Help desk
< July 18	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 20 >

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.

July 19

Wikipedia Book

[[1]]

Hello, above is the link showing a book of Wikipedia.The website is selling the book too costly.I want to ask if this book is officially sold by Wikipedia or by its afflicted store? Thanks.14.97.56.134 (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, completely unaffiliated with Wikipedia. People are allowed to reuse Wikipedia content for their own purposes, including putting in a book and selling it, so long as they adhere to the terms of Wikipedia's licenses, GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content and Wikipedia:Buying Wikipedia articles in print or another form has information which is relevent. --Jayron32 00:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Republishers. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at first glance that book appears to be about Wikipedia, not Wikipedia sourced. Rojomoke (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have rather grave doubts about the reliabilty of a book that refers to Wikipedia as a company in the title! Roger (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the cool companies are non-profit nowadays. Arcandam (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a good alternative? Help:TMM Woz2 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

he correct writing of einstein'ts theory of general relativity

My search has turned up at least three different way to present the equation for special relativity or general relativity. I don't which. I find: E=MC2; e=mc2; E=mc2 e=MC2. There must one correct way to write the equation.

bill freeman

Thanks for your attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billfreeman8888 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E = mc² is the correct way. The number 2 is in superscript. In mathematics, high superscripts are used to indicate that one number or variable is raised to the power of another number or variable. Thus y⁴ is y raised to the fourth power, 2^x is 2 raised to the power of x, and the famous equation E = mc² includes a term for the speed of light squared. Thanks to the MediaWiki extension Math we can make it look pretty:

E=mc^{2}\,\!

Arcandam (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was not your question, but that famous equation does not in any sense sum up general relativity: it is a rather significant and simple consequence of the theory, but not part of the theory. The equation does not even occur in that form in our general relativity article. --ColinFine (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Question

Just asking for trivia : Has Wikipedia been sued by anybody in past? Xentram (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See List of litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation for a partial list. --Jayron32 02:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Is it possible for a Wikipedia article to be emailed? If yes, how? 69.151.250.124 (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sharebox is a script that reorders your toolbox. It adds new buttons that make it easier to mail, print or share an article on Facebook or another linksharing service. You must have an account to add Sharebox to the sidebar. See User:TheDJ/Sharebox for more information. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Using Presidential Portraits

On the Presidential portrait page I downloaded and added a lot of high resolution Presidential portraits for various U.S. Presidents. I got all of those high resolution portraits from this site-- http://www.whitehouseresearch.org/assetbank-whha/action/viewHome. Is it legal for me to download high resolution Presidential portraits from this site and put them on Wikipedia? For the record, some other people did the same thing before I did it, so I'm assuming that it is legal. However, I just want to make sure. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rights & Reproductions Guidelines; page on that site explicitly prohibits "Internet distribution", "Electronic compilations" and "use of high-resolution images on websites"

Rojomoke (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that all these high definition portraits should be deleted? Isn't there a rule in Wikipedia about being able to use non-free images if there are no equivalent quality images anywhere online? Futurist110 (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure fair use doesn't apply here. You should also check out Wikipedia:Non-free content as our standards are actually stricter than the law allows. Rojomoke (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions where the copyright experts live, since the situation may be more complicated than that. See, for example, the "public domain" explanation at File:Dwight D. Eisenhower, official Presidential portrait.jpg. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think those image uses need to be carefully reviewed. For example, I took a quick look at File:Bclinton.jpeg. Was Simmie Knox really an officer or employee of the US government when he made that image? For example, if he was not employed by the US government but instead was only ordered by them to make that portrait, then I think it would not be in the public domain. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information for students in Gujarati Langauge

Sir we are facing problem for getting information in Gujarati langauge. Students from Gujarat state (country-India) wants to learn cross culture information/ history etc through the media of Google /wikipeadia frequently. School teachers are also encouraging students for using google/wikipedia for getting various information. For example : I am facing problem for searching "Berlin wall history" in Gujarati langauge. In langauge option Gujarati is not available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.88.142.34 (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Gujarati Wikipedia available here; it's less comprehensive than the English one but may be of more use to your students. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia - in any language - is created by volunteers: articles exist only if somebody has spent the time and effort to create them. You are right that Berlin Wall does not have a Gujerati link: this is because nobody has written an article on the Berlin Wall in the Gujerati Wikipedia (or just possibly it could mean that there is such an article, but nobody has linked it to the English article - but this is unlikely). Perhaps you could get some of your students to improve the Gujerati Wikipedia by writing such an article (or translating it from English or another language). --ColinFine (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I recreate a (previously) deleted page?

