Help desk
< August 31	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 2 >

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.

September 1

Category challenge

Is there some way to challenge a category assigned in an artile with something like {{fv}} or {{cn}}? I read a while back of something but can't recall what it is now. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the category AND start a discussion on the talk page explaining why you did so. The discussion is the most important thing. --Jayron32 00:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

guidence for subjects to contribute a commons compatible picture

Hi. Please point me towards the correct page that details help for subjects wanting to contribute a picture for their BLP . Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IOWN. --Jayron32 00:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No thats not the one - this user has not presented anything - they want simple guidelines to help them upload/provide an acceptable picture - I found and provided these , no worries, thanks - Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries - Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission - Off2riorob (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{UPIMG}} might also be useful.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page ratings suggestion

I would like to make the suggestion that the page ratings of the articles appear at the top of the page rather than at the bottom where they might not be seen. I feel that this is very useful information to have readily available. People read these articles assuming that the information included is valid and reliable. It isn't always, and that is usually reflected in the ratings responses the article has been given. Being aware of the page ratings might provide the reader a useful context for regarding the information they are receiving on a topic.

If this is not the place to propose this, I would like information as to what would be.

Thank you.

Martimac6823 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martimac. The place to suggest this is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). FWIW, I hope they get rid of the rating survey entirely soon, and would find it massively obtrusive if placed at the top of the page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to the Article Feedback Tool. You can discuss this at the discussion page for the Article Feedback Tool workgroup. You may disable the tool by setting Preferences → Appearance → Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Running Wikipedia

How does Wikipedia earn money to function? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.222.26 (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is one of the projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. The foundation relies entirely on donations; see Wikimedia Foundation#Finances. You can help by clicking the "Donate to Wikipedia" link at the top left of every page. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Page

My page keeps getting deleted. It is titled: Eggertsville Hose Company . We are a volunteer fire company.I am the Fire Chief.

Please advise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttinoj (talk • contribs) 06:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not aim to have an article on every subject, only on those that people have already found to be notable. An article on this company would have to include references to books, newspapers and such like to show that people have found it worthwhile to write about it. You will find more on this at Wikipedia:Notability and especially Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

In addition, Wikipedia articles about organisations are not normally written by members of those organisations. Instead, they are written by volunteer editors working from the published materials. You will find more on this at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

You may find it helpful to look through the FAQ page Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just tagged it for deletion again because it is a copy of this copyrighted web page, http://www.eggertsvillehose.com/about.html GB fan please review my editing 11:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering that copyright infringement was the reason for the deletion of your earlier attempt in 2008, and again in 2010. You deleted the warning notices about that from your talk page a week or wo ago, but you don't seem to have taken the lesson on board. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation parameters

Transferred from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language:

Greetings. I'm participating in the Guild of Copyeditor's Backlog Elimination Drive for September, and I found an article tagged for copyediting; the specific problem that wants copyediting is "invalid citation parameters". I probably should know this, having been adding references to articles for years now, but I'm afraid I don't know what precisely citation parameters are. I'd like to fix the problem, but I need to understand this first. Thanks in advance! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would be something like a {{cite web}} with unsupported or misspelled parameters. It can be hard to spot this kind of error by eye, but the AWB tool highlights them in any article it processes. I've just searched for the phrase "invalid citation parameters" and have used AWB to find and fix the errors in 2010 Monterey Sports Car Championships and Barazoku. Are those the articles you were working on? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First one yes, second one no. But this information will really help in future; for a long time I only knew how to copyedit by fixing grammar/punctuation/tone and the like. Thank you, very much! :) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Smith

The article about Curt Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Smith), one of the Tear for Fears band members, is redirecting to another person, Tony Tan Keng Yam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.218.9 (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting this. I have fixed the article. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

red username

Why is my username in red? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerkatakreem (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merely that you don't currently have any content on your user page or on your user talk page. If you click on a red link it'll allow you to add any appropriate content. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same for all wikilinks to non-existing pages. See Wikipedia:Red link. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do my edits to sandboxes (to practice reference with links and citations) disappear when I click save?

Why do my edits to sandboxes (to practice reference with links and citations) disappear when I click save? Even after I enter anti spam letters, the text i placed on the sand box just disappear. Is it because it's too much text with too many links? But how do I practice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingthere (talk • contribs) 13:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What edits are you referring to? The only edit you have to a page named sandbox is to User:Gettingthere/sandbox and I don't see any references there. Did you perhaps click Show preview instead of Save page? Also, what type of references did you try to create? Where these inline citations with ref tags? If this is the case, then you need to put {{Reflist}} somewhere on the page (usually at the bottom in a section called References). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one edit to that you've made to your sandbox. You can see a list of all your contributions here. Be sure that you click on "save page" and not "show preview" when you edit. TN X Man 14:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if you have to enter anti spam letters then also click Save page after that. Do you get a message? Wikipedia can handle quite large edits but you could try something simple like saving the link http://google.com. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with what PrimeHunter said, I believe you have to click Save two times for the edit to appear. In particular you have to do the following:

