Help desk
< November 13	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 15 >

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

November 14

Creating a list of ways to die by nature or notable poisons and nature accidents.plus change my user name account

Would it be good if i created a wikipedia article on list of ways to die by nature and notable poisons or accidents like hurricanes tsunami thunderstorm lighting bolt taser laser supernova gamma ray burst coronal mass ejection plasma volcanic eruption earthquake quick sand meteoroid acid rain ozone layer overdose on poison ivy cancer box jelly fish sea urchin neurotoxin anthrax and maybe include space diving parachute crazy xtreme missions,and attacks by killer whale,anaconda venom . I actually have a list of over 1000 ways of possibly deaths by nature and notable accidents and deadly creatures to avoid. This death article will not be about ways to die like final destination like car plane crash accidents. This article will attract new wikipedia members it will have a lot of electric in the air for people that want to write books about danger zones or natural deaths. Wikipedia has nothing to lose and a lot to gain. It sound random but most people will already know most of these ways to die. It wont vandalize anything or anyone no one has this article yet to.It will be a interesting article for every field in science especially medical. It might even save lives or put fear into people that want to go out into animal kingdom to provoke a grizzly bear or reptile alligator or do extreme chaotic events that puts there life at stake just for adrenaline rush. Wikipedia needs a little steroid boost in action adventures not just facts and equations put it all together u will get a grand finale super fantastic universal wikipedia.

AND I checked out Wikipedia:Changing username on how to change my user name but it just shows u what to avoid on creating user names, do i type it in the archives box on bottom right? or is that only for to create a new page article, where do i change my user name and how long can it be,where is the sight to change it, i want to add my last name worthington. Shawn laser lightning plasma (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't write that; Wikipedia is not a directory. We already have nice, neutral articles about all those things, and we have categories, like Category:Poisons etc.

Please take the time to read WP:FIRST.

I'm sorry, but, it's an Encyclopaedia - we're not here to save lives, and we're not here to be thrilling and exciting, or to frighten people. We're here to provide neutral, factual information. We'll document weird and wonderful things, if there is appropriate coverage in reliable sources. Just take a look at Wikipedia:Unusual articles - I think you might like it.

To change your user-name, you'd need to file a request over at WP:CHU. Chzz ► 02:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where should i talk about convincing wikipedia to put this article,i see a lot of articles that are just famous but no use full facts. And on the changing name archives bottom right search box thing it just says if i want to create a new page article, where so i request to change my name.Shawn laser lightning plasma (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can request a name change at WP:Changing username/Simple. And Article X does not justify Article Y. As Chzz notes, we're an encyclopedia first and foremost, not 1000 Ways to Die. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested article sounds far too unwieldy for Wikipedia. List of fatal diseases was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal diseases, and your article would probably also be deleted. If people want to live longer then they should look at something like List of preventable causes of death and not a huge list of exotic causes with few or no deaths in a year, but Wikipedia is not here to warn people of potentially dangerous things. If they want morbid entertainment then they can look at List of unusual deaths. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks i guess the only way my article to be accepted is by it being published in some kind of selling or publishing source. Its just to warn people and amp up there fantasy thrillville minds but with facts and actual death rates statistics.wikipedia has a lot of comics and celebrities so why do u have to be special or a official scientist publisher to qualify to write a article. It does not need any sources to qualify so its pretty basic and creative. My article would have more pristine facts and action on how nature strikes back with just the catastrophic event single word instead of a story like the List of 1000 Ways to Die episodes. wikipedia's goal should be to attract almost all types of fans and diverse article ideas that are sophisticated that would lead to more wikipedia editors and not just dates and years or notable accidents places of death from a special event in history or glamorous notable place. that was than this is know. encyclopedia could almost be any subject as long as it relates to the world and is not random garbage facts that has no meaning. it could even have shark finning that kills the shark from people just for aphrodisiac soup witch throws of the food chain leading to a lot of killer whales leading to other sequence of events that allow smaller sea urchin creature fish to survive that could actually kill more humans and cause red tide pollution.Whats the best was to recommend this article to wikipedia besides becoming famous like harry potter. Shawn laser lightning plasma (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn laser lightning plasma (talk • contribs) 05:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will say it again: Article X can not justify Article Y whatsoever, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an entertainment website. Write about this on your own website or on Wikia, not here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acorns

Is there a reason why there are no acorns falling from the trees this fall? I have a hugh oak tree and no one acorn anywhere to be found, have spoken to several people and they have found the same with there trees. What does this mean?