I want to create a page about a band - back in 2010 a page was created by someone else and deleted due to "No explanation of the subject's significance".

Fortunately, the band is still around and there is a much stronger case for their significance, and hence a renewed need for a wiki page for them (I'll make the case in the new article).

I can't see from the page itself (MilkDrive) how to recreate it. I don't need access to the deleted pages - I'm going to create all new content - and I'll stay away from advertising and copyright infringing. Can someone give me the steps to recreate a deleted page?

Thanks. ZoneAlarm5 (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The protection log entry says: "Repeatedly recreated". Follow the link. You could try creating a sourced version satisfying WP:BAND at User:ZoneAlarm5/sandbox before making a request. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines do not talk about 'significance': this is a common misconception. What they talk about is 'notability', which is defined in a specific way in Wikipedia: whether or not multiple independent reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, book, or professionally edited websites) have talked about them. That is what you would need to show, by citing where such articles etc. had been published. --ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A7: No explanation of the subject's significance" is actually a quote from the deletion log of MilkDrive. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 is policy and uses the term significance. It refers to what the article itself claims, whether it's sourced or not. No claim of significance is a reason for speedy deletion (deletion without discussion) for some types of articles. ColinFine refers to Wikipedia:Notability which is a guideline often used in deletion discussions for articles where speedy deletion may not apply. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution Process

I tried to get answer previously but since my post was bad i didnt a answer.

What procedures are left if you get to formal mediation and can not get a consensus?

Because i am about to put request for comment live soon regarding 2 articles but there is about 100 users involved in the dispute and about 30-40 heavily involved.

Depending on the outcome there is about 40-50 articles that might be affected by the decision and because one side of the argument will be under happy that will be 40-50 articles on full protection indefinitely which is pretty bad.

so that why i am wondering if there is anything past formal mediation like possible arbcom or similar?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To what dispute are you referring exactly. Ruslik_Zero 11:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please see User:Andrewcrawford/mydraft that has all the information for the request for comment i am doing it should shed some background and what has been happening will take to long to explain--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i would appendices any responses to this so i know where this is heading if a consensus is not reached by formal mediation, so i can start preparing for that--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I keep my sandbox out of google searches?

Dear Friends__ My sandbox version of a Wiki page I have written seems to appear in Google searches for the subject of the page. Since the sandbox page was preliminary and contains errors, I am eager for it not to be public and not to show up in Google searches. Is there some way for me to make my sandbox more private? Many thanks, __Steve Greco

s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevegreco1 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can add __NOINDEX__ to the top of the page. This will prevent the page from being indexed again during Googles next crawling. The page might still appear for a while however in recent Google searches. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For more info, see WP:NOINDEX. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought some search engines ignored the __NOINDEX__ parameter?

watchlist

If I put a page on my 'watchlist', how do I get back to it? Someone left me a message/reply on a question I asked yesterday and now when i go to my 'watchlist' tab, I can't find it. Kind of frustrated with the navigation of wikipedia but not complaining too much because it could just be me but I feel that things could be more simple in reference to accessing and viewing stuff that you had involvement with on the site. Syntax is overbearing in my opinion but I will work on getting better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitm6337 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to scroll up just a little. Or click this link. You can find a list of your edits by clicking the "My contributions" link in the top-right corner. Arcandam (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Url triggers spam filter