1. click save

2. enter anti spam letters

3. click save a second time

Does it work if you do this? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that really helped. Now my edits on User:Gettingthere/sandbox do appear. But some text go out of the margin of page and appear boxed in. Why is this?Gettingthere (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Eureka I solved that. When I start text after leaving a space from the left margin, the text goes out of the right margin.Gettingthere (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, those grey text boxes in case of leading spaces are confounding many new users, and the cause of many posts here. Glad to see you worked out your problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doppelganger accounts

I remember to have read somewhere that the software does not allow the creation of an account under a username that is too similar to an existing account. Do I remember correctly? If this is the case, what accounts similar to existing ones can be created? For example, lets say account A B is registered by a user. Is it possible for another user to create the account AB? What kind of similarity do two usernames have to show in order for the second one not to be allowed to be created by the software? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IMPERSONATOR. I don't know the exact conditions. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in the technical details, mw:Extension:AntiSpoof has some. For example, you can see which characters are converted to which characters for the purposes of AntiSpoof at mw:Extension:AntiSpoof/Equivalence sets. Regards So Why 15:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I tried to create the account ToshioYamaguchi as a doppelganger account, but it says it is too similar to this account, so a single space doesn't seem to be a great enough difference. Thus another person will also be unable to create that account. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown value, self-serving content

I don't even know how to start searching the FAQ. I stumbled across a Wikipedia page (Internet Chat Relay Services) which stated at the top "AKill" redirects here. For the creator of Akbot, see Owen Walker.". So what? Links point to Akbot and Owen Walker. Is this cheap publicity for the creator of a virus?

Any value for the average user? Not that I can see.

What to do about it? Don't know. I didn't see any markup terms like "Citation Needed" but I'd like to see Wikipedia users weed out factual data that has no value.

Hello and welcome to the Wikipedia help desk. The message "" that appears on Internet Relay Chat services is called a hatnote. We use these when a title can have two different meanings. The most common meaning is used, and a note is added to the top of the page in case readers were looking for the other meaning(s). Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the hatnote for the sake of clarity. – ukexpat (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AKill is a concept mentioned in Internet Relay Chat services#OperServ. The idea is that a user may have entered Akill in the search box and been redirected to Internet Relay Chat services while they actually wanted information about Owen Walker. We don't have the technical ability to only show the redirect message when somebody came to the article via a search on Akill. It also occurs that another article links to the wrong target. An article mentioning the hacker by his pseudonym might incorrectly link to Akill, and users clicking the link would be confused. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload a jpg

I have downloaded one jpg from my e-mail. I am unable to save it on Desktop. How to upload my jpg to another webste information due to this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.56.2 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. TN X Man 16:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty getting video/audio references on article to show both the 'work' (eg name of newspaper) and the publisher

Hi there, I hope this is the right place to ask this question, I have a problem with some references and it's driving me mad trying to fix them!

On The Human Centipede (First Sequence) footnotes number 3, 8, 11, 16, 39, 57 and 92 are all a video or audio reference, where a link is given to an online video or audio interview with an "event occurs" time given.

Now, every single reference on this article has a 'work' and a 'publisher', for example: "(18) David Cox (19 Aug 2010). "The Human Centipede director shows why three into one will go". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 15 Aug 2011." Notice how it has the name of the newspaper (The Guardian) followed by the name of the publisher (Guardian Media Group). The title of the reference is an external link to the online newspaper article. If you want to have a look at the original, it's footnote number 18 on the article.

However, for the video/audio citations the name of the work is always missing for the references that have a linked URL. For example, "(3) Jason Solomons. (19 Aug 2010). Film Weekly hooks up with The Human Centipede and experiences Pianomania. Guardian Media Group. Event occurs at 7:15–7:20. Retrieved 8 Sep 2010." - Note how there is not the name of the work (The Guardian) given before the name of the publisher. Again the title is an external link to the reference, it's number 3 on the article in case you want to have a look.

If you view the reference section wikitext you will notice that these video/audio references do all have a 'work' given. However, the reference on the article does not show this. I cannot for the life of my work out why this is.

Is there anyone out there who can tell me what I'm doing wrong here? Or if anyone knows a quick easy way to fix this please go ahead and change the formatting for it. This article is currently an FAC and so I'd really love to get this sorted out as soon as possible.

