Help desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 12 >

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

January 11

Use of present tense for historical events

I have noticed that some Wikipedia historical articles misuse the present tense to describe historical events. This is what I call "TV documentary English" since it seems to me that only documentary participants speak that way naturally. Carried over to written English, this style creates confusion and irritation in the reader and gives the impression that the writer is also confused. These sins are made worse by frequent switching back and forth from past tense to present tense, often within the same paragraph. Could you possibly issue a guideline on this issue ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.235.228 (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The historical present is a standard use of the present tense in English. It is used to narrate past events for stylistic or rhetorical effect. See present tense#English. —teb728 t c 07:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm inclined to agree that such stylistic or rhetorical effect is probably out of place in an encyclopaedia, and certainly arbitrary changing of tense is not a good idea. 114, can you give an example of such a page, that people can look at?

The best place to suggest this is probably Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. --ColinFine (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The historical present may well be a standard usage, but normally legitimate only in dramatic or literary contexts. In my view, people don't talk that way naturally and it sounds stilted and contrived in TV documentaries about historic events and bizarre in a conversation. In a historical text, it is confusing and irritating, particularly when current events are discussed in the same paragraph or article. The sense of immediacy is at the expense of losing the sense of past context. Unfortunately, I can't recall the specific articles, but I will update this post when I find them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.75.209 (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An example of the inappropriate use of the historic present in Wikipedia articles is in the Wikipedia article on the economist Claudia Goldin - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudia_Goldin. "With Lawrence F. Katz, she explores the United States' economic slowdown in the late 1970s. She reasons that it was rising levels of economic inequality at the end of the 20th century, not slow productivity growth nor economic convergence between nations, that was at the root of the United States' economic trouble". Is the author inviting readers to believe that Goldin is performing these actions right now ?

I submitted an article but forgot to create a subpage first so I could play around.

My user name is PierreQuenneville. I accidently submitted an article (my first) on subject of 'Lutherlyn Camp and Conference Centre'. I wanted to compose a draft first, but I think it was submitted for review. It needs to be touched up. How can I retrieve it? Kindest Regards, Pierre Quenneville PierreQuenneville (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the looks of your contributions you either never saved the page, or it was deleted. If you did save the page and it was was deleted you might be able to ask for it to be undeleted and moved to your userspace. Otherwise, there's no way to retrieve it. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Can you tell us exactly what you did? Were you editing while logged in under this account? The reason I ask is because your account has only ever made one edit—the post above—and it has no deleted edits. Moreover, I just checked the deletion log for the title you provided and no article by that exact name and capitalization has ever been created. It is unfortunately not that uncommon for people to attempt a first edit but not properly save the material for various reasons, including that they hit the "show preview" button rather than the "save page" button, or they fail to see various messages when they attempt to save such as that the page could not be saved because of a "loss of session data" (usually happens when you let the page sit for a while or work on it for a long time) or because the edit included an external link that is blacklisted or which required a captcha to be added to save. For future reference, and it may be little consolation, but I always save any decent size edit to my computer's clipboard and for really large or labor intensive work, to a wordpad or word processing document, before attempting to save. Meanwhile, if you are still editing from the same tab/window, it's possible that if you to hit your browser's back button, it might, just maybe, be retrievable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre, no article has ever existed under that name, nor have any articles you have created been deleted. In fact, this question you asked was the first thing this account has ever done at Wikipedia. The only possibilities I can think of are

a) You never saved the article
b) You created the article under a different name, using another account
c) You created the article at a different Wikipedia (not en.wikipedia, but another language or sister project, like simple.wikipedia or something like that)

Please try to retrace your steps and see if you can figure out exactly what the title was, or exactly what account you used to create it. If it was option a, there's nothing that can be done. If it was option c, then you'll need to ask at that language's Wikipedia. --Jayron32 01:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how to edit

There is a article I would like to edit but it is to much information and to complcated to figure out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.180.246 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Wikipedia:Introduction? There's some basic information there. If you have any specific question, we can try to answer it here as well. --Jayron32 02:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Help:Editing that might help you understand how to edit. GB fan 03:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can wait until April for the new editing GUI, which will be much easier.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can leave a message on the talk page of the article, saying what you think should be added, and someone may do it for you. Or if the article is overseen by one of the WikiProject teams (it should say on the talk page if it is), you can ask the project team. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reporting an offensive page

I saw a page on me, and am offended, as I didn't want one, so how do I get it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.191.68 (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which page is that? —teb728 t c 03:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about an article in Wikipedia? If so, is there something about the article that you find objectionable other than the fact that it exists? (Is it, for example, libelous?) Are you a person who has received significant coverage in reliable sources? If so, are the things it says about you verified by references to reliable sources?

