Template talk:Help me

Please do not post your "Help Me" requests on this page. The {{Helpme}} should go on your user talk page, and editors will leave their answers there.

help request

{{helpme}}

I want to write something about Federation of Foreign Education Consultants in India (FFECI) a non profit association of leading education agencies in India. Please see www.ffeci.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrborra777 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Your first article then go to Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0. -- œ^™ 19:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also be sure to reread the comments already placed on your talk page. -- œ^™ 19:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Linking to IRC

How about put a link to the Wikipedia help channel using webchat freenode? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

{{tl}} vs. {{tlp}}

Why must answerers replace the {{helpme}} code with {{tlp|helpme}} instead of {{tl|helpme}}? I know it wouldn't save much time, but is there an actual function between either? (Since I seem to attract "you're-a-noob-answers," I'm looking for the difference between the two, not what either one does.) Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The latter can be used to show extra parameters that one needs to include or had been included in a template, which isn't necessary for the helpme template (it doesn't carry any parameters). An example could be {{Unsigned|Killiondude}}. {{Unsigned}} doesn't show the parameter. Killiondude (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, that's awesome, okay than you! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Design Update

Speaking with Chzz and some other users in the IRC, we talked about letting the person requesting help to show how skilled they are with wikipedia and wikicode. this can be useful for beginers because when i ask for help, i sometimes get answers which i do not understand and are far to advanced for me. thats why i made {{User:Sophie/sandbox10}} as a pre design. instructions can be found on user:sophie/sandbox9. the "1", "2", "3"... are taken from the babel idea but after a review from chzz, this could be changed to B (beginer) M (moderate) A (advanced). the default option would be the beginer option as a new commer would not know how to change the options and because not all helpers assume that the person who needs help is a beginner based on how long they have been on Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think

NB: im not sure whats up with the template link above, but the page can be found at User:Sophie/sandbox9.

Sophie ^(Talk) 08:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. The only thing I can foresee with this though is that the beginner option would be the only one used. As advanced users are unlikely to need help or are more resourceful than to need to use the helpme template in the first place. -- œ^™ 05:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Firefox and IRC link

{{editsemiprotected}}

The current template uses a link "irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-en-help", in Firefox irc://* requests are handled by a site call Mibbit, and Firefox changes the link to "https://www.mibbit.com/?url=irc%3A%2F%2Firc.freenode.net%2Fwikipedia-en-help", Firefox seems to be unsupported as it hangs "Loading..."!

Please change the template link to: "http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help", to allow more compatibility as some browsers don't use the irc:// protocol well but all browsers are able to understand http:// requests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R12056 (talk • contribs)

Done monosock 18:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Search the FAQ" link broken

The or [[tools:~tangotango/nubio/|search the FAQ]] section of this template needs to either be removed or updated, since that user's account has apparently expired. Could someone please oblige? Frank Westerton (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it so that it now links to WP:FAQ – thanks for pointing it out. AJCham 11:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Propose removing link to IRC

I'm concerned that by directing editors to the help channel via the {{Adminhelp}} template they will get the idea that they can request page protection and other admin actions through IRC instead, bypassing normal WP:RFPP process. This is not good, the #wikipedia-en-help channel should be for non-administrative help only, everything else that requires admin action should follow process, whether it be WP:ANI, WP:AN3, WP:RFPP, etc. -- œ^™ 19:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to mention, this pertains to {{Adminhelp}} only. Its talk page redirected me here. -- œ^™ 19:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That really wouldn't be very different from using this template to request the same. It's a hazard regardless of whether the template or IRC is employed, no? --Bsherr (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