Thank You (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.170.130 (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for help editing Wikipedia. Try one of the reference desks. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 04:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask your question at the Science reference desk. When you do so please also say where the oak tree is and mention if it has had and diseases or infestations recently. Roger (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could depend on rainfall/drought index and the order of first hard freezes. As long as the tree is alive, it does not matter when the acorns fall off.

B-class troubles

Recently me and a few other wikipedian contributers have been working on an article that is under the 'C-class' article rating. Although we agree the article is not yet up to scratch for a 'Good Article' status, I've been recently thinking that the article is at least good enough to pass a 'B-class' review, which may at least garnish some interest in the article or maybe show us that we're on the right track. I am, however, having trouble finding just what the process for this nomination is. How do you nominate an article under the 'music' category for B-Class status? Trollyboy (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment for B-class status (and any status lower than GA) doesn't need a formal review. Editors simply use the assessment scales here Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Various WikiProjects often have different assessment scales as well, so check the links in the WikiProject boxes in the talk page. However, be warned that assessing an article you've been heavily involved in is sometimes considered bad form. It's best to leave it to an uninvolved editor. You can blank it and wait for another editor to come across it or you can directly ask another editor to assess it for you. In fact, you can post it here so someone else can check it against the scale.

Assessment scales are also an internal feature. It helps editors gauge what improvements can still be made to the article. With the exception of GA and FA class articles, they're not meant to be seen by regular readers.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Given my previous contributions to the article in question, it's fair to say that I would have some bias towards it, so I certainly won't review it myself. Could anyone maybe check it out and affirm/deny the articles advancement? (and better yet, leave a message on my talkpage about what improvements could be made to it)

The article is called 'Gloomy Sunday', and I suppose should be reviewed under the specific song related guidelines as listed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs article, and more generally against the 'Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria'. Any assitance would be appreciated. Trollyboy (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could post a request for assistance on WT:WikiProject Songs, experienced members there would be best able to help you. Roger (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and new page.

Hi I just created a new wikipedia article, unfortunately shortly after I created the article I noticed the title was wrong written. I used the move option and I renamed the article's title. Now i have the page with the wrong title and the new page with the correct title. I know i can't delete pages myself. I searched on the help page about deleting pages, but I had some problem on finding what should I do. - What should I do to delete the old page with the wrong title? - If I delete the old page, the new page will be affected? Thank you and sorry for my bad english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89Slh (talk • contribs) 11:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to delete Evgeny stalev; it is a plausible redirect, as if someone types "Evgeny stalev", he will be directly redirected to "Evgeny Stalev". See also WP:R#CRD. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 11:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are not needed for typing in the article name; the search box in case-insensitive. — Edokter (talk) — 12:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Is there a way to delete the small text "(Redirected from Evgeny stalev)"?

No, it should stay there, as it is standard for all redirects.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 11:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm a bit fussy and that small text bother me a bit. Nothing I can do, right? 89Slh (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89Slh (talk • contribs) 11:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask on WP:VPT. They might help you. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 11:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. I'll post it there.--89Slh (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the "small text" only appears at the top of Evgeny Stalev if you arrived at the page by first going to Evgeny stalev. If you direcly linked to or searched for Evgeny Stalev the redirect note will not be shown. Roger (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you search it on google, the page will appear with "the small text". Is it a google problem? Like the server are not updated? But before on google the page was Evgeny stalev, now it is Evgeny Stalev, looks like the search is now updated. But why there is still the "small text"?--89Slh (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google is still linking to Evgeny stalev. When their crawler comes back through and reindexes it should index Evgeny Stalev and fix that. GB fan 12:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming here from WP:VPT#Redirect and new page. where an identical question was asked; I'm replying here in line with WP:MULTI. There is nothing wring with the existence of the redirect Evgeny stalev, it is in line with WP:R#Purposes of redirects . The only thing I would suggest is that it should have a {{R from other capitalisation}} added; I would have added this for you, but somebody else has deleted the redirect per WP:CSD#R3. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the old page "Evgeny stalev" has been cancelled, when i search on google the page is still indexed on "Evgeny stalev" and I receive the message "this page does not exist etc...". I think google will re-index the wikipedia page with "Evgeny Stalev". Is it correct? When it could happen?--89Slh (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Should be within a few days. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll let you know. --89Slh (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Perfect, the page "Evgeny stalev" has been cancelled and now when you search on google you are redirected on "Evgeny Stalev" page. Thanks for the help.--89Slh (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered only a little question: in most of the google searches the first result is wikipedia, why on this subject my wikipedia page is only in forth or fifth position?--89Slh (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a question for Google, but it should be of no concern - we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to compete for Google page rankings. – ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. Ok, case closed. Thank you--89Slh (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving content between articles

