Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 February 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Help desk
< February 2 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 4 >
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.

February 3[edit]

Why are commas and periods usually placed outside of quotation marks, where they should be placed inside?[edit]

For example: Today, the inhabitants of the village had to hear her so-called "apology". Instead of: Today, the inhabitants of the village had to hear her so-called "apology."

The latter is grammatically correct per Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary, as well as a number of other well-know publications. -- (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Because on Wikipedia, we don't follow Webster's style guide, we follow our own Manual of Style, which requires that punctuation go outside the quotation marks unless it is part of the quotation. Algebraist 00:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Can the Manual be changed? -- (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course it could, that's the great thing about a wiki. But things usually have a reason for being that way. You could try suggesting it on the talkpage of the manual and see what others think about it.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see here, where it is explained why this method is used. The method you mentioned is also used in some cases, as shown there. I don't think any suggestion to change the manual to incorporate only your method would be accepted because of the reasons mentioned there. You can try, of course. Chamal talk 00:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you would get any support to change MOS from British English speaking/writing editors. – ukexpat (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you make your own page?[edit]

I want to know how to make your own page on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.
If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You cannot make an article about yourself unless you are famous; for example, a movie star, a politician, a bishop, etc. You can, however, sign up for a free Wikipedia account, and make a user page, on which you can write all kinds of stuff about yourself. Creating an account has many other benefits as well. -- (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually you aren't allowed to write an article about yourself regardless of whether or not you are famous as that would be a conflict of interest. Although anybody else could.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 00:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. How would anybody know though? -- (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well usually it's blatantly obvious. They may say so themselves, make it sound like advertisement (WP:NPOV), only edit that article (WP:SPA), have a username that is the same as the article (WP:UAA), make an article about something nobody has heard about (WP:NOTABLE), etc. Although you're right, it would be hard to tell but if it really is that significant then it probably already has an article written about it.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 01:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually there is no rule that says you cannot write an article about yourself assuming you meet the notability criteria. The appropriate guideline -- WP:AUTO -- says it is "strongly discouraged". – ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
"Strongly discouraged" meaning "There is no way you will ever do it in such a way that is acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, so don't even try". Seriously, if you are notable enough, someone who doesn't know you personally will eventually create a Wikipedia article about you. If there's not enough information in the world outside of Wikipedia for people who don't know you personally to write a quality article about you, then you aren't notable enough. 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Why was "Recentchanges" changed to "RecentChanges"? "Allpages" to "AllPages"? "Whatlinkshere" to "WhatLinksHere"? JCI (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason that moved to Well, for similar reasons. All the old page names still work, but the CamelCase makes it easier for people to parse the individual words correctly. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Map of 2018 FIFA World Cup bids.svg[edit]

I accidentally uploaded File:Map of 2018 FIFA World Cup bids.svg both here and on the Commons back in June and it's been a candidate for speedy deletion since. I need a sysop to delete the image from English Wiki so we can use the up to date one on the Commons. Thanks!--Patrick «» 02:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the template {{NowCommons}} to the image page, this places the image in the deletion categories and acts as a speedy deletion template. Nanonic (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, this is one part of Wikipedia I have little experience in.--Patrick «» 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted it. Theresa Knott | token threats 04:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


who is the publisher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Of Wikipedia? The Wikimedia Foundation. – ukexpat (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If you're looking to cite Wikipedia in a paper or other academic report, you might find Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia helpful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


I use the friendly and twinkle scripts on Wikipedia. Do either of them come with rollback rights, because I see the option to rollback on diff pages. Its supposed to be a granted userright, right? I don't believe I have been granted this yet by an admin, yet how can I be able to rollback? Cheers, Mazeau (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ROLLBACK and Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback for more information. 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Tools like twinkle do some magic and give you the rollback button even if you don't have the rollback right (which you don't have at the moment).--Commander Keane (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the "Geological Information System(GIS)"?[edit]

