Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 March 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Help desk
< March 18 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 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.


March 19[edit]

free hot naked girls click here

does today sun esclspe will occure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.2.190.6 (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

  • Probably better to ask on the reference desk, this desk is for asking questions about wikipeida, the reference desk is better suited to answer general knowledge questions--VectorPotentialTalk 01:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This question is easy to answer by browsing to the obvious Wikipedia article, and following some links. According to Solar eclipse: The last solar eclipse happened on March 19, 2007, while the next total solar eclipse will occur on August 1, 2008. The March 19 eclipse has a small entry in List of solar eclipses#21st century. The next eclipse promises to be more spectacular, and it has a nice article: Solar eclipse of 2008 August 1. --Teratornis 18:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles vs Talk/Discussion -[edit]

1. Why are there two terms for the same thing : Talk and Discussion ?

2. It is said that Articles are to be "encyclopedic" in content. Fine, seems OK.

However, what is the intended content for Talk/Discussion ?

Some users criticize certain Talk/Discussion postings, saying that "This is an encyclopedia not a forum for putting forth one's beliefs or opinions ..... ".

How could Talk/Discussion be "encyclopedic" in nature ? What would be left for the Article ? It seems to me that ANY discussion has to start with opinions or beliefs and be worked with an open mind toward consensus.

Am I confused or are they ? Allenwoll 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In general, the overarching rule for discussion on talk pages is that it should relate to how to make the encyclopedia article better, or how to maintain it. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, which means two things:

  1. Discussing the subject of the article, rather than the article, is discouraged. For example, asking "Does anyone think that Bush is neo-conservative?" on Talk:George W. Bush is not as appropriate as asking "Should the article include the assertion that Bush is neo-conservative?"
  2. Arguing about the subject of the article, rather than discussing the article. For example, stating "I think that communism is better than capitalism" on Talk:Communism is not a good idea, and such comments will generally be removed.

There's often a fine line between the two. Some related reading, if you're interesting in this, is WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE. and WP:OR. GracenotesT § 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Talk/discussion pages (there really is no difference) are for discussing the article, project, policy, proposal, etc. that the page is a talk page of. For example, Talk:God is for discussing the article God, resolving content disputes, suggestions for improvement, etc. It would not be for discussing opinions of God. It isn't really designed to be encyclopedic in its own right but to make the article more encyclopedic. Also, the talk page for a band is for discussing the article, not for gossipping about members of the band. See WP:TALK for more info. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Referring to item 1 in the original question, "talk" vs. "discussion": using two or more terms to refer to one feature in a system is an ergonomic design flaw I call synonym disease. Synonym disease makes learning the system more difficult for new users, whose first challenge is to learn the meanings of all the terms displayed by the system itself, used in its documentation, or mentioned by experienced users when they discuss the system. Technical writing handbooks stress the need to identify and define all the terms which have specific meaning with regard to a system. The converse of synonym disease is overloading, when a single term refers to more than one unrelated feature or action in a system. In a well-designed system, there is a one-to-one correspondence between terms and features. Every feature of the system has a distinct name, and each name refers to one feature. A third type of problem is the unnamed feature, a feature which is just there but has no name at all whereby people may refer to it. A skilled documenter will attempt to name all unnamed features, and negotiate with developers to introduce the names into the system. Since most developers are not documenters, the terminology they invent or accumulate as they develop systems may be to some extent accidental (that is, not guided by knowledge of ergonomic design principles), and as a result is not optimally learnable by new users. If documenters are regarded as equal members of the development team, they may be able to clean up instances of synonym disease, term overloading, and missing terms which almost invariably plague new system designs. The fact that the "talk"/"discussion" instance of synonym disease persists this late into MediaWiki's development (and, as far as I can tell, it persists unnecessarily) suggests that the MediaWiki development team has no member who understands what synonym disease is and why it is a problem, or the team has such a member whose advice is ignored. --Teratornis 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful comment.
For an example of ongoing frightfully bad terminology, See "Renewable energy", "Talk/Discussion", "Whatever one calls it". Allenwoll 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium[edit]

You should check this page. At least on my computer the graphics looked to be in the wrong category. Emphasis on the GORY.

Regards,

<email removed>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.30.168.121 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

It appears fine to me. What do you mean by "category"? GracenotesT § 02:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It was vandalized earlier today. See Special:Contributions/Alexneu0. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Conures[edit]

Hi,

I created an article about a month ago on Maroon-bellied conures, but yesterday I was informed that the picture I uploaded is no longer there, nor is the caption. This is a picture I took with my own camera, so I'm curious as to what happened to it, why, and when it will be put back.