Resolved

The url

http://finance.mapsofworld.com/merger-acquisition/company/videocon-daewoo.html

triggers the spam filter when I try to save a page with it? Why is that link on the blacklist? Should I file a request to get it removed from the blacklist? Wikipedia:Spam blacklist#Requests for delisting says I "should give compelling evidence as to why it should be delisted". Is the fact that I want to cite the url compelling evidence that it should be delisted? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be delisted. If you just need to reference a specific page, then you can request it's link be "whitelisted" at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. See here (and here for more info). But it is not unlikely that someone will refuse to whitelist it because it has a rather bad reputation. Arcandam (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I found another source for the information which I added to the links collection at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Daewoo. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you want it delisted is hardly evidence at all, unless you tell us why you want to add the link, what you want to add it too, etc. Looking at the linked page, I can't see what use it is supposed to be anyway - it clearly wouldn't meet WP:RS requirements, in that no indication whatsoever is given as to who the author is, or whether there is any editorial control. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I don't want to add anything to the Daewoo article. I merely want to collect some sources in my userspace to expand the article later. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

regarding induction motor text books or manuals

can i get material regarding induction motors and faulta such as broken bar,locked rotor,inter turn and under voltage on induction motors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.160.33 (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to undo criticism box at top of WildEarth Guardians page

The box at the top of the page was added in May 2010. The article has been rewritten hopefully in a more neutral tone in June 2012. How does the article get reviewed and the box from a 2010 review get removed? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpingwg (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a criticism box. The purpose of the {{COI}} tag is to highlight to readers that some content might have been written by someone closely related to the subject - something that is discouraged by Wikipedia's policies. In the case of the WildEarth Guardians article, it seems that Omerpearlman (talk · contribs) repeatedly copied content from the organization's website, wrote with a promotional tone and added inappropriate external links. This is what caused the {{COI}} tag to be added. As far as I can tell, it is unusual for such a tag to be removed, unless it can be shown that subsequent editing by uninvolved editors has changed the article sufficiently. Maybe someone else has a different view, but with a username like "helpingwg", you don't convince me that you are independent of the subject and your writing is therefore free of any COI concerns. Astronaut (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need snapshot of Taylor Brook just before it was deleted

I'm attempting to write a new version of Taylor Brook that includes support for notability. Could an admin copy-paste a snapshot of the wikitext just before it was deleted into my sandbox User:Woz2/Taylor Brook ? Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the old text is used, you will need to keep the old history too for the purposes of attribution for our licensing. That means you won't just be able to snag the text, you'd have to have the article undeleted and moved somewhere first. You may find an admin willing to WP:USERFY the article for you though, so that you can work on it before it's reconsidered for inclusion. BigNate37_(T) 17:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer! Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update Logo

Hello,

I would like to update the Logo of the "Gates and Partners" page. The logo shows "Gates and Partners Solicitors" and I would like to update it to "Gates and Partners LLP" as we have changed our structure. How can I do that please? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mags Waggy (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here is a link to the Upload File wizard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload Woz2 (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC) 17:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be better off going to the image on commons and just using the 'upload new version' link at the bottom of the page. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gates_logo.jpg --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion - Round 3