Hitesh2001 (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's called the Geographic information system, and if you click those blue words, it will bring you to our article on GIS. 03:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually it seems some people use the term "geological information system". I would guess it's like a geographic information system which includes geologic depth. If the questioner would tell us where he/she first heard the term, we might determine whether he/she really means "geological information system" or "geographic information system." Unfortunately, most supplicants on the Help desk have not read How to Ask Questions the Smart Way and so they omit critical details from their questions, such as the history of how they arrived at having their questions, and what goals they are trying to advance by asking their questions. Thus we cannot be sure whether a questioner really means what they wrote in some cases. --Teratornis (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Song infobox[edit]

I just noticed a user has removed a song infobox concerning Please Read the Letter, claiming the single by another duo is more important than the original song. I was under the impression it was perfectly within guidelines to have the song infobox for the original. Comments please HelenWatt (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would probably bring it up on the talk page. Since I don't know the subject matter, I can't comment on what should or should not be there. I would think, that if nothing else - the original song info should be included in the body of the subject, if it's not in the info box. (sourced and verifiable of course). — Ched (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well is there some guidelines on multiple infobox usage? HelenWatt (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
A compromise would be to include both infoboxes. Several songs do just that. However, the most important place to have this discussion is on the article talk page. If the two of you cannot reach a reasonable agreement on how to proceed, you can bring in extra help via dispute resolution, for example seeking a Third Opinion or a request for comment. 05:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually I'm not involved, but I'm interested in seeing something in writing on infobox usage. There doesn't appear to be anything which discusses this on the template Talk pages. HelenWatt (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) there was some discussion on this page here not long ago about the song and single templates - maybe some of it is relevant to your concerns. and/or you could raise the question on the Music Project talk page. Sssoul (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


my teacher told me that Wikipedia articles are just a collaboration of news articles put together in a way to create article about a single subject, Is this true? I have been told that 98% of references are from the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure exactly which percentage of references are news articles, but your teacher is basically right. We only compile information that is already available. - Mgm|(talk) 11:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'd say that (with the exception of extremely current topics), considerably less than half our material is from newspapers and television/radio/web reportage. Most of the content tends to be from books, magazines, academic journals, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

References from the news is probably not the best to use, Reporters write that stuff, storys get exaggerated ALOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolkittie (talkcontribs) 12:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That is why we have to adhere to neutral point of view and use reliable sources. Wikipedia articles are not a collection of news reports, article writing requires much more than that. Also, news reports are not the only sources used. Chamal talk 12:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedias interpretation of reliable sources seems to be popular websites and well known newpapers. If i were to write an article using a book nobody on here has heard of, would anyone really check if the book even exists? Britannica for instance has 4000 highly specialized people who check and make sure the best sources (not just reliable ones) are used. Apparently there are only around 1000 admins (about 700) active that are made up of people of little or no understanding of how to write an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources are not just websites, but all kinds of sources. Maybe this page will help you to understand more. A book that nobody has heard of would hardly pass as a reliable source. There are ways to check if the book exists (for example, ISBN numbers or even a simple google search). In our better articles (FAs, GAs etc) the factual accuracy is generally checked strictly. In stubs etc, this may be somewhat lax, because of the large number of articles there are. There are actually 1,393 admins, but their job is not to check for factual accuracy. This can be done by any user (numbering 22,539,560) or reader, and an admin's role is different. There are a lot of people who do cleanup work, copyediting and stuff. I myself is not an admin here, but Mgm who answered your earlier question is. So as you can see, all of us work to keep this place as an encyclopedia. All our articles are not perfect of course, and they have to be developed gradually. BTW, the facts given in articles can be checked by the readers themselves. You can see some small numbers next to the text that will direct you to the source that information comes from. If there isn't anything like that for some controversial claim, you can request it by adding {{citation needed}} there. It's hard to explain everything here, I suggest you read our core policies, which will show you how things work around here. There are also some links at the bottom of that page, which will take you to more detailed policy and guideline details. Cheers. Chamal talk 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Someone added a book reference yesterday with an improbable title to an article on my watchlist. It was an actual book with quite relevant information. I personally have amassed a fairly extensive library related to my work here, and have found many more references in the local libraries. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Strictly speaking, the teacher's original claim has an incorrect connotation. To say Wikipedia is "just a collaboration of news articles (actually: reliable sources) put together in a way to create article (sic)" is like saying Pelé was "just" a footballer, Mozart was "just" a composer, Science is "just" a collection of ideas, etc. The qualifier "just" might mislead the hearer into thinking Pelé was not much different than the average kid kicking a football around in the street, that Mozart was like any other tunesmith, and science is like any other collection of ideas. All of these connotations would be very wrong, because all four of these examples are considerably more than "just" the particular one of their attributes that the teacher's cognitive capacity can grasp. There are thousands (maybe millions) of Web sites that aggregate, summarize, or reorganize previously published content in various ways. The vast majority of them are far less successful than Wikipedia (which is the world's fifth most valuable Web property now). This suggests there is quite a bit more to Wikipedia than the ignorant teacher has thus far figured out. Also, it is not entirely true that Wikipedia has no original work - we have our images and other media files which in many cases are original works that Wikipedia users donate to the project. --Teratornis (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ask your teacher to describe how one of your textbooks is created. How is this better or worse than how Wikipedia is created? Ask you teacher if Wikipedia's approach is better or worse than other encyclopedias, and why. Note that it is much easer to check the sources of a Wikipedia article than it is to check the sources of a textbook or of traditional a encyclopedia. -Arch dude (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia is an enormous help to which I desperately wish to contribute to , but cannot because of the paypal blog: it would be appreciated if a proper researched article on 'Sociophysics' is displayed asap. ---ijaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autistic49 (talkcontribs) 13:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Explain "because of the paypal blog", please. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I too cannot understand the question. However, that rarely stops me from attempting to answer - life's more fun on the ragged edge of coherence. Just picking up on some of the keywords, and ignoring the sentence structure, in a Google-like way:
--Teratornis (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
One can also donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation indirectly by using GoodSearch. --Kletta (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimmys talk page[edit]