If you want the article deleted, you could nominate it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. But if it conforms to our policies on biographies of living people, notability, and neutrality, it is unlikely to be deleted. —teb728 t c 05:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guessing it might be this page that the IP is bothered by, since it mentions controversy and was recently edited by the IP. A single reference stub. fredgandt 06:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as recently as March 12, 2008. :-o —{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 07:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hey! I just woke up. Ok!?

fredgandt 07:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the decision to include an article about a person is made on the merits of notability. However, IIRC, where the notability issue may be a close call, I think we are willing to defer to the subject if the subject prefers deletion. I didn't book mark that discussion, and I am in a meeting, so it isn't convenient to search for it now, but perhaps someone else recalls the WP position on this issue. I haven't looked closely to see if this is a close call, but a former mayor of a small city (which coincidentally, I will be visiting Friday) doesn't strike me as so obviously notable as to foreclose consideration of the request.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's in WP:DGFA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had forgotten that it was a rationale to be used when closing an AfD, I had thought it could be used outside of that process, but my recollection was not accurate.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would like to know that I've removed some content from that article for violating our policy on biographies of living people -- specifically it was controversial and unsourced. If someone finds a source to support it, however, it may return. --N Y Kevin @844, i.e. 19:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to post English translation of a French quote found in English article (!) on English Wikipedia ?

On the page titled TITI ROBIN, there is a long French quote which I have perfect English translation for. How do I post it ? ( I really really really looked for an answer but...) Thank you one and all ! Noleakshere (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did it. —teb728 t c 05:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please some body help or assist

Reference link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiney_Ahuja Dear Sirs, Actor Shiney Ahuja was accused of rape by his home maid. He was then arrested and then released and the maid retracted her statement saying she had lied. I want help. The actor's wikipedia page has all these details. I am beseeching some authority to please consider taking out this information from the page of the actor as a criminal is only a criminal when he is convicted in the court and it is not right to sensationalize an issue and destroy a person's life by including such material on wikipedia. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.251.75.18 (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article (and other reports such as The Guardian) say that he was convicted and jailed. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, My apologies. I had not seen this. My apologies for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.251.75.18 (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finding your edited page has been changed back to the outdated content

UBM plc has an article describing the company which was updated in line with recent changes and with its current website (as linked to from the page). Overnight this was changed back to the outdated content. Is there a way to stop this from happening? Why did it happen? All information is verifiable with the links provided and is authorized content. CAn the page be protected? I have re-edited it to the new content again. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mleastop (talk • contribs) 11:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted as the tone you used was promotional and not NPOV. Please read: WP:COI and WP:NPOV Jarkeld (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the material you added was directly copied from UBM's own website - Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted materials like this (see WP:COPYVIO). I have reverted your edits again; please discuss the changes you want made on the article's talkpage to establish editorial consensus. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article question

a draft of an article i was writing about someoneelse was submitted for reviewing while i was trying to preview, the article isn't finished yet, what can I can do to stop this ?Jenna0194 (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any edits on your account apart from the one on this page - which article were you working on? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Driver

There is an article on Jon Driver, my brother, which has been edited to include details of his suicide as well as the distinguished history of his work as a neuroscientist.

I have edited these details out twice now, as it is causing his bereaved family great distress. My changes have been reverted by the person who first put that detail online. I am a novice Wikipaedia editor, and appear to have been given warning that entries should be impartial. Surely however it should be possible to use some discretion in what public information is recorded, salacious details of a family's suffering are not in the public interest?

Could you advise me please on how to proceed with having this information removed.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shumphreys (talk • contribs) 14:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. -- kainaw ™ 14:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... but the description of such a recent death should be a little less blunt. I have improved the wording of that section of the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it looks less blunt, hopefully that will help.Naraht (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the original poster, I am sorry for your loss. However, all of the information about his death is from apparently reputable sources (I don't know "This is London" well enough to judge) and seems done in Neutral Point of View. May I suggest honoring your brother in Wikipedia by working to improve his article. There is currently know information on what degrees your brother had and which universities granted those degrees. That information would certainly be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm. We can wait a bit. His death is not related to his notability. I removed some info, but I will put it back later. See also: The Golden Rule. Von Restorff (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH it's not a BLP any more... I suggest that you not leave it off forever. I'm also a little surprised by that essay: it encourages administrators to violate the deletion policy (which says you have to go through the deletion process before deleting an article; I've never heard of administrators secretly discussing the deletion of an article off-wiki). --N Y Kevin @829, i.e. 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sensitive circumstances around this article and that family are involved, I think it's really quite thoughtless to mention that it's no longer a BLP, NYK. I back Von Restorff's removal; I hope that this goes a little way towards easing the distress of Prof. Driver's family. Brammers (talk/c) 20:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~You think that is thoughtless? Well if such a minor thing is thoughtless, I might as well go all the way.~~ See WP:COMPREHENSIVE and remember that WP:HARM isn't policy in the first place. ~~But I'm not going to do anything about it. That would be... thoughtless.~~ --N Y Kevin @165, i.e. 02:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Account