74.117.70.17 06:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you place an image copyright tag on the image information when you uploaded it? If not, then the image is permanently deleted. Real96 08:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, image deletion can now be undone I think. I can't find any evidence such an article existed. Are you sure you didn't misspell the article title? If I can find the article, I can figure out what happened to the image (provided you inserted it into the article after you uploaded). - Mgm|(talk) 08:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

flagicon|Brazil[edit]

I frequently view pages containing lots of flagicons. Sometimes, all the flagicons display properly except for Brazil. Do you know any reason why that would be? Consider my sandbox - the first (UK) flagicon displays properly, but the second (Brazilian) one dies not. If I hover my mouse over the Brazilian flagicon, I get a popup box saying "imagepage preview failed :( Is the query.php extension installed?". Thanks. DH85868993 06:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That has happened to me as well, but to other images. Are you using popups? It could be something due to that instead, as the picture is still fine when I click on it. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 06:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm using popups. DH85868993 07:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, DH. It looks fine to me (I checked a few of my articles where I have used the Brazilian flag and they are okay). I noticed you use Brazil rather than BRA, though that should not make any difference as far as I know. Anyway, since it appears to display correctly for most users, I wouldn't worry about it. Adrian M. H. 18:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. DH85868993 23:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I Interned/was a Congressional Aide and Was Wondering[edit]

I very briefly (read 1 week) did an unpaid internship for US Senator Mary Landrieu (I have never worked on her article, although I have made a comment on her talk page). I was wondering, is there a list of ISPs and known Wikipedia editors who have been on Congressional staffs, and have changed Congressional articles? Total number of such known editors? Also, did I break policy? Just wondering. Thanks. Zidel333 07:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Per the privacy policy, that information can not be released. Also, wikipedia is not a social network. Cheers! Real96 07:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
In reply to your second question: no, you haven't broken any Wikipolicy, because you haven't made any edits that could be considered conflicts of interest. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 09:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I was just curious about the information. Thanks for your help. Zidel333 15:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Real96, you pipe external links with a space not a pipe. I've fixed it for you above. --ais523 15:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way[edit]

to access a random article within a given category? Just curious. \sim Lenoxus " * " 08:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are talking about Special:Recent changes, I don't think so. Real96 08:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This feature doesn't exist, but a request has been made to the developers that it be implemented: bugzilla:2170. The developers are generally very busy, so it's unlikely that it will be implemented any time soon. Hope that helps! --ais523 09:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It does; thanks. \sim Lenoxus " * " 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you know Wikipedia has a table of contents?[edit]

There is a proposal at the Village pump to add it to Wikipedia's main menu.

The Transhumanist   09:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't know Wikipedia has a table of contents. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 09:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Entrtainment - March 12 & 13[edit]

What happened to the archive? These dates are missing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.3.92 (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

What archive? Entertainment's talk is located here here. Real96 10:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.3.92 (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC) .

Books[edit]

I'm trying to write the page for the book La colmena, is there some sort of template for articles on novels that I could base it around or am I best off basing it on a featured article? L.omahony 11:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be read the suggestions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, and use a featured article as a guide. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 11:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Saving Articles[edit]

To whoever it may concern.

I registered at Wikipedia because I find it the most useful encyclopedia ever. I would like to know if there is the possibilty to save articles and create a list of articles I read.

Thank you for your help.

Sarah Ferracini - Lily13sh Lily13sh 12:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not entirely obvious what you mean by 'save articles'; if you want to keep track of which articles you've read and changes to them, you could try using your watchlist. Although designed to track changes to a selection of pages and discussions about them, you can also use it as a list of pages you've read; click on 'watch' at the top of a page to watch it, and 'my watchlist' to see changes to articles on your watchlist. Hope that helps! --ais523 12:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Since you registered an account, you can use the "watch this page" feature to put an article on your watch list. As for saving articles, your browser undoubtedly has a save option in the file menu. - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Small Town notability.[edit]