Unresolvable. Waste of time. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article like In der Falle is appropriate as a standalone article because .... How does this sentence end? See the two AfDs linked at the top of Talk:In der Falle. Does WP:BKCRIT#5 really justify an article like that? Some explanation would be appreciated, although I am sure I won't get it this time as well. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...if a wikinoob writes a bookreview it is much easier for them to expand an existing stub than creating an article. But I agree this one is a bit minimalistic. Arcandam (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a correct interpretation of WP:BKCRIT#5 to me. Herta Müller is rather notable. Whether or not you agree that #5 there is a reasonable and sufficient criteria for notability or not is a separate issue. You also might want to consider what WP:Stub says about why we have stubs. For my two cents, deleting stubs simply raises the barrier to entry for Wikipedia articles. If that is a change you want to make, it can't be done on the individual article level. BigNate37_(T) 19:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in which way does WP:REDUNDANTFORK not apply to In der Falle then, given the information present at Herta Müller#Works? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because a content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. (emphasis mine) The subject of the article In der Falle is not the same as the subject of the article Herta Müller. Arcandam (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Presently the stub is short enough that the content is entirely reproduced elsewhere. That does not mean that the article subject in its entirety is covered elsewhere though. A content fork is "the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject," and that is not the case here. In der Falle is an article on a book. Herta Müller is about an author, and the Works section is a list—inclusion on a list does not make an article a fork. There is massive precedent for lists on Wikipedia. Consider eventualism as it pertains to stubs: why would we delete a stub simply because it's not been filled out to the point where it has value? That kind of rationale would see a very large number of articles suddenly appearing at AfD. Per WP:BKCRIT#5 its notability has been established. If there are problems, they should be solved, but I'm just not seeing how deletion is that solution in this case. BigNate37_(T) 20:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic I could for example, looking at our current FA Manchester Ship Canal, create the articles History of Manchester Ship Canal, Present day Manchester Ship Canal, Route of the Manchester Ship Canal and Ecology of the Manchester Ship Canal. Those articles would even have a considerable length and are well referenced. Are you saying this would be appropriate? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not forks. Present day Manchester Ship Canal wouldn't be a good title, we would call it Manchester Ship Canal. The route of the canal is not notable in itself. If you can find enough sources we would welcome an article about the Ecology of the Manchester Ship Canal. Arcandam (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, and it wouldn't be completely unprecedented. I think what this comes down to is your disagreement with the book notability guideline. It isn't a foregone conclusion that the article must exist, given that the notability guideline is just that—a guideline—and it's quite clear that the criteria are just rules of thumb. Had you not already nominated the article twice for deletion I would suggest you take it up with RfC, but as it stands that would border on forum shopping. Consensus seems to have formed on the matter already. BigNate37_(T) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for "...short enough that the content is entirely reproduced elsewhere." If an article is short and its entire content is reproduced elsewhere, it should be a redirect to the place, where the content is reproduced, unless I am missing something about the purpose of redirects. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we usually don't use redirects to avoid having a stub about a notable subject. Arcandam (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are missing the purpose of stubs. There are many articles that need more content. Fixing that means writing more content, not deleting them. BigNate37_(T) 21:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcandam The notability of those one-line stubs is solely based on WP:BKCRIT#5. But it seems I will have to accept that, though I still think a one line stub without any significant information shouldn't exist.

@BigNate37 I do not think those stubs will ever have an amount of content that cannot reasonably be mentioned in the Herta Muller article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the goal of this conversation? Do you need info or are you just venting frustration? Look, we as a community decided on a few criteria to determine which books are notable. This book is notable. Therefore it has an article. The notability of those one-line stubs is solely based on mah authoritah. Arcandam (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, Toshio. I don't even really disagree with you. I'm not familiar with the subject matter, and I'm not good at writing about books that I have read. But I don't think this is a struggle you're going to win. BigNate37_(T) 21:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really have nothing more to say regarding this matter. My comments aren't the result of frustration on my part. And I agree that this a battle that I am not going to win, so I am dropping it. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, WP:NOT#DICDEF#1. Just sayin'. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of both WP:BK and of much the the content of Barfüßiger Februar, the article the second AfD focused on (though not its creator) I guess I should comment. I no longer believe in any of the subject specific guidelines including WP:BK. Everything should rise and fall by the GNG; there are either sufficient, reliable sources to sustain an article or there are not. Anyway, despite this, as secondary indicators of notability go, I think WP:BKCRIT#5 is fairly reasonable. The written works of a person whose life and written work is the common subject of study in academia is likely to have sufficient reliable sources to sustain an article, and here I think the main issue is that those sources do exist and have just not been used to write the more expansive article yet that is warranted. The only reason I didn't expand it beyond its stub status is that I don't speak German, so using the many sources that can be found with a simple Google Book search, for example, was difficult for me to take on. I think you need to separate in your mind the difference between notability existing, and notability shown through the sources present in the content of an article, which is a distinction I don't think you're drawing clearly enough by your comments here and at the AfDs. Notability exists or does not exist, regardless of what appears in an article's body at any given time. We don't even need to analyze WP:BKCRIT#5 for Barfüßiger Februar – it actually meets the GNG.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that my attitude may be flawed here. I will have a look at the sources your Google search brings up and see what I can do with them regarding an improvement of the book articles. I guess I need to reconsider some things and hope that I will be able to improve my attitutde. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about page proctection

i posted this earlier Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection#extension_of_proctection_and_downgrading_from_full_to_semi to ask question on page protection but since there been no reply i assume the talk pages aint watch much can someoen clarify my questions here please--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked that four hours before this request. Please have some patience! We are all volunteers. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section titles and anchors