True, in fact I can't think of any actions that {{adminhelp}} would be useful for that aren't already covered by some existing on-wiki process. However, I haven't seen the template being abused in this way, but that's probably because the link to irc is there: impatient people would rather bypass even this template and go straight to the live chat with an admin! (which btw isn't guaranteed anyway because it's not an 'admins channel' it's just a regular help channel). So maybe we should just get rid of the template altogether then? -- œ^™ 21:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's useful when a user is unsure of the noticeboard at which to post, for example. --Bsherr (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, or in emergencies I suppose. I'd rather not delete the template, but I still think we shouldn't be directing users to #wikipedia-en-help from it. -- œ^™ 23:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I hear that, but I'd need to understand why one and not the other. --Bsherr (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it will be better to link to Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention instead. {{helpme}} is okay to link to the IRC help channel, but {{adminhelp}} shouldn't link there because it's simply not an admin channel, there's no guarantee that an admin will be in that channel, and even if one is I still think it's controversial for admins to be taking off-wiki (and therefor off-the-record) requests for page protection and blocks. -- œ^™ 01:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fair. No opposition from me. --Bsherr (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As I stated below, what is urgent for admins or long term editors is very different from what is urgent for a new user. Dealing with a help or adminhelp request needs to respect that difference in perspective and experience. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As someone regularly in that IRC channel, I can say these concerns are valid, though not occurring too frequently. I think that the issue is people misunderstanding the purpose of the template, so many clarification on what to ask for help with (i.e. someone forgot to get rid of an autoblock after unblocking a user) and what not to ask for (protection of a controversial page during a dispute) on IRC and onwiki with {{adminhelp}} would be good as well. At any rate, I don't see much issue with removing the IRC link (I don't seem to remember the last time anyone came in for an admin help situation after using the template) or just offering IRC as an alternative for possible admin advice on where to go for an issue. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think there are problems with the use of IRC for admin actions, but they don't stem from novice users asking admins who happen to be online to deal with what the user sees as an urgent problem. Deleting a link to an extant IRC channel in favor of sending new users to some arcane (and they are arcane) WP process page where they can get a rude introduction to how the bureaucracy works is the opposite of what we should be doing. Dealing with new users (anyone new enough to user adminhelp counts) should be about solving the problem at the lowest level possible and making the user's experience seamless. It is *not* a teachable moment where the new user can learn what a cool page like AN3 or RFPP does. It is not an exercise in crossing t's and dotting i's. It is a problem that needs to be solved and the simplest and most direct route to a solution should be used. If the admin making the action feels like they can't respond unilaterally they can post a request on those process pages themselves, ask other admins on IRC for help or go to AN. Overuse of IRC for actions which someone feels should be dealt with via a process simply isn't an issue here because removing the link won't alter the actual IRC channel one whit. Likewise concerns about propriety don't factor in here because the admin action itself is undertaken by someone who the community trusts and they should have the judgment to decide where unilateral action is appropriate or where more discussion is appropriate. Remember, processes and noticeboards serve us, not the other way round. Protonk (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Very well, but is IRC a consistently viable alternative solution to using the adminhelp template? If not, it shouldn't be on there. --Bsherr (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow. For one, the help and adminhelp templates already trigger a chatbot on the help channel, so admins and users there will see a help template. Adding the channel simply helps connect users to potential helpers. It doesn't need to replace the template itself in terms of functionality. Besides the complaint was that process might be subverted through the inducement to use IRC, which is what I intended to push back on above. Protonk (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OlEnglish asserts that administrators aren't necessarily available on the IRC, that the IRC is not specific to administrators, and that referring to it is therefore misplaced. --Bsherr (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's too much of a real issue. There are usually always admins in the channel (though they might be idling, depending on the timezone, etc.). If person A (a non-admin Wikipedian, familiar with IRC) is helping person B (a newbie), then person A would know where to go to get an admin if they really wanted/needed to. Killiondude (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