I have a question regarding the notability of small towns. Browsing and fixing/speedying new pages, i often notice people creating articles on small towns, often from one specific area, that contain little to almost no content. An example being in progress right now are the articles done by this user. Now, do these article deserve to be on wikipedia? They offer zero information, however, i have heard people saying before that real places are notable enough by default. Could someone give me a heads-up? Thank you. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 13:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Real towns, villages and major city districts and other such communities or places are generally considered inherently notable, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes for more. As for those specific articles, I think that even a short definition is better than nothing. Hopefully the articles will be expanded later. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that. I've seen people create dozens of articles like that a couple of times before, and they were always left like that. However, thanks for the link, my question has been answered, now i know. Thank you. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 13:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • There's a bot that creates town articles for American census data for every city/town/village in the States. This precedent would strongly imply all towns are notable. WilyD 14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I consider towns inherently notable, but I would recommend against writing an article unless you can write one or two paragraphs. - Mgm|(talk) 19:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Since the mentioned bot did create an article on all of the populated places in the US, we would encourage the creation of articles about towns in other countries. Please try to provide reliable sources for any information you include, though. Corvus cornix 21:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Font renderings[edit]

Special characters sometimes don't render correctly in my browser. I'm running the most recent version of Firefox on Mac OS X. The most obvious current examples of incorrect characters appear in articles concerning playing cards—I can't see any suits. See Clubs (suit) for a good example. — atchius (msg) 14:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Check to see if you have a font installed with the characters in; it's quite possible that you can't see the characters because your computer doesn't have an appropriate font. --ais523 15:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I found out that my chosen typeface (for websites which don't specify one) didn't include the characters—I really quite like Optima though, so I think I'll stick with this. — atchius (msg) 15:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

NGWA[edit]

I have searched high and low but I am unable to find the answer :( I have attempted to post a page about our orginization under Category:Hydrology_organizations which was successful. The only problem is the "user: in front of the NGWA. How do I list the page under NGWA so that is appears under the "N's" and not "U" Thank you for your help Ngwa 14:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, if the user page User:Ngwa is meant to be an encyclopedia article, it should be moved to the title NGWA in the main namespace. I will do the move now. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You have placed the article on your User page. For help on starting an article in the article space, see Help:Starting a new page. But first, you might want to see if your organization is notable enough. Dismas|(talk) 14:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ngwa (talkcontribs).

Image removal[edit]

How do I remove an image I uploaded —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chevettev6 (talkcontribs).

  • Generically you can't - when you upload an image you license it for use under [{GDFL]] or (in your case) you released it into the public domain, so you no longer "own" it. WilyD 15:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have a good reason, you can place {{db-author}} on its image description page (you should be able to find the image description page in Special:Contributions/Chevettev6) to request that an administrator deletes the image. (You might want to explain your reasoning in your edit summary.) --ais523 15:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sunrise Senior Living - "Financial Controversy" Section[edit]

March 19, 2007

Dear Wikipedia Editors:

My name is Jamison Gosselin and I am director of Corporate Communications for Sunrise Senior Living. I'd like to express a concern with you about a article addition made to the Sunrise Senior Living entry on February 7, 2007 by an unknown source. Sadly, I believe it violates the founding principles of Wikipedia and many of your rules. It offers biased, innaccurate and unattributed information. We believe this entry is part of a bag of tactics a labor union is using to misinform the public -- far from the purpose of an encyclopedia.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out issues with the posting and how it violates your rules related to attribution and unbiased sourcing. It also clearly violates your policy related to conflicts of interest related to campaigning and citing oneself.

1) Financial Controversy - I've been here four years and am not aware of any financial controversy. One union organization with 500 shares of stock in Sunrise (we have millions of shares) sent us a letter in November asking us to look into our stock option grants and insider trade practices. We are currently doing that. There is no controversy.

2)The Times and Post do cover Sunrise because we are a publicly trade company -- but I am not aware of any articles that go into the depth of information provided in the next few sections.

3) These paragraphs are not written in an unbiased way and these matters are all evolving. None of the information in this section has been verified and frankly, I'm not sure where the submitting party got the information.

4) Questionable Accounting Practices - The review is being performed by Sunrise and was initiated by us. I'll spare you the many details to this item, but the information provided by the poster is full of generalizations and misleading statements. The consequences when all is said and done are not serious.

5) Stock Option Grants - Again, I'm not sure where they got this information from or where the poster can say "grants appear fortuitously timed." Again, this is biased information and unattributed information.

6) Related Links - www.sunriseshareholders.org. This "organization" is actually operated by the labor union that has launched a broad campaign against Sunrise and only represent the labor union. It is not some vast shareholder organization -- most of our shareholders are institutional banks, mutual funds and the founders of the company.