Is there a standard procedure for moving content between already existing articles? For example a paragraph of biographical detail about the founder of a company that is WP:UNDUE in the company article but moving it to the founder's bio would fill gaps there. How does one do such a move without breaking attibution? WP:SPLIT doesn't work because no new article is created and similarly WP:MERGE is not relevant because no article ceases to exist. Roger (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try to get a consensus on the talk page so the move doesn't cause an edit war. When you make the move. Mention the original article where the content came from in a clear note in the edit summary, so it is easy to track back (and so you comply with attribution requirements). Don't forget to copy any relevant sources. Ddon't remove them from the old article if they could confirm other details in the same section or paragraph that aren't being moved. - 194.60.106.38 (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. WP:MERGE does still apply. See WP:SMERGE (selective merge) for the minutiae of the process.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:SMERGE is not completely relevant; take a look at Step 5, it says that the source article's entire content must be deleted and converted to a redirect. I'm concerned with deleting only some content from the source while leaving the rest of the article intact and then pasting the content into an already existing destination article. There are no redirects involved in the process. Roger (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, in that case, Fuhgettaboutit and 194.60.106.38's advice covers it I think, per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution. You need to specify it in the edit summary and ideally use a {{copied}} template for the talk pages. It's basically the same process as WP:SMERGE, except you skip the delete and redirect part-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So it seems a plain "old cut and paste" will do as long as the edit summaries briefly explain what has been done and there is a complete explanation on both talk pages using {{copied}}. Roger (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing a draft

I have worked with administrators to finalize an article on my user page and would like to publish it. Could you please explain the steps to follow to publish my article? I have not found any suitable discription of this procedure on Wikipedia. Many thanks in advance for your help and kind regards, BBPMB (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a header to your draft which has links to relevant help pages, and a handy "Submit" link. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit/delete

How can I delete a negative article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.122.76 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean an article which says things which you regard as negative about a topic in which you have an interest, the answer is that you probably won't be able to delete it if the information has reliable sources. The article is required to have a neutral point of view, so if you have equally reliable sources which give a different view you may be able to have those alternative views added to maintain a balance. If you tell us which article, experts here can take a look. If you do have a close connection which the subject of the article, see WP:COI. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "negative", but the deletion policies and procedures are described at WP:DELETE. There are three main ways of getting an article deleted, they are: WP:CSD; WP:PROD; and WP:AFD. If the article is about a living person, and is entirely unreferenced, and it was created after March 18, 2010, a fourth method is available: WP:BLPPROD. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

about reply

how to reply when i receive an answer on refrence desk.please illustrate with an example.59.165.108.89 (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the edit link above the relevant section at the reference desk. You should indent your reply in from the message to which you are replying; this is done by semi-colons at the start of your paragraph, so if you are replying to something with one semi-colon at the start, your reply should have two, as here (::). Finish your reply with 4 tildes ~~~~ or use the signature button on the edit toolbar. Use "Show preview" to make sure that your reply looks OK, then use "Save page". Remember to use an appropriate edit summary in the box below the edit window. - David Biddulph (talk)

He mean colons, not semi-colons and is having a senior wikipedia moment I think.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct; thanks for waking me up! :-) - David Biddulph (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

;-) Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so kind of u nd thanks to both of u,have i got it ri8 ::59.165.108.89 (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General Emile Armand Gibon (1813-1870)