First, there are generally admins around in -en-help (I don't actively comment most of the time, but unless I'm otherwise occupied at the moment, I'm generally responsive to pings). Second, in many cases, the {{Adminhelp}} is used for something that doesn't really need an admin anyway. So yes, keeping the IRC link is useful. T. Canens (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I suppose it depends on the personal preference of the administrator that happens to be in the channel, whether they should choose to take admin actions is to their discretion. Personally, when I'm helping users in #wikipedia-en-help, I'm not acting in my admin capacity, my function there is to direct users to the correct process, I *am* there as a teacher. I will not use the admin tools to take personal requests or 'favors' from users off-wiki, where it may be taken as a unilateral action by other users on-wiki, and then I'm accused of being part of some corrupt cabal network. It's better to follow due process and let these requests occur on-wiki where they can be reviewed by the community. Of course if someone tells me on IRC that a user is doing mass pagemove vandalism then I won't hesitate to act, it's for the good of the project, but if a user specifically seeks me out on irc because I'm an admin to ask me to protect an article they've been editing because there's some editwar or somethingrather going on, I see that as being analogous to coming up to an off-duty janitor sitting in a pub somewhere chitchatting with colleagues, and asking him, just because he happens to be a janitor, to come and cleanup a mess they found in the pub's washroom. Or calling up your buddy who happens to be a cop, to come and arrest some guy, instead of dialing 911. meta:IRC/wikipedia-en-admins/Guidelines reads that IRC is not an "alternative to on-wiki debate, and is not intended as a shortcut", I see that as good advice. -- œ^™ 12:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• I see that as good advice as well, which applies to long term users. IRC is a poor substitute for a talk page discussion between users because it is both ephemeral and opaque. However IRC as an alternative to sending a new user to an alphabet soup of policy pages is priceless. We are so used to the network of policy and process that we fail to see how bewildering and superfluous they seem to an outsider. Asking a question and getting a response, even if that response is sometimes "I can't help you, go to WP:XYZ", is better. Protonk (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Move request of Template:Adminhelp

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

---

The above template is incapable of properly displaying the name of the template to which this discussion relates. See the following for the actual proposal. Template:Adminhelp → Template:Admin help — Proper spelling with spaces in it. On this talk page, because Adminhelp's talk page redirects here. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The name help me is far more user-friendly, and that's particularly important for this template, which is an important part of the welcoming system. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a proposal to move Template:Help me. --Bsherr (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Move. Natural language is best. --Bsherr (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment you should use the multimove template instead of the regular move template. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Probably what should have been done was to remove the redirect from the Adminhelp talk page, and then make a move request there. Anyway, there don't seem to be any objections to the actual proposal (when people realize what it is), so let's move Template:Adminhelp to Template:Admin help. (It's move protected so an admin will have to do it.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Would this work on a non talk page

Hi

Strange fact finding mission I know, but would the {{adminhelp}} template work on a non talk page? or is there another one that can be used in pages that are not talk pages? (and not in mainspace)

I would like to investigate a way of getting admin help quickly to project users and it seems a brilliant way to do it if it is possible.

Obviously this is only a request for info :¬)

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it will work on any page in any namespace. -- œ^™ 14:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If by "work" you mean "does it transclude the category tag so an administrator will see it?", it only works on Talk namespaces and the Wikipedia namespace. On all other namespaces, such as Help, Category or Portal, it only produces a message box telling you you're in the wrong namespace. This is actually why I'm on this talk page, see below. — Bility (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh! ok, I guess I was wrong.. I think it should though.. work on any page in any namespace.. that would make it more useful, and accessible to newbies. -- œ^™ 09:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Danthekarateman2, 22 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Hey. I noticed that when you are editing a page it says to take an unbiased point of view. I was looking at several pages (Horse, Dinosaur, Human, etc.) over the last few months and saw that most of them state matter-of-factly that the result of these animals is Evolution. If I'm not mistaken not everyone believes in Evolution and saying that is being biased. I suggest that these pages be changed to have two different sections explaining how they were created. For example one section could explain how God created animals in Genesis 1 and 2. The other could explain how these animals (and humans) evolved out of bacteria. Danthekarateman2 (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This request is in the wrong place; I'll reply on your user page. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Categorize other transclusions?

Should there be a maintenance category for when this template is used on non-talk pages? I just found one by accident on a userpage and saw there's no tracking category for this. I think adding this template to the userpage instead of the talk page could be a common occurrence among new users. For instance, there are ten transclusions on user pages as of this writing, including a few blank requests. Not a big deal (most people will just read the box and move it themselves), but thought I'd mention it. — Bility (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

suame schools

Question. I like some information on a school in suame street by the name King Jesus senior Highschool. I support a student there and I just like an comformation that this school exist as I cannot locate it on Google. They have a website called Kin g Jesus senior highschool. I appreciate your search as I live in Australia. The Reverent Anthony van Hartog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony aussi (talk • contribs) 03:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a template talk page, perhaps they can help you at the reference desk. — Bility (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

{{helpme}} help me with my page Broadway1620 (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC) {{helpme}} help me with my page Broadway1620 (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The {{helpme}} template is not placed here; it belongs on your talk page. You can link any page existing on Wikipedia be enclosing its name in double brackets (([[name]]) so that when you post message like this one for assistance, you can tell us the name of your page and link to it (asking people to help you with "your page" makes your question rather unclear).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Update adminhelp for...realism?