We ask that Wikipedia consider our information and then remove the portions of the Sunrise article posted on February 7, 2007. I have a lot of respect for the philosophy and structure of Wikipedia. It is a shame people would rather treat it as a campaign blog or salacious tabloid. An encylopedia should provide attributed and unbiased information and not be used as a weapon by groups determined to destroy a others.

I can be found as username QualityLife123 or feel free to contact me at (email removed to protect you from email-harvesting spammers). I look forward to your thoughts on this matter.

Sincerely, Jamison Gosselin Director, Corporate Communications Sunrise Senior Living —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QualityLife123 (talkcontribs) 15:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I've tagged the article {{NPOV-section}} as an immediate response; I suspect people are looking in to it now. The entire section was added by an anonymous user, Special:Contributions/68.72.114.229, which looks suspicious; the section was blanked without a reason and then restored by vandalism patrollers. One big worry here is that the article (and section) isn't sourced; if you know some sources from outside the company (if you have a link to the relevant newspaper articles, for instance), that will help to set the matter straight. As it is, the amount of unsourced information in the article is worrying, and I'm not entirely sure that the article at present contains much useful information at all; you seem to have added most of the text to a section in a way that brings up conflict of interest concerns, and the IP seems to be even more biased the other way. (In fact, I'm wondering at the moment whether the article would be more useful as a stub than it is at the moment.) Do any other Help Desk responders have an idea as to what to do about this? --ais523 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the whole Financial Controversy section as it has zero references and likely breaks WP:BLP by suggesting directors of financial malpractice. Diff = [1]. Cheers Lethaniol 16:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I'm not going to revert the deletion because of the lack of references and the violation of WP:BLP.
However, although I don't have time to dig into the details this morning, a quick Google search on the terms "Sunrise Assisted Living insider stock sales" suggests that there is plenty of fire behind the smoke. Someone should follow up on this and provide citations for those facts that can be backed up by reliable sources and remove anything that cannot be verified. --Richard 16:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone who knew more about the subject area would find a source for anything in the entire article, in fact. The section blanking was needed without sources, though. (This discussion should probably be on the article's talk page Talk:Sunrise Senior Living.) --ais523 16:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
(editconfict)I totally agree with this - but the citations are a must otherwise WP:BLP issues are massive (and still). Please note I will cut and paste this discussion to the article's talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue[edit]

Hello, because I am new in the world of Wikipedia, I would like to ask you for the copyright issue about the uploaded images. Specifically, I uploaded an image which is mine, I mean that I shooted the image from my digital camera and at the stage of uploading I chose the option Own work, copyleft, multi-lisence e.t.c. I would like to know If I chose the appropriate copyright. A user tried to help me by mentioning the links with the tags but I finally didn't found a way to solve the problem . Thank you. Curunvir 16:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you took the image, you choose the copyright; it's alright like that. · AO Talk 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless it was a picture of a copyrighted work (like a painting, poster, book, CD cover, film or software on screen etc.) Notinasnaid 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Assuming that you do own the copyright for the picture (likely in most cases), make sure you choose a copyright licence that Wikipedia can use; anything in the section under 'self-made licences' is fine (make sure you're willing to release the image under such a licence before you upload it, though). --ais523 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the purpose[edit]

of the interwiki "links" on pages? They don't seem to show up on the articles themselves (which is why I put "links" in quotes), and if I want to access them, it seems I have to view the article source. Am I not looking hard enough? -- Lenoxus 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Interlanguage links. Check out the left navbar, at the bottom ;). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
And here I was assuming those only linked to the main pages. *slaps forehead* — \sim Lenoxus " * " 00:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem editing Stefan LeFors[edit]

I am trying to edit Stefan LeFors' profile. and the Personal is too long, it stretches outside the box. maybe you can fix that. and also on the Teams list. I tried to put 2007 for Edmonton Eskimos. It put 2007 for Carolina, So i tried again, same thing. perhaps i'm not good at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LSUBaseballGod82 (talkcontribs)

  • You had a space as the first character of a line which causes the box to appear. I've fixed it. Also, not that comments like "He loves his family very much" are not encyclopedic and violate the WP:NPOV policy. - Mgm|(talk) 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Doubt on linking to other languages[edit]

Hope this is the right place to ask this. I just wxpanded an article on Gastroschisis and then translated it and put it in spanish. How can I link the Spanish page in "other languages" in the English page and vice versa? Thank sou! Tibushi 18:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Place a [[en:name of article in English]] at the bottom of the Spanish page, and [[es:name of article in Spanish]] at the bottom of the English page. See Wikipedia:Interlanguage links for more information. --ais523 18:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia[edit]