Template:Anchor suggests using the tag within section titles to protect against broken section links. I've used this a few times at least, to insulate section redirects against section title changes. However I noticed that when editing a section with an anchor in the title, the edit summary's section appears with the entire anchor in the middle of it. This is clearly a bad thing, and it leaves me wondering whether the advice at {{anchor}} should be altered. I see three possible ways to use {{anchor}} in this manner:

Before the section title:
{{anchor|Section title linked from elsewhere}}
== Section title ==

In the section title, per Template:Anchor/doc:
=={{anchor|Section title linked from elsewhere}} Section title ==

After the section title:
== Section title ==
{{anchor|Section title linked from elsewhere}}

But they each have their own problems. Before the section title, the anchor is technically a part of a previous section, which means edits relating to it will have misleading summaries, and editors editing the previous section will not have the context for why the anchor is there. As above, in the section title, edit summaries get FUBAR'd. Placing an anchor after the section title causes the section title to appear slightly off-screen when a user is linked to it. So what is the right way to handle this? BigNate37_(T) 20:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed extensively at Template talk:Anchor, and, so far, no one has come up with a solution. Of the possible fixes discussed there, I think the best is to put the anchor within the heading, and log a MediaWiki enhancement request to stop the edit summary getting damaged. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes me feel a little better. Thanks for filling me in. BigNate37_(T) 03:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

plz write omething about jordan maxwell

i feel like lot of other humanbeing around the world there hould be a page of JORDAN MAXWELL.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.192.178 (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider using Wikipedia:Requested articles. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are many Jordan Maxwells in the world, so without some more info I can't say whether the one you're referring to is notable enough for an article. You could create an account and start the article yourself. Dismas|^(talk) 21:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nl:Jordan Maxwell (a conspiracytheorist) seems to be the most likely candidate. Arcandam (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need HELP with Trojan horse infections on my computer, PLEASE!

Recently my computer had started doing things out the ordinary. Playing random videos and audio, taking longer to load, and showing rather dirty content. I had microsoft security essentials acting as my antivirus but when I tried to run a scan it was completely disabled! like the trojan just wiped it out. I downloaded free AVG which didn't have a problem detecting the trojan but couldn't take care of it. I got free MBAM and it didn't do as well as AVG so I got Emsisoft. Ran the scan and it supposedly fixed it but when I restarted my computer I had more. I have done this a number of times over the past day and a half. Emsisoft has successfully eliminated one trojan but now my problem is HUGE! more Trojans and "backdoor" viruses have now presented themselves! it seems as if everytime I try to fix this problem it gets worse. I am a student I can't afford to lose my computer. can someone please help me? I created this specifically for this. THANKS SO MUCH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccing2 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RDC is the proper place for such a request, but since we're here, first you should try starting it in Safe mode then running System restore to a date you're sure it wasn't infected. If that's no good you'll have to reinstall windows--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting a Biography

How do I submit a Biography I have put together from scratch on a prominent Naval Officer? Ghills33 (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few ways. You are allowed to just move it to mainspace as a confirmed user. It may get fixed, tagged for deletion, or just left alone (rare). You could also put a link to it here or other forums. Since you started here this may be best. We can always move the discussion. You can link it like my cat article. User:Canoe1967/My Cat--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally articles are written directly in Wikicode, not created in a word-processor and then converted. What you absolutely cannot do is have an article with almost no content somehow pointing to a Word file, because nobody can look at what you have written!

There are some tools to convert from Word format, but I don't know how easy they are to use, or how effective: Help:WordToWiki may help you.But in future, I strongly recommend that you work directly in Wikipedia. See WP:YFA. --ColinFine (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]