. *excepting copyvio, attack, legal, etc.
I suppose the answer to your original question, really, is: if someone becomes 'famous for being famous' - then, they're famous. Chzz ► 00:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it was mistake for me to mention A7. I was not asking about deletion—but rather about evaluating and possibly improving an article where notability is marginal. Take this proposed article for example: Do the cited interview references satisfy GNG? (They seem to, IMO.) Should the “References” section alone be counted as showing importance or significance? (I should hope not.) And if not, does the article show the importance or significance of the subject? (The AFC reviewer said no, and I agreee.) —teb728tc01:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not satisfy the GNG without evaluation because the GNG requires that reliable third party sources provide "significant coverage", so you can never presume the standard has been met simply because multiple reliable sources are cited. Notability is a proof standard. However, for purposes of A7 application, the result is quite the opposite since it is a presumption standard. A7 (by its terms a lower standard than notability) only requires an indication of significance or importance. Since reliable sources are the touchstone of the higher standard of notability, the inclusion of putatively reliable sources raises a presumption of importance or significance. Anyway, if you look at the sources and they provide the required third party significant coverage a piece of lint can be notable (remember though that establishing notability and verifiability does not mean an article cannot still violate WP:NOT). One more murky issue here is that an interview necessarily is a blend of third party coverage and of primary source material. If the only place where a person has received coverage is publication of an interview where all of the material that could be deemed significant comes from the subject's own statements, that might require more.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so if I understand correctly, significant coverage is not so much the number of words the source says about the subject but rather that the it says something significant about him/her. That makes sense, but it’s not what the guidelines seem to say: WP:GNG says, “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention,” and WP:VRS says, “at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more.” —teb728tc11:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HI MY NAME IS HAZEL-ANN PARIAG, I WAS BLOCKED FROM MY HOTMAIL ACCOUNT,I AM NOT SURE IF SOMEONE HACKED INTO IT OR IF I WAS BLOCKED BY HOTMAIL....AND FOR WHAT REASON IF SO. HOW CAN I UNBLOCK MY ACCOUNT? PLEASE HELP ME TO DO SO....I TRIED RESETTING MY PASSWORD, BUT NOTHING WORKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.78.81 (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Wikipedia help desk; we have no idea how to help with "hotmail" - I suggest you ask them. Try supporthotmail.com Chzz ► 23:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Done: File:RanbyHouseSchoolCrest.jpg and this edit. – ukexpat (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
hotmail.com Chzz ► 23:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