Can someone take a look at Jimmys chat page - I suspect someone has messed with his archive box !

Cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for letting us know. Woody (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing a Page[edit]

Resolved: ukexpat (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Wiki

I have just edited a page , but the information added will not align itself with the rest of the text after I have pressed the "Save Page " .

It continues t0 be highlighted in the edited form .

Am I missing something .

I would be glad for your help .

LweeraRuxing (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the page for you. GlassCobra 16:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Great ......many thanks .Ruxing (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Viewing .svg files with IE 7.0[edit]

I am absolutely sure I am not the first one who stumbled into this. I have searched entire Wikipedia, I have read the article on scalable vector graphics, I searched the F.A.Q. and help desk, and only thing I could find is a recommendation to download and install the discontinued Adobe plug-in for IE 7.0. I did this, to be sure, and found out that it does not support scrolling, so I could only see the upper left corner of the image, or the whole image greatly zoomed out, when nothing can be really seen. I am not a technician, and I really do not care a bit about graphic formats and their pros and cons. What I care about is that the most massively used web-browser does not support this obscure format used in the most massively visited on-line Encyclopedia, and I simply cannot see most of the images I am interested in. Naturally, switching to other browser just for Wikipedia's sake is simply not an option for me. Could you please tell me what plug-in should I use to cope with this? I would be grateful for a web link. And please no jokes about "pluggin' in one's own brains", I have heard that one already :-) (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not an obscure format by any means, but I still would be interested in the replies, though I never use IE7. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean any insults. I just supposed that if it is not supported in IE, than it should be for a reason. Namely this format ought to be so scarcely used that supporting it is not feasible. (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Adobe has an SVG plugin:  – ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Microsoft Internet Explorer has lagged behind Mozilla Firefox in several aspects of development, for example Tabbed browsing was available in Firefox before MSIE, and security features such as NoScript may still be ahead of MSIE. As the Scalable Vector Graphics article says, SVG is an open standard, which diametrically opposes Microsoft's explicit goal of maintaining proprietary advantage. Thus it is hardly surprising, though no less dismaying, that "All major modern web browsers except Microsoft Internet Explorer support and render SVG markup directly." If you (Mr./Ms. want to fully enjoy the free content on Wikipedia, then you should reconsider your refusal to switch to a non-crippled Web browser. You are correct when you suppose that if MSIE does not support SVG, it is for a reason. The reason is, quite simply, that Microsoft (correctly) views the entire open source movement as a direct threat to its vast revenue, which it built through a comprehensive strategy of vendor lock-in. Microsoft wants information to be not free - Microsoft wants to own all the information it can, and charge you to use it. Notice that you asked your question on Wikipedia's Help desk, instead of trying to ask Microsoft to tell you how to fix their broken browser. Microsoft would charge you $90/hour to listen to you telling Microsoft about their bugs. --Teratornis (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I could not agree with you more. I switched to Firefox several years ago and do not regret it at all. It has its issues, but with hundreds of add-ins available it is a very customisable tool. However, let's not forget that some organisations and companies do not permit installation of unapproved software on their PCs. If that is the situation facing the original poster, all I can do is suggest that they lobby their corporate IT organisation as strongly as possible. – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Another option would be to install Inkscape or some other SVG editor, and then the questioner could download SVG files and view them offline. That's a bit clunky, but it might be worth the nuisance if the questioner wants to take a detailed look at these files. I'm aware that many organizations do