I created this account in error. Wish to delete it completely. I made no entries/contributions. Please assist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstovall495484010 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot delete an account. Just stop using it. Von Restorff (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, you could ask for Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing (or a change in username if that's the error part), but since you have no contributions, you could just leave. Deleting your account isn't possible. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For info: Deletion of accounts is not possible since all contributions must be attributed. fredgandt 16:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically the fact that you used the account to post this enquiry makes it impossible to delete it, because the account now does have an edit history. If the problem is just the username you can change it as Purplewowies explained. Roger (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also left a message on the user's talk about how to change username, because they tried to do so on WP:USURP twice incorrectly. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

infoboxes on manufacturers' pages

What is the best way to go about including an infobox on a manufacturer's page? I see that many mfrs have these for company info and would like to add one. Wikkiwitchh (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd find a page with an example I liked and copy the source and then edit it for the company I wanted to use it for. (After you find one you like the look of, start to edit it and at the top you'll see a template called something infobox or infobox something copy everything from the opening double { to the closing double } and then cancel the edit.) RJFJR (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use Template:Infobox company. Copying an already used template from an existing article risks errors and also limits you to the fields that happen to have been used in that specific instance. Using the "original" template gives you the full set of all the possible fields and also isn't "contaminated" with info that is not relevant to the new article, which can easily be left behind by accident. The "original" template page also contains comprehensive guidance on its use. Roger (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Locate a similar company, edit and view the source, then note the name of the infobox. At the bottom of the page you should see a list of templates used in the article. Click on the desired template and view the documentation to see the full set of features. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit removed for insufficient reference ... what to do?

Hello ~ I recently added a truthful, historic addition for an event I personally conducted regarding the Wikipedia page for Scott Joplin's Opera "Treemonisha" ~ it was in 1997, long before articles and reviews were linked or posted to the internet. The only proof I have for a reference link is the Homepage for the production company itself, which sites the review and the reviewer and its paper and even the venue locations, dates and times. How can I edit and add this information to the Treemonisha page <ref>http://takeaboughproductions.com/</ref> and even cites: The Lincoln County News published the complete review of TREEMONISHA, written by Lucy L. Martin on November 13, 1997, and not have it removed by Wikipedia, siting that without a proper reference to a specific online review, it is viewed16:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Music4ibc (talk) as "SPAM" ... ??? It's a Catch-22, but there is significant history to be added to this page. I even saw that others had posted far less media covered or legitimate additions, and yet were allowed to be kept on the page by Wikipedia. Could someone tell me how I could possible get around this loophole? The review quotes are right there on the Homepage with the reviewers name and paper. What more can I possibly do to reference under the guidelines for Wikipedia's standards? Thanks Music4ibc (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Aaron[reply]

References do not have to be online, Wikipedia articles use "dead tree" sources all the time! To cite an article published in a newspaper use Template:Cite news. Roger (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you might have a conflict of interest here, on other hand properly citing reliable sources will be enough to get your content into the article whether or not they are online. Some times content does get in on the basis of common knowledge that might not need citation, but if you think the content needs to be cited too you are in your full right to remove that. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to cite a dead-tree source, you must personally read the dead-tree source. If you have access to that source, by all means cite it. Not everything that can be cited will be kept in an article; some things aren't important enough to mention in an encyclopedia. I'm not familiar with writing encyclopedia articles about operas, so I don't know if a single adaptation and series of performances is usually included in opera articles or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why your edit was taken as spammy. Even if it was quoted (without attribution) from the review, the phrase “hoping that choruses everywhere will add this to their repertoire” betrays a promotional intent, as does the part about the “original cast recording.” If you have a source that says that choruses everywhere have added it to their repertoire, your adaptation would be a good addition. But I see that all of your edits have been for promotion of Aaron Robinson; please don't do that; Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. —teb728 t c 22:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

every time i search the web my internet explorer stops working what can i do to fix this problem?

every time i search the web my internet explorer stops working what can i do to fix this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.76.184 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking about how to use Wikipedia. Questions about computing in general may be asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go here; click run now. if that does not help use the system file checker. Von Restorff (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a documented that was updated twice

[1] - it was updated twice, in 2009 and 2010; would the update date be the thing to use for the |date= parameter, or the original publication date? Is there a parameter for {{cite report}} that would have both an update and original publication date? HurricaneFan 25 18:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the doc page for the use of origyear. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thoroughbred Ahonoora

I have read several articles about his legacy (Dr. Devious for example) here, but nothing about an article about this stallion itself. Would there be anyone to do this? Can't do it myself I am Dutch. Thanks in advance, Margreet van den Brink — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erins isle (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing would be the best place to raise this matter. Roger (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. Horse is definitely notable for stud record. Late 1970s not an easy period for sources. Will see what I can do. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Done. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising Wikiprojects