Thanks! Coolug (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Template:Cite video, you'll see that there isn't a "work" parameter. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be done if we edited {{cite video}}. Currently it calls {{Citation/core}}, passing Title={{{title|}}} and not passing anything as the IncludedWorkTitle. If it passed IncludedWorkTitle={{{title|}}} and Title={{{work|}}}, as {{cite web}} does, then both would be displayed. See the current contents of my sandbox. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these very prompt replies. I agree that the way videos are cited should be changed, as very often a video is located on the webpage of a newspaper, and so should probably have a 'work' showing in the same way a newspaper article has one. For the time being I have simply added the work title in italics to the publisher information, with an explanatory note so curious editors will understand why the references are formatted that way. I've done this so that the references are consistent throughout the article. Anyway, thanks for helping out, cya! Coolug (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to Template talk:Cite video. I have my head in these templates, so I will be glad to look at it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done at Template_talk:Cite_video#Add a "work" parameter. My coding idea isn't good enough, alas. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this, I don't think {{cite video}} is appropriate here, as it is intended for a movie, film or the like. The source is a news article and {{cite news}} will work using |at=:

{{cite news |author=Jason Solomons |title=Film Weekly hooks up with The Human Centipede and experiences Pianomania |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=19 August 2010 |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/audio/2010/aug/19/film-weekly-human-centipede-pianomania |at=Time 7:15–7:20}}

Jason Solomons (19 August 2010). "Film Weekly hooks up with The Human Centipede and experiences Pianomania". The Guardian. Time 7:15–7:20.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New question

I was wondering if you can make an update on the wikipedia page of Svengali. There is going to be a live performance of the production by the Winnipeg Ballet in Vancouver in 2012 at the The Centre In Vancouver For Performing Arts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.151.57 (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.rwb.org/tours shows planned performances in many cities. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does generally not show such information about upcoming tours. If the ballet itself had an article then that article could have been linked at Svengali (disambiguation) and maybe Svengali. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deleting history

" Hi,

My daughter was messing around on wikipedia and entered our home address as a joke (on the wiki entry for Red Panda) at around 20:52 today (July 19, 2011). It was deleted by someone else right away, but our address still shows up on the 'view history' tab of the Red Panda page. Is there anyway that I can delete that 'history' entry? It's a big privacy breech - believe me my daughter WILL NOT be making that mistake again. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.213.153.185 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)"

I have a very similar problem , but I don't find an answer how to solve it . Can anybody help ? Thank you in advance . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomsarg (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can have the admins permanently delete something from the history at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Hope that helps. Coolug (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification for other editors, Lomsarg quoted an old post by an IP whose situation was fixed long ago. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When can I expect some REAL help ? Please, Lomsarg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomsarg (talk • contribs) 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

description of Alive! Catholic newspaper

the rating options Trustworthy, Complete, Well-written etc you offer are themselves biased - a category you seem to think cannot be applied to your own ratings. I submit that NONE of your own ratings apply to what you say about Alive! newspaper. You are not an objective, balanced, or reliable source of ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.236.44 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can rate a page from 1 to 5 for each option. For example, if you hover your mouse over the first star at "Objective" then it says "Heavily biased". PrimeHunter (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Societal attitudes towards pedophilia in medieval Europe

Hi ! I was wondering how I could put this article in the encyclopedia ? I wrote in in my userpages. It's at User:S Larctia/Societal attitudes towards pedophilia in medieval Europe. Thanks. Simone. —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

You shouldn't. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that policy now, and I don't understand how my article is original research. The claims in it are supported by reliable academic sources. Simone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S Larctia (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's not sound research; but it's synthesis and research on an extremely narrow topic, rather than a mere assembly of scattered data into a coherent whole. That species of scholarship is not what we do in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Orange Mike is saying is that, while yes you do have cited sources, what you have done is to use the sources to arrive at your own conclusions. That is, you have created a novel synthesis by using information from various sources to create a conclusion which is not necessarily supported by any one of the sources by themselves. --Jayron32 22:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the article to reduce any such conclusions, and submitted to Articles for Creation. However, there seem to be plenty of "novel syntheses" on Wikipedia: for example the article on Gloom seems to be doing a very similar thing. Are you sure that this policy isn't a little too strict on what constitutes good scholarship ? It's difficult to write an article on an obscure topic if we are required to only use sources which point at it directly. Simone — Preceding unsigned comment added by S Larctia (talk • contribs) 23:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a scholarly journal. It has different purposes, and requires a different approach to writing. --ColinFine (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@S Larctia: I'm not going to deny that there is another poorly written article at Wikipedia. I don't see why that somehow justifies adding yet another poorly written article to the mix. Why not try to write a good article within policy instead of trying to find some other random article which is substandard? --Jayron32 00:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That "that there is another poorly written article at Wikipedia" is what we call the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, and is considered an invalid argument for retention of an article which does not meet our parameters. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written? I think any article that starts out with "Gloom is a depressing darkness" is a keeper. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

english

what are the steps in action research inprimary education? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.195.150 (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about Action research.