not permit various software packages on their computers. I wonder what those organizations think of their employees browsing to Wikipedia on company time? Wikipedia has an awful lot of content that probably doesn't contribute to a typical employee's productivity, not to mention a fair amount that is not safe for work. Depending on the job, there might only be a few Wikipedia articles that directly apply, but on the other hand some of them might be extremely valuable to someone in a work context. In any case, the questioner did not say whether he/she is browsing to Wikipedia from work. --Teratornis (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, jumping in here, but are we absolutely sure IE7 doesn't support SVG? I've just tried this wikibooks page in IE7 and it appears to work just fine (i.e. it looks the same as it does in Firefox). I've hovered over the images, and checked that I'm actually looking at SVGs... Are there some maybe aspects of the SVG spec that don't render in IE7? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
To quote from Scalable Vector Graphics, "As of October 2008[update], Windows Internet Explorer is the only major browser not to provide native SVG support. IE requires a plugin to render SVG content." Presumably, you have some kind of plugin installed. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess I must do. I had a quick scan of the add-ins, and the only interesting ones were Adobe PDF stuff and Java, but I'm by no means an IE person (and my IE will have been installed by my employer's IT department, so is quite possibly non-standard). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think MediaWiki renders SVGs as PNGs for thumbnails, like in that wikibooks page. However if you go to the SVGs image description page and click on the image, IE7, for me, opens a file download window, whereas Firefox displays the image.--Commander Keane (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Aha! (Feeling slightly daft now...) You're quite right - when I checked an image's properties, it was indeed a PNG. Thanks for that! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) This reminds me of a sign I saw hanging in a computer room (back in the days when you had to go to a special room to find a computer):

  • If it is there, and you can see it, it is real.
  • If it is not there, and you can see it, it is virtual.
  • If it is there, and you cannot see it, it is transparent.
  • If it is not there, and you cannot see it, it is deleted.

--Teratornis (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to everyone for such detailed replies. It seems to me that really the only option to view these .svg files normally is to switch to some other browser. What concerns me most is that if IE, which is developed with Microsoft's huge investments and manpower, is still bugged and incomplete, then just HOW bugged and incomplete are the rivals? Again, no insults intended and I am in no way a Microsoft fan, but I think my concerns are obvious. Or is this just a result of a distorted view due to powerful and aggressive advertisement? (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who confused more than I enlightened, take what I say wth a pinch of salt...! Powerful advertising is (IMHO) a factor; Internet Explorer was, for a period (after the Browser wars), superior to its main rival (Netscape Navigator). Development then largely halted, and several browsers (notably Firefox, but also Opera and others) stole a march on IE. Latterly IE has been actively developed again, and has picked up some features which other browsers have had as standard for some time (e.g. tabbed browsing). The IE team have also been more involved in standards bodies - hence my surprise that IE7 didn't support SVG - a standard that's been around for a long time.
The open source development model, too, plays a part (again, IMHO) - this radically reduces development costs and potentially increases the number of developers. Or, put another way, Microsoft have to pay IE's developers, and those developers might be taken off IE development as required (as the Windows Vista launch date approached, for example). In contrast, Firefox development is open to anyone who's interested - unpaid, largely, but Firefox developers will be developing it in their spare time so pay isn't the same concern.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Getting back on topic, what are you trying to achieve? If you just want to see an SVG file in a large size you can get Wikipedia to render you a big PNG version. I have done an example at User:Commander Keane/Sandpit.--Commander Keane (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem;CC on CBS prime time programs[edit]