I meant to post this at the Talk page for {{admin help}}, but it appears that that redirects to here, which is a little strange, but I'll assume there's good reason for it.

In any event, I recently posted an {{admin help}} request to my Talk page due to a brewing conflict on a Wikiproject's Talk page. I was hoping to get an admin to at least look over the situation, without the formality and possible drama of an ANI filing.

Unfortunately over 12 hours later I still had not received a response to my adminhelp request and said conflict had indeed grown worse. At that point I filed an ANI request to discuss whether the template is an effective tool, and if not whether it can be made effective. That discussion got a bit sidetracked, but the bulk of the material relevant to this thread is available here. One admin stated that not receiving a response within 12 hours is not significant, another stated that they ignore such requests, while a third stated their opinion that the template is too generic; as requests are not categorized there's no way to know upfront whether the help needed will be in a field that the admin considers themselves well-suited to address.

The text provided when an editor invokes the template is as follows- "I am looking for help from an administrator! Ask your question below. If a response is not swiftly forthcoming, or if you require input from multiple administrators, you may wish to raise the matter at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. If you do not require help from administrators specifically, it is best to use the template {{help me}} instead of this one. The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help is notified when this template is used. You can join that channel (chat room) if you want to get real-time assistance or if you want to help out. (Click here for instant access.)"

To my mind, this suggests that a response should, generally, be "swiftly forthcoming". When an editor has to wait over 12 hours for an acknowledgement, I do not think "swiftly forthcoming" is the appropriate description. It was suggested that if editors really do wish for a swift response to an issue that they should file an ANI request. If that is the case then I would submit that the text of the template should be modified to make it clear that that is considered the best practice at this time.

As far as concerns that the template is too "generic", I was wondering how others would feel about creating additional templates that would request help with a clear indication of what type of help is needed. Perhaps {{adminhelpcivil}}, {{adminhelpcopyvio}} and other templates as appropriate, with use of the standard template suggesting that editors might wish to use one of the more specific templates instead?

I greatly appreciate any feedback other editors might have. Doniago (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It would have been better to post your original request directly to WP:ANI. There is no possible way to avoid 'formality and possible drama' if you want admins generally to look into something. If you really want *exactly one* administrator then open up Special:Log to find the name of an admin who is currently active and try posting to their talk page. Regarding the 12 hours -- it is unlikely that any template system is going to produce fast action. Even Category:Requests for unblock which is actively patrolled takes longer than 12 hours in many cases. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems to go back to my point that the wording of the template should perhaps be reconsidered so that it doesn't suggest action will be "swiftly forthcoming". Doniago (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the 'swiftly' is a bit much. This template, if it is kept, should be seen as an aid to newcomers who may not know how to use WP:ANI. I doubt that this template will be a good option for experienced editors. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've used it from time to time at the Help desks to draw attention to a question needing an admin. It's worked well there. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In my experience the helpme templates are usually seen quickly, even if it's not by an admin but by someone who knows how to go and poke one if one is needed. Twelve hours is not a long time, but I am certain in this case it will have been seen and ignored by several admins. The problem as I see it is that you didn't need an administrator, but a mediator instead. Whatever led you to think an admin was needed may need more tweaking than the adminhelp template. In this respect I'd agree with you: I'd suggest a strongly suggested parameter indicating which admin tool is required in the request. Not so much for the admins, but for the person using the template. If no admin tools are needed the request should instead be directed to the wider community. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

