Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

February 9

Highly inappropriate language

Hi, I suggest you look up Bolter in Wikipedia. Dandg-os (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Someone vandalized the article. I have reverted it back to the last good version. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How can I reclaim my account?

I have a wikipedia userid. I would like to know how to reclaim my account after not logging in for a long time, have forgotten my password, and have since changed ISPs so I now have a new email address and do not have access to the email that is associated with my wikipedia userid? I suppose i could establish another new account and attempt to usurp my own old userid but that method seems so pedestrian. Is there a clean way to regain access to my account/userid? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.100.114 (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Without access to the old e-mail account you are scuppered. Your only option is a new account and then try usurpation. – ukexpat (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid not; if you don't have your password, don't have your old email, and didn't have a WP:Committed identity, then there's no way we can verify that you used to have that old account. Assuming your account had a decent number of edits, I can't imagine they would let you usurp it, though I could be wrong about that part.

Best to just create a new name, and add notes on both talk pages "claiming" the old account. If no one ever disputes the claim, there will be a link, just not a technical one. And if the old account posts to dispute the link, then... you've got some 'splainin to do!

One other idea. Do you have any accounts with the same name on other Wikimedia projects that you still do control? Or, does your account's user page link to an account offsite somewhere that you do control? (I only ask because then usurpation might be more likely; you still can't use that to get your account back) --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a try.

Resolved

Unified login

The unified login for my username has been successful on 60 or so non-English Wikipedias. I am now thinking of visiting them all and adding a message saying I don't understand their language and redirect people to my en.Wikipedia userpage. However, for six languages the same username seems to have been registered separately. Of the six, three (de, sr, zh) seem to have made no edits at all, and the other three (hr, no, vi) have made just a couple edits each over 3 years ago. Is there a way to WP:USURP the username on these other Wikipedias if I don't know the relevant languages? Astronaut (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why you want to register on those other wikipedias? If you don't speak those languages, wouldn't you be swatting on the name. and have no edits like the users you're attempting to usurp the username from? Tiggerjay (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

With the unified login, I only have to visit a non-English wikipedia to suddenly be registered there. A few of them now have messages from other editors and I thought it would be a good idea to redirect all such comments to my talk page here on en.Wikipedia. It's only really for the sake of completeing the migration to unified login that I thought it might be a good idea to try to usurp the six others. See m:SUL for some more reasons why this might be a good idea. Astronaut (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If your username is already taken somewhere then you will not be registered if you visit there. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. That is the problem with the six that I cannot migrate to my unified login. I also know it is possible with some of them (de.Wikipedia for example) to request usurpation. Unfortunately, my German and Norwegian are very poor and I don't understand the other languages at all. I was rather hoping there was a centralised way to request usurpation (in English). Astronaut (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are never going to log into those wikipedias, why usurp the accounts? Differently worded, why get a logon to a site you'll never use? Nobody from de.wikipedia will blame you on en.wikipedia for something you've done, and those users won't be able to create a unified login that will bump you. I don't see the point unless you're one of the people who NEED to complete things you start, and then simply translate your problem with a translation tool. The admins will probably laugh at the poorly-generated grammar and word choice, but they'll understand (and probably ask you the same questions I have). --Nutarama (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, there's a diskussion in my name on a wiki I've no idea about which it might be (xcept it seems to be african), and going there I AM logged into said wiki (any idea which language ig: is?). Now I'm a bit confused - thought that would not be possible once I got a unified account. Any comments on that one, please? --G-41614 (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Finding the source of information in a wiki article

Dear Wiki,

I found some data that interests me in one of your articles. How can I find the source of this data? I already looked for it in the References of the article, but all of them are dated years before the time mentioned in the article for the data of interest.

Best regards, Wiki reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.188.186 (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

All information should have a little number nearby, which looks like this:. This number may be directly beside the sentence or may be several sentences later, so continue reading until you see one. If you click on this number, it should take you to the source of the information. If the information is not in the source, you may remove the sentence, mark the sentence with {{CN}} (this produces ), or bring the matter up on the article's talk page. If you are unable to edit the article, type {{editsemiprotected}} on the article's talk page and someone will come by to edit the page for you. Liquidluck✽talk 07:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

But in practice very many articles do not have these little numbers. If the lack of them or the fuzziness of (or nonexistence of or other problem with) "sourcing" of an article concerns you, you may wish to (a) improve the article via your own research or (b) raise questions about it on its "talk page" (which you'll reach by clicking a link saying "Discuss this page"). -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You can also check the page history to find when it was added. Maybe a source was indicated at the time in the edit or the edit summary or other contributions by the same editor at the same time. You can also ask the editor on their talk page but some editors are no longer active. If you say which data in which article then we can also try to find out. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know why you and other companies seem to not want to print the truth about something to let the public know even if you have been told otherwise.