Why has there been only part CC on prime shows and are not only there but don't match the person doing the talking? I'm a hearing impaired 60 yr old which depends on CC because audio is not clear to my aid . Could you try to fix the problem for me on shows like CSI and other CBS prime shows. Thanks if problem is fixed. Chuck Schmutzer, Apache Junction AZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 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. Algebraist 17:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Even though this is not exactly the right place, I did a quick check and found the "feedback" page at the CBS web site. Click here for their feedback page. -Arch dude (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I post my article?[edit]

I currently have an article written in my user pages, but I would like it to be officially available in Wikipedia. How do I go about moving it? Rural Telephone (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In its current form the article would be speedily deleted as spam if moved to the mainspace. Please read WP:Spam and WP:Corp for guidance. Also, your user name is in breach of the user name policy as it appears to be promotional. – ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

RSS Feed[edit]

what is an RSS feed —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See our article on RSS Feed. You can also ask at the reference desk, where they answer specific knowledge questions. TNX-Man 18:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please check my posting to see how well it follows wiki guidelines[edit]

Resolved: stubified and moved to The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


I am excited about posting my first page onto wikipedia. I was hoping someone could check my page to see how well it fits into wikipedia's guidelines and to offer any suggestions to help me make it wiki ready. I really appreciate your help and am excited about contributing to such a great wealth of knowledge <--Talentsmart2 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it still reads like a promotional piece, the reason that it was speedily deleted yesterday. If all the promo stuff is cut out, it would not even be a stub. Please take a look at articles on other books to see how they are written. – ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Is the problem the first paragraph, the quote, or the table of contents? I tried to model it after the 5 dysfunctions of a team by Patrick Lencioni and cite all the areas that could be seen as promotional. Could you please advise me about the best course of action to take. I really appreciate your help.-- (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
See my reply on User talk:Talentsmart2. – ukexpat (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It has now been stubified and moved to The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book. Marking as resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Would it be uncivil of me to note that it appears Emotional Intelligence does not seem to help much with decoding Wikipedia's stupefyingly complex policies and guidelines? In a way, it's kind of sad to see someone's good-faith effort getting marked up with all those scolding template messages, but I guess that's just Wikipedia rolling forward with its customary grim efficiency. --Teratornis (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
And the OP has now been blocked. I agree with Teratornis that WP policies and guidelines are stupefyingly complex - if someone had set out to design them to put off or even to entrap new editors, they could hardly have done better. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
As a philosophical aside (I'm not really qualified to use the word "philosophical" but who is?), lately I've been pondering the question the question of whether Wikipedia could be simpler than it is. (Merely wishing it were simpler, as WP:CREEP seems to do, is kind of pointless if Wikipedia cannot be (much) simpler.) If what Wikipedia wants to do is unavoidably complex, maybe Wikipedia's complexity reflects the underlying complexity of the problem. As Fred Brooks explained decades ago in his No Silver Bullet paper, you can only simplify the "accidental" complexity of a system. The "essential" complexity has to remain, or you break the system. While we (probably) cannot make Wikipedia much simpler, we might do a better job of proactively informing new users of our rules before they spend hours on editing projects that were doomed from the start. Currently we make zero attempt to check whether new users understand anything at all about Wikipedia before just letting them do whatever. It's like having a ski resort where the proprietors make no attempt to steer skiers toward the runs that fit their skills. Just let the novices "be bold" with the black diamond run, why bother trying to warn them? Maybe it's just me, but I think failing to warn people of impending danger, and failing to get some indication that they understand the warning, is contrary to being civil, in a passive aggressive kind of way. --Teratornis (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I Put An Image In?[edit]