12 hours may not be a long time objectively, but I don't believe one generally expects to wait over 12 hours if they have been led to believe that a response will be "swiftly forthcoming", as previously noted. Even after the ANI filing, when it was made clear that I filed an admin help request, it still took hours before anyone actually addressed the admin help request (granted it had been somewhat mooted by that point, but even so...). I'm not aware of a way of requesting help from a mediator via one's Talk page, and as I noted, I was trying to avoid having the situation escalate if there was an alternative. In any case, it certainly appears that some adjustment of the template to clarify its purpose and offer alternatives may be warranted. Doniago (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have never seen the adminhelp template used to direct administrators to a brewing situation - we have very specific noticeboards for vandalism, ANI, 3RR. Adminhelp is intedned to draw someone's eyes for some help - not always an admin. Just like most unblock requests are viewed by at least a half-dozen admins before being actioned (because they were drawn by the template) the adminhelp draws similar views. Of course, the first half-dozen viewers might not be admins, nor might they feel competent to comment based on the situation. adminhelp will draw people, just like yelling "help" will draw some attention - if you want real action, you call 9-1-1. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If admin help won't necessarily draw the eyes of an admin, then admin help would seem to be a misleading name for the template. In this case the situation was a discussion rapidly descending into incivility. I had some involvement in the discussion so was uncomfortable issuing civility warnings. Admin help seemed to be the most prudent course of action, especially given that I didn't want to make it a high profile issue if there was another option, and I would think admins are generally qualified to advise as to better courses of action if such exist. As it turned out one of the incivil parties in fact was an admin, though I wasn't aware of that at the time. In any case, you seem to be supporting my argument that the template should be revised for clarity. Doniago (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Having watched your situation unfold, and understanding your frustration, I looked at the template with an eye towards what could be reworded. I concluded that the current wording doesn't seem to imply that an answer would be "swiftly forthcoming", because it only says "If a response is not swiftly forthcoming, or if you require input from multiple administrators, you may wish to ... ". I can't see a way to improve this wrt a situation such as the time you used the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

But why would a template say, "If a response isn't swiftly forthcoming, then do x," if a response wasn't likely to be swiftly forthcoming in most cases? I read it as, "You should get a response soon...but if you don't, then here's your next best course of action..." If nothing else, maybe it should be phrased as, "If you feel your situation requires immediate attention, please do x rather than using this template."

That said Sandy, thank you for your input. I know we've had some disagreements in the past, and I appreciate your input in this matter as someone who was "there at the time". Doniago (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but have to defer to admins who are the ones reviewing the typical scenarios ... perhaps your suggested wording would result in trivial requests overwhelming ANI (not saying yours was trivial). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If, as noted above, this was a situation in which a mediator was needed more than an admin, perhaps a template or other "quick and easy" system could be set up to call a mediator's attention to a situation where there's smoke but no fire (yet), in order that they may intervene before things get out of hand? If such a system exists, I'm not currently aware of it...and I think one of the purposes should be to avoid making the kind of issue of a situation that an ANI filing typically involves. Believe me, I wish the previous issue hadn't gotten that far.

I do also think that there's merit to partitioning the admin help template into more specialized templates to avoid the "this is a generic problem" issue that was noted as well. I would be happy to assist in such a refinement, though I'm not sure my knowledge of wiki-coding is up to the task. Doniago (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Credit card donation page not working; dropdown for month and year on expiration date not operational....therefore cannot donate!

Credit card donation page not working; dropdown for month and year on expiration date not operational....therefore cannot donate! 69.78.223.102 (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. We have heard this from a few users but have been unable to reproduce it ourselves. It is a very rare bug on our payment provider's side. Could you possibly provide the operating system and browser version that you are using? Pgehres (WMF) (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

my boyfriend took a job in nigeria.while he was there he was beaten and his passport stolen.i got a call this morning he was taken to the hospital with possible heart attack.is there anyway i get help to get him away from there.they said he had to wait on his passport which is 5 to 6 weeks.he lives in chicago illinois,usa i am so worried for his welfare.i paid for the visa and the embassy has agreed to pay for his ticket home.please help me.my email is (Redacted) thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.211.139.150 (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing Wikipedia can do for you, sorry. Please stay in contact with the embassy and ask them for further direction. Thanks, — Bility (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Help requests filed at wrong place

Some newbies or IP editors add there admin help request at Template:Admin help/doc and these requests go unnoticed sometimes for days. Any thoughts to resolve this? --SMS ^Talk 15:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Question for administrator

<Your Question>

--Wem0298 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC) I just want to add missing information without learning wikicode. The information is song titles.

Thank you for your guidance.

Wem0298

As it says at the top of this page, you need to place your help request on your own Talk page not here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)