I've done this before, but I forget what places we're supposed to advertise new Wikiprojects on. I mean, I know there's lists to add them to, but I thought there was a noticeboard or two where we could as well. Silver seren^C 20:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board looks like the thingummy-bob. Lot of informative pages linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject. fredgandt 22:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia ads#Creating ads (kind of a bonus, but why not?) --N Y Kevin @870, i.e. 19:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unveiling old myths: procedures and expected effects (ref song "Ging gang goolie" and Robert Baden-Powell, etc)

We have found that most statements in the "Ging gang goolie" Wikipedia article are either unfounded (=myth) or fictional (=non-encyclopedic). So we posted a week ago a lengthier item to the Discussion page of the "Ging gang goolie" song and alerted the two involved projects (and some other non-Wikipedia pages) via their Discussion pages (and mail), that we propose that the article content is more or less mythical. [[2]]

Now we have the following dilemmas.

1. To prove that the content is mythical we have had to do part OR (Original Research) digging into published material (documents, books) in century old libraries, etc, not previously published on the web.

Q. Can we still edit the article in question based on our non-googlable facts and insert them to replace the myth? What other recommended steps are there for this kind of situation (I have read the policies and help and about sources, etc; is this a case for the first pillar?)

2. We notice there are up to 500 in-Wikipedia links to this article and several outside Wikipedia. And that there are lots of other types of wikies that somehow "subscribe" to the Wikipedia article (and/or just cut and paste from it)

Q. Is there this kind of subscription that allows the receiving wiki outside Wikipedia to automatically become updated with the wikipedia article? And if so, how do I ensure that this service will continue with the edited article? Brommabo (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout your question you keep referring to "We", Is this account used by multiple people? GB fan 22:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We" are presented in detail in the Background subsection of the Discussion of the article in question (reference link above). It is NOT a multiple person account. Brommabo (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First: References do not have to be "Googleable". As long as they are to verifiable sources, they're fine (with all other bounds (notability, reliability etc)).

Concern: Who are "We"? I'm worried by your turn of phrase that you (all) may have a possible conflict of interest that might need consideration. fredgandt 22:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was brought up at Talk:Ging Gang Goolie#Myths? regarding Ging gang goolie, primarily: Robert Baden-Powell as the originator. I skimmed through it and had been poking around a bit. The article does have references, but I don't have access the one book listed. Brommabo has a few sources listed there that might be of use, but there are obvious issue with original research.

Regardless, the discussion belongs on the article talk page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC) WikiProject Scouting[reply]

"We" presentation referred to above, ref "Background" subsection in the article Discussion (re above too). Brommabo (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is controversy about who wrote something, then all sides of the controversy should be represented, as long as there are suitable references. It's not the job of editors to judge who has the most valid claim and remove references to other claims; that would be original research, but it's not original research to say that a controversy exists or to describe the controversy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there might be a misunderstanding. I fully understand that editors are not supposed to be umpires re who did what. I also fully understand that the Discussion and Talk pages for the respective articles are to be used for discussions/controversies (which I use). However, here I seek guidance on how to proceed when the facts I base my article changes upon are hard to retrieve for internet parties in general (like century old document archives/libraries in UK and Sweden). Yes there is some OR here; on the other hand should a couple of possible wiki myths stand undisputed just because presumed true-er evidence opposing these possible myths has not become webbified yet? Brommabo (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The webbification or non-webbification of the sources is not relevant: if they are reliable in nature, and available to the public (even if difficult to access) you can refer to them. If they say something different from other published sources, you can summarise their argument (though not synthesise from them), and state how they are different from other sources; but you should not attempt to resolve the disagreement in the article, as that would be original research. --ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot ColinFine, that explains a lot. The OR angle for me means my sources seem primary from the point of timewise and personwise closeness to the earliest manifestation I have found of the song. I have in the Discussion page of the article invited interested parties to display whatever sources in the form of historical evidence that they use as support, focussing the period one century ago. At present no such sources are referred to on the web.

Further I am interested in what anyone would suggest as comment to my second question: propagation means of wiki article content. Brommabo (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot update websites that copy our content, but usually some of them do that themselves even though it will take some time and some will never be updated. It is a bit chaotic. Von Restorff (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand that Wikipedia editors do not have any responsibility to manually update other types of web based wikis. However, I am still wondering if there is some kind of automatic update mechanism available at Wikipedia that updates via "subscription" other wikis: yes or no? (the acknowledgement wording in some of the non-Wikipedia articles about Ging gang goolie implies that). Brommabo (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, we do not publish our content on those websites, they copy our content when they please. Von Restorff (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]