Dear Wikipedia,

It's just natural for me to write a complaint to some company or person who has done something terribly wrong. Wikpedia had unaccurate information on Demond Tutu and many other topics. So, thanks to you, Wikipedia, I got a C on my thirty-three page report for "Use of un-accurate text." Thanks a lot. I went from an 97.46% in History, to a 76.89%. I can't get bad grades, I'm in eleventh grade, not first. Grades matter. When I apply for Harvard, or one of my other colleges I want to attend, they can't see a C, they have to see my straight A's that you've ruined.


Sincerely, Person who has no future in careers because of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.122.40 (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2007

And that is why you don't just use Wikipedia as a source, but get information from other sources as well. Veinor (talk to me) 20:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I'm pretty sure this isn't real, see Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia for why Wikipedia shouldn't be relied on as an academic reference. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If this is genuine, he/she is blaming an openly editable website for a shortcoming that arose largely from their own laziness.... Oh boy. Adrian M. H. 20:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in fact, the irony is that the fault is entirely his/her own - any intelligent student would know not to rely on only a single source, particularly one off the internet. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 21:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If you cannot recognize that an encyclopedia is not a source itself, only a summarization of external sources to make it easier to find general information and to start looking for research, then I doubt you would get into Harvard anyway. Don't blame the community for laziness, especially when it is beaten over the head not to use Wikipedia as a source in itself. -Wooty Woot? contribs 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Volunteers[edit]

Are all of the Wikipedia contributors considered volunteers of the Wikimedia Foundation? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that they are considered to be unrelated to the Wikimedia Foundation; using Microsoft Windows doesn't mean you're a Microsoft volunteer. But don't quote me on that. Veinor (talk to me) 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Out of nothing but the utmost humility, I wouldn't make the comparison quite that extreme — we are certainly "helping" Wikipedia, whereas everyday Windows users don't write any of the software/instructions. It's more like being a gnome, or something. — \sim Lenoxus " * " 00:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There are a very few editors who are Wikimedia Foundation employees. User:Danny is one. Corvus cornix 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Need help copy-editing the next lesson for the Virtual classroom[edit]

The next lesson for the Virtual classroom goes live on Wednesday, and we need proofreaders/copy-editors to help get it ready. Time is running out. Please help...

Fighting link spam.

If you are good at grammar, and explaining things so they are easy to understand, then we really need your help. Thank you. The Transhumanist   20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was copy-editing it just now, but got an edit conflict. I had made too many changes to redo them, but I'd be happy to contribute to your work in the future. Adrian M. H. 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I see a Dangling modifier in User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Yuser, on fighting link spam#Spambots. I will fix it now. --Teratornis 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Creating an article[edit]

I just created an account and I am wondering, how do you create an article? Please help me out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alien joe (talkcontribs) 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

First, search for the name to make sure the article doesn't already exist under a different name. If there isn't one, Type the name you want in the search box and click "Go." Then click "create this page." However I strongly suggest you read up on some guidelines and help first like WP:N, Help:Starting a new page, WP:EDIT, and WP:CSD to make sure your article is appropriate for Wikipedia. Most new articles, especailly by new users are quickly deleted. That is why I suggest reading up on guidelines/policy and getting editing experience first, to know what is appropriate and how to write it (because a poorly written article is more likely to be deleted than a well written one). Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Your first article and Help:Starting a new page. For more information on contributing to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Tutorial. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It's also good to read: Wikipedia:Why was my article deleted? before creating an article, rather than being shocked when it happens, and then wondering why. For some reason, it's almost a cliché that many new editors create new articles very early in their learning experience (hey, that's what I did too), and that approach has a rather low probability of success, given the complexity of Wikipedia's editing rules and the diligence of Wikipedia's legion of deletionists. Before starting a new article, it's good to try editing some existing articles. Also carefully check the List of wikis and search WikiIndex to see if another wiki is more suitable for the article you have in mind. Wikipedia has stricter editorial policies than many other wikis and is often not the most appropriate or welcoming wiki for a brand-new editor's first attempt to create an article. But when in doubt, just try it, and see what happens. --Teratornis 22:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Underline code in title?[edit]