I am new to Wikipedia. I have recently created a page about General Emile Armand Gibon which I spelt wrongly (Gabon). As I could not find any easy way to modify the title, I decided to create a second page with almost the same content but this time with the correct title. I later deleted the content of the first page. Emile Armand Gibon is actually my Great grand father. To create this page I simply used some information that are from public domain as well as from family records, both I believe to be useful, truthful and in no way in breach of any copyright (since I own many copyrights in relation to most articles and/or pictures related to him). However, I also could not find any easy way to upload pictures on this page. I was just advised by automatic message, that this page was up to speedy deletion and frankly do not understand why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G St-Germain (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is at General Emile Armand Gibon (1813-1870), though that is probably not the correct title according to the Manual of Style. The reason for the speedy deletion nomination was that you had two articles on the same subject. Now that one version has been deleted, the speedy deletion nomination has been withdrawn, but the article still needs much work. Please read the article's talk page, where it is suggested that you should move it to user space while you work on it to bring it to a suitable standard for publication. Please also bear in mind that your own family records, unless published, are not acceptable to Wikipedia as reliable sources, but are considered as original research. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been moved to Émile Armand Gibon. Dru of Id (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBc News

Why is it the natioal news is read by one reader and local news by two would not it save much need cash for one to read the news and tell the local weather we have already heard it in London the BBC is add the fee frozen and looking for ways to save cash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.47.186 (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps - but you are at Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, and this Help desk is intended for questions about using or editing the encyclopedia. You cannot contact the BBC through this page. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

adding reference and external links

I am new to wikipedia and added reference 4 & 5 to "birds of prey" (www.birds-of-north-america.net...)and an external link (www.birds-of-north-america.net...). I realize that I should have practiced on the sandlot before submitting. I would like to remove these, how do I go about it? Kesha59 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and deleted them. I'm not sure those work well as references since they aren't a reference for a particular fact. Maybe the entire external link section should be trimmed down, but it looks decent for an external link.Naraht (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

two conflict of intrest questions.

I have 2 questions regarding a possible conflict of interest i have. I created the page Winnipesaukee Playhouse before i was employed by them. They are about to break ground on a new theater and i wanted to update the page but now realize that it may be a conflict of interest for me to do so. Is it? I would be doing it in my spare time and not be doing it for the company, just for myself. Secondly, I started creating a page for the New Hampshire Theater Awards, but it has been languishing in my user space because I won one of the awards and am now worried that by publishing it i will have a COI again. Any input would be great.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit articles where there is a COI, but you need to be very careful to do so neutrally and realize that other editors may give your edits greater scrutiny than they would otherwise. See WP:COI for more information on our conflict-of-interest policy. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing and reusing WP articles

As a long-time editor, I have a dumb question that I should know the answer to, and yet I can't seem to locate a clear answer.

One often sees "books" for sale (ebooks or POD) that are compilations of WP articles. Although I knew that WP content could be distributed "freely," I must've misunderstood that adverb to mean that you couldn't sell WP material, attributed or not. Is it legal in the US to sell "books" consisting of articles from WP, as long as you make proper attribution? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content and Wikipedia:Buying Wikipedia articles in print or another form. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have no idea why I didn't find those. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10c enforcement

Pointless

I don't really know whether HD is the right place to bring up this issue, but it is generally a question about 'Editing Wikipedia', so here goes. I did a 10c enforcement edit here. Would it be okay to fix the rationale instead of removing the file in cases, where the rationale points to redirects or dab pages? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be much better to fix the file page in cases like this. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which way would that be 'better'? While NFCC does not prevent me from fixing the rationale in such a case, it clearly places the burden to fix it on the editor who added the file to the article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the issue was caused by a page move, which is often the case. So the hypothetical burden would be on the page mover to fix it. But either way in this case it would simply be much easier for everyone to just fix it. While someone else's oversight caused the issue, simply changing the text in the rational trumps all the work involved in orphaning the image (which could result in an image with a perfectly good rational getting deleted on a technicality), enforcing the NFCC or laying blame. Яehevkor ✉ 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that I "could" simply change the text, but there is currently no policy or guideline which says I "should" do this. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no obligations to do anything on Wikipedia. I suppose the closest policy that applies in this case is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Яehevkor ✉ 19:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Toshio Yamaguchi: If you are thinking in terms of looking for a policy that mandates that you need to behave properly, or that no one can "force" you to, then perhaps you have the wrong attitude here. You don't have to involve yourself in Wikipedia at all, but as long as you are going to be, try to always do what is best for the encyclopedia and what causes the least work for others to clean up your mess. If you are interested in "enforcing" any policy or guideline, you must be willing to be flexible and do that which is best, not merely that which you are allowed to do. If your attitude is "there's no policy that says I must do this, so I'm not going to" then you have the wrong attitude. If the problem can be fixed by a simple modification of the file info page, then do that, and don't worry about whether it's your burden or someone elses burden. If you are at Wikipedia and wish to edit, it IS your burden. Your attutude expressed above is identical to this user's and you can see how well things have gone for him. I strenuously suggest that if you want to involve yourself in this area of Wikipedia, that you do so with a modicum of reasoned and careful thought for each individual case you come across, and if you cannot, perhaps find something else to do. --Jayron32 19:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#Enforcement says
"A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added."
Furthermore it says
"Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale."
Nothing says I have the responsibility to fix a broken rationale. It is not my fault if users performing a page move carelessly break the rationale without fixing it afterwards. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add references?