Have you tried the Humanities section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad N. Hilton Foundation page

Full disclosure: I work for the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. We're aware and respectful of Wikipedia's editing policies. We do not want to self-promote our organization, but we would prefer for the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation and Conrad N. Hilton Humanitarian Prize to appear on separate, but linked pages.

Currently, if you look for "Hilton Foundation," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_N._Hilton_Foundation) it redirects to the "Hilton Prize" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_N._Hilton_Humanitarian_Prize). We would like to keep the Prize page, but we would also like a separate page dedicated to the Foundation. Alternatively, we would like the Prize to be featured on the Foundation page.

Wikipedia's editing rules seem quite explicit about PR and self-promotion, so could you please advise on how we could carry out such a change while respecting your guidelines?

Thanks. Cnhf (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be appropriate as each article would be very short. You should also create a new user name as User:Cnhf is in breach of the user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the need for a new user name, however I think it is entirely possible for enough information to be added about the Grants done by the Foundation that a split is possible. What I would suggest is that under a new individual user name, that you add to the talk page for the article the information about the Grants that you think should be added (starting with the information on http://www.hiltonfoundation.org/ and http://www.hiltonfoundation.org/initiatives-a-programs ). An editor without a COI can then add it (if you drop me a note, I'll take a look). I also changed the redirect for the Foundation page to the Foundation section of the Humanitarian Prize article. After enough gets added, depending on length it may be appropriate to split them.Naraht (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be more appropriate then for the same article to be posted under Conrad N. Hilton Foundation instead of redirected to the Conrad N. Hilton Humanitarian Prize? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moorghen (talk • contribs) 18:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean move the article? Having the same text under two different articles is to be avoided, that's what redirects are for.Naraht (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited Conrad N. Hilton Humanitarian Prize so that it flows better with the current content. I have no problem with splitting the article if sufficient content can be added to each, but probably the Prize article should be moved to Conrad N. Hilton Foundation and then be reworked to deal with all the Foundation stuff, including the Prize. – ukexpat (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, ukexpat, the Prize article should be moved to Conrad N. Hilton Foundation and then be reworked to deal with all the Foundation stuff, including the Prize. It can all go under one page for the foundation. Maybe a redirect for the Prize to the Foundation? Would this be acceptable? Thanks for your help and advice. Moorghen (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was suggesting. We will need an admin to do the page move, though. – ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the changes! Moorghen (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consequence on the servers of a change in the noinclude section of a template

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Consequence on the servers of a change in the noinclude section of a template

– Moved by ArséniureDeGallium. --Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody. I have a very technical question for you.

Suppose I have a template used in one million pages (on French Wiktionary it's not theoritical, there is at least one template which is on every single page in main namespace).

If I add a block <noinclude>foo</noinclude> without modifing anything else, will the cache servers understand that nothing has changed, or will they put one million pages into the job queue?
If I change anything between already existing <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags, same question.

Hoping you'll help me to understand all that, regards. --GaAs (d) 19:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Template#Noinclude, includeonly, and onlyinclude says the text between the tags will be excluded from the template transclusion or substitution, so my guess is, if the page is purged there will still be a check on the page data on the server. Also, regarding the markup of the pages, the two versions of the page will be different, although this will not be visible in read mode (however the change can be seen in edit mode and I would think that two different revisions of a page that differ in edit mode will count as really "different" pages from the MediaWiki softwares and the servers point of view). I am not too much into the technical aspects of Wikipedia, however, so another user might be able to provide a more technically "correct" answer. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if there is a place to ask this type of question directltly to the developpers? --GaAs (d) 19:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The right place for this question is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) (or perhaps IRC). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I moved this question to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), please remove it from here. --GaAs (d) 21:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting contributor

I work as a Reference Librarian. I'm trying to contact the original contributor of the article on John Ton (commadore4) to see where he was able to access an article from the 1913 Calumet Index (newspaper). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefLadyC (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could try through User talk:Commadore4, or alternatively you could use the "E-mail this user" link under "Toolbox" on the left-hand menu from that user talk page (providing that you've enabled the e-mail option for your own account). - David Biddulph (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Commadore4 hasn't made any edits since February of this year, I'd suggest emailing over posting to their talk page. Dismas|^(talk) 20:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland

Iv seen the wiki article on Cleveland used many time as Being the truth , Under Crime the Morgan Quinto review of Cleveland is as far from the truth as one could make , The methodology is wrong , They use the Pop , as 440.000 but use the FBI statistics of a demographic area . Somewhere about 3 million From Mentor to Lorain to medina Without changing the pop. #. Its like saying the total crime in Boston is the same as the New England area . Please fix this its a loked page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.196.23 (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably raise the issue at Talk:Cleveland. --Jayron32 22:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]