Please see this re [[Xá:ytem]] / Xá:ytem.Skookum1 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Try
{{wrongtitle|title=Correct title}}
and see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions). Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thx!! I'll try it. Just in case you're wondering, such titles as the one I'm creating are becoming a standard part of Canadian English because of the role of First Nations organizations and agencies as well as bands/tribal councils with "diacriticalized" names; see where Skwxwu7mesh and St'at'imc redirect to, for instance. [[Xá:ytem]] is an archaeological site 50 miles east of Vancouver BC dating to 5000BP and 9000BP; the word is the name of "the rock" in the local language (Upriver Halkomelem/Halqemeylem]) the rock, which is the centrepiece of the dig and which triggered it off, originally had an English style name based on the agricultural-suburban locality it was located at but which, though native, was wildly wrong (it - [[Hatzic, British Columbia|Hatzic]] - unfortunately means male genitalia in Halkomelem, a reference to a paritcular root which grew there...); long story but also longer overdue given other articles already in Wikipedia that [[Xá:ytem]] get an article; but I didn't want to start one without using the official spelling as preferred even in English publications by the organization in charge of the place. Thx again.Skookum1 07:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Topic: "Socialism"[edit]

I have added to external links: www.socialistworker.org The International Socialist Organization (I assure you, they exist). I added my signature to assure it is not a prank yet it keeps being erased. Sincerely, Camilo Rubinos 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To which article? - Adrian M. H. 21:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You're not supposed to sign your edits to articles; see WP:OWN. Veinor (talk to me) 21:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • They might exist, but the link could still be unsuited to the article you added it to, or be considered WP:SPAM. You should discuss its addition on the article talk page. - Mgm|(talk) 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The URL you gave seems to belong to a newspaper, rather than being the official site of The International Socialist Organization. The link was added under the heading of "organisations". Again, the best thing is to talk about this on the talk page of the article; these sort of decisions should be made by consensus, since clearly the article cannot link to every web page with a socialist connection. It would be as well to familiarise yourself with the guidelines in Wikipedia:External links so you can argue from a position of knowledge. Notinasnaid 22:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Trial Transcripts[edit]

Depending on copyright issues and a couple other factors, I'm considering converting the Julie Amero Trial Transcript from the current format (41 PDFs each containing a handful of image scans of individual pages) to a more convenient format (straight text?). If I do so, I'm considering publishing the results on a WikiMedia Foundation project. It's not clear to me where it belongs. Wikipedia? WikiCommons? No WMF project? love, raiph 21:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Assuming you can iron out copyright issues, I'd say the most suitable place is Wikisource. - Mgm|(talk) 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reply and its speed. I'll go to WikiSource. love, raiph 22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

adding my company web page as an external link[edit]

Hi there...

Am I allowed to add a company as an external link? E.g., I want to put an URL under the "external links" section for "Uninterruptible Power Supply". You already have links there for some vendors, so I am wondering how they got there, and how I can put our company URL there. Can you please advize. Thanks and have a great day!

Stephen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Strimac (talkcontribs) 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Certainly not one with which you have any association. WP:COI. If your company is notable in this field - at least comparable to existing links - someone else may well choose to add it of their own volition at some point. I would rather not see any commercial links whatsoever... See External Links for info - Adrian M. H. 22:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I took out most of the external links as they were just links to companies tha sold power supplies. External links should only be added if they contribute to the encyclopedic nature of the article. The ones I left were a site that just gave facts and a manufacturer's page that gave some general information. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

adding my company web URL to a page[edit]

I would like to add a company webpage (as URL) to the "external links" section in you "Uninterruptible Power Supply" page. How do I do this? I noticed that you already have some external links there, so I was hoping to do the same. Please advize.Strimac 22:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why have you asked this twice?? - Adrian M. H. 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the entire list of manufacturers of UPS systems, per WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a directory. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

New Hampshire[edit]

when was new hampshire founded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.194.153 (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2007

This is better answered at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities - the Help Desk is for Wikipedia related questions. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It should be in the article, too. Look it up here: New Hampshire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evilclown93 (talkcontribs) 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
See Province of New Hampshire.   The Transhumanist   04:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Logging in[edit]

I thought I once had an account here (Choicefresh), but it says there is no such user. Are there any usernames registered to liam[dot]kirsh[at]gmail[dot]com or liamkirsh[at]yahoo[dot]com?

24.6.221.189 23:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That account exists, but you have no contributions on it. Am I right? Anyways, feel free to get a new account, since that one didn't edit at all, but if you rediscover Choicefresh, don't use the account and redirect the pages to your working one. The Evil Clown Please review me! 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)