I don't know how exactly, can I add references in an article. Can anyone help me? (Αλεξανδράκης 7 (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

In most cases, you would place the reference right after the text you wish it to refer to. You then enclose it in ref tags, thus: <ref>Reference Goes Here</ref> . Then, at the bottom of the article, make sure there's a section for references that includes a template like {{reflist}}. If so, you'll find that the software automatically parses the references into a list. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And see WP:Referencing for beginners. – ukexpat (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the page the OP was working on, and it turns out he got turned around with the ref name shortcut. The trick there is that you treat the first instance of that ref as a full ref - adding the website and everything. After that, just using the "ref name=" string works, as long as you add the / to the end. I've fixed the reference I saw; you can use that as a template for further references, if you like. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miscredited Donations

Hello,

I went to go make a donation of $10 using my credit card. Once I submitted, a prompt came up saying that my card has not been validated. I clicked again and I received the same message. Upon checking my bank account, I see that two payments of $10 each have been made to Wikipedia.

I did not receive a receipt when I entered my email for these transactions.

Could you please look into this at your earliest convenience.

All the Best,

Mike Mazurek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmazurek (talk • contribs) 21:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fundraising page has an e-mail address for such issues. I am afraid the Help Desk cannot assist you with this. – ukexpat (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no email address on that page. You could try info(at)wikimedia.org.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 22:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, in the green box at the right: We are trying to make it easy for people in every country to donate. Please let us know how we could make it easier for you. Send your suggestions to: problemsdonating@wikimedia.org . – ukexpat (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sources vs references

What is the dif between a source and a reference? Is a reference only an article about the subject and a source the primary research source? Can a source also be listed as a reference if it is a study on the subject? 22:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Dellenba (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same thing, the words used interchangeably. CTJF83 00:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the edit [1] you made after posting here, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and References. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes Tag Filter

On recent changes, how do I use the tag filter? In particular, is there any way to filter out edits which contain the typical list of "dirty words"? ClueBot invariable catches these, and I waste a lot of time loading diffs that ClueBot has already reverted, time that would be better spent patrolling other edits. -- LWG ^talk 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean User:Lupin/Filter recent changes? There is an option to "Only show edits unchanged after four updates", so what, maybe after 2 minutes or how long 4 updates take, if cluebot hasn't gotten it, it will show up. CTJF83 00:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the above only shows "dirty words", but there is the same option on User:Lupin/All recent changes to only show unchanged edits after four updates. Looks like your best bet. CTJF83 00:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually I was referring to Special:RecentChanges. On that page, you can filter the changes shown by the tags in Special:Tags. I'm not very familiar with how these tags/filters work, but I was wondering if there was any way to exclude some categories of edits, rather than include them, with the hope that I would no longer be shown the revisions which ClueBot will revert anyway, and will be free to focus on the edits which ClueBot might miss. -- LWG ^talk 01:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not sure about that, hopefully someone else knows. CTJF83 17:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence disappared in template

In a template for St. Patrcick's cathedral, NYC, I changed the word "denomination" to "religion," and the whole sentence disappeared. I tried it in another article, and the same ting happened. Is this supposed to happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.134.169 (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm guessing you mean an WP:INFOBOX, but I'm not sure which one: the infobox in St. Patrick's Cathedral (New York) is Template:NRHP, which doesn't have a field for 'denomination' or 'religion'.

But the answer is probably that templates have only the parameters which are defined for them. If a template has a parameter "denomination", you can't just decide to use a different name in an article which uses the template. --ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found your edit but yes, this is supposed to happen if you assign a value to an unsupported parameter. The left-hand side of an equality sign in a template must be one of the parameter names the template has code for. Otherwise it's ignored. The documentation at Template:Infobox church shows a parameter called denomination bot none called religion. See more at Help:Template. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]