I tried adding an image to an article, by adding a Photobucket link, but it didn't work. Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to upload it to Wikipedia first. Wikipedia:IMAGE#Uploading_images This might help. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
But to do that you will need to create an account and be autoconfirmed (10 edits and account at least 4 days old). Also, please read the free use policy. The rules as to which images can be uploaded and used in articles are very strict. If it is an image that you have taken yourself, please consider uploading it to Commons so it is available to all the Wikimedia projects. – ukexpat (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Note that uploading images is one of the harder things for a new user to figure out on Wikipedia, what with all the crazy licensing stuff - don't blame us, blame those lawyers who invented the strange fiction of intellectual property sometime after the invention of movable type. I'm looking at Photobucket (wow, it makes Flickr look technologically advanced) and the terms of use are rather chilling. Some excepts:
  • Except as provided within this Agreement, you may not copy, modify, translate, publish, broadcast, transmit, distribute, perform, display, or sell any Content appearing on or through the Photobucket Services.
  • The Photobucket Services are for the personal use of Users and may be used for promotional purposes as well, but direct commercial endeavors may only be used if they are specifically endorsed or authorized by Photobucket.
Since we prefer our images to have the Four Freedoms, Photobucket is not looking good for us. If you would consider uploading your photos to Flickr instead of Photobucket, and license them under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, the users at Wikimedia Commons have worked out a relatively simple procedure for uploading them to Commons so Wikipedia articles can use them. See for example the Flickr photos (by other people) I have uploaded. Only a fraction of photos on Flickr are under the two licenses we can use, but that's still a lot of freely usable photos. --Teratornis (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A comment on the Fraternity of Free Masonry[edit]

How do I post a comment of a personal experience in my membership in the Fraternity of Free Masonry? I think my comment would be of great help to the membership: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you cannot - that would be original research and not capable of verification by reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The above reply is about as good as correct if you are a relatively new user on Wikipedia. With enough knowledge of Wikipedia, you might be able to get around the original research problem. Your basic options include:
  • Find another user-editable Web site that lets you post about your personal experience. (Perhaps MySpace, or one of the Alternative outlets.) This is by far the easiest option for someone new to Wikipedia.
  • If you are really determined to try to put your personal experience on Wikipedia, in some guise, then first you must find a reliable, published source that either recounts the personal experience of yourself, or of someone else whose personal experience is very similar to yours. Then you can cite that source for whatever claims of an encyclopedic nature you want to make on Wikipedia about this subject.
Note that very few people who are new to Wikipedia would be able to perform the second option anything like quickly. Just for starters you need to click on all the blue words we linked and read the friendly manuals behind them. Also, it's one thing to post on Wikipedia; it's quite another to make your contributions stick. Wikipedia encourages everyone to be bold and try stuff, but in many cases being bold before you have read all the manuals just leads to other users removing your contributions or mercilessly editing them beyond all recognition. If you're approaching Wikipedia with a certain specific goal in mind that you formulated without much knowledge of Wikipedia, you might find Wikipedia frustrating. A more reliably gratifying approach is to read lots of manuals, spend lots of time looking at things, and then start formulating goals consistent with the nature of Wikipedia as you begin to grasp how things work here. --Teratornis (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Saving visited pages[edit]

Is there a way to save and sort through visited pages for further reference, sort of like a WIKINOTES? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcap4 (talkcontribs) 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not through Wikipedia itself. You can check your browser's history for pages you've visited recently, or you can bookmark the pages you want to come back to. Hermione1980 23:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Bookmarking is the preferred way for most people. I use it, but I put the ones that I really want/need to read on my userpage so I won't forget (like the table here). flaminglawyer 23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Or add them to you watchlist. Even if there have been no recent edits, all of your watchlisted pages are viewable if you click the "view and edit watchlist" link at the top of your watchlist. – ukexpat (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Your user page (and any number of user subpages you may want to create) can function as your wikinotes. See for example my blatherings here: User:Teratornis/Energy. Whenever you see something you would like to work into an article, but you're not ready to do it yet, or it's not complete and you need to collect more information before taking it to article space, you can add it to your notes. This can also be useful for other users who want to examine your work. However, note that your user page is visible to the whole world, and you have to adhere to Wikipedia's rules for content (see Wikipedia:User page). --Teratornis (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
There is Wikimarks which does what you requested. DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)