I would like to know just why you are not allowed to publish genuine information even if it might be against information that has been published on your site? Isnt it right that the truth should be known and not hushed up as it is being done so in this country by the corrupt British government? It is totally unfair if people like this can guard the truth being told to the public even though it might discriminate against the information you are given as the truth can be total deformatary against the British government for example and they could be prosecuted if people were to know the real truth.Thenewrobinhood (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:Battleground and WP:GREATWRONGS. LeadSongDog come howl 07:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also see the essay Wikipedia:Truth and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The latter says in its first paragraph The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And see also WP:NPOV for guidelines on neutral point of view. The very contents of your question above betray the fact that yours is not neutral. – ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As a basic synopsis of the problem, how do we know that what you are claiming is The Truth beyond your own claim? From the point of view of other people, how are we supposed to know the difference between The Truth and one person's own personal delusions? So, lets say that you are actually telling The Truth on this matter. Lets say someone else comes along, and tells us BLATANT LIES! about the same topic. How are we, as uninformed readers, supposed to judge which person to trust? If its just two different people making opposing claims, by what metric do other people decide who is right and who is wrong? The answer is that we need to place some sort of faith in reliable sources of information. If there is no such thing as a reliable source, if NO source of information can be trusted, then there is no point in maintaining an encyclopedia like this at all. So, we place our trust in sources generally regarded as reliable, and go from there. --Jayron32 16:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What you are posting at Television licence is not The Truth, but one person's opinion on the validity of the legal basis for TV licensing in Britain. Whether or not he has given you permission to reproduce it word for word is not relevant: he is the copyright holder and he would have to go through the process of donating his words to Wikipedia under a suitable licence before they could be used verbatim (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials), even if they were appropriate for that particular article. In fact, his words are an essay setting out his point of view, not the type of neutral content suitable for an encyclopaedia. If a campaign against the licence based on his arguments attracts significant media coverage, or if his views are published with a sufficiently high profile by reliable third-party sources, then one could make a case for mentioning this public debate in the article with suitable citations. Karenjc 18:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing was a copypaste, including the permission statement that was permitting someone else to publish it! User talkpage warned. DFTT.LeadSongDog come howl 19:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

music

Looking for a song that came out around 1965 to 1975.Was a man and little girl singing. The part the little girl always sung was the chorus, " Daddy don't be mad god and the rain will bring it back." It is a country song and I remember it from when I was a little girl around the age of 7 - 10. that's about the last time I heard it too.. I would appreciate it if you could help me find out who sang this song all those years ago... Janetrosser (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand sending a enquirer to an internal site when an external site (in this case, Google) will answer a question better and faster. The enquirer is asking after lyrics. Many sites are better suited to this than the editors of Wikipedia. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The denizens of both the Entertainment Reference Desk and the Humanities Reference Desk have a good record for finding lyrics. They use both internal and external sources. It is a the right place to take such a question. (I have often wondered why, given that this Help Desk deals with "how to use WP.en", and thus likely with new users, the regulars here don't just move questions like this one to the correct desk and leave the question title and a link here. That would be a lot of help, I would have thought.) Bielle (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, there ought to be a way to just add a tag here and have a bot make the section move and related edits. Anyone care to do a bot request up? LeadSongDog come howl 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that the new user (such as myself) would have loved to understand where to best ask the question. Maybe the heading here should say "How to Wikipedia" instead. ANSWER: "It'll Come Back" I think written by Glenn Martin and recorded by Red Sovine in 1974. Nice song and sentiment. I hope this is what you are looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SC1WikiContributor (talk • contribs) 00:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Updating of a page

Dear Helpdesk

The information on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singita_Game_Reserve is factually incorrect and I can't update the page as I work for the company that is being referenced.

I do not want to add any opinions or views, just add some more information and correct the facts. Please can someone point me in the right direction?

Thank you & I look forward to hearing from you. Catherine Biggs (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your best option would be to discuss this on the article's talk page (here) and explain the situation. Please make sure that you have some reliable, independent sources showing the correct information - it is this verification which will allow editors to know that the information is incorrect as it stands and what the correct information is. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear PhantomSteve,

Thank you for your response. Yesterday I did add that to the article's talk page and was sent a warning message as I work for the company. The username that I was logged in on was Singita Game Reserves. As you can see, I have now changed that username. Will I be able to edit the page now?

I went into the discussion page and the editor AlmostReadytoFly has made the following comment: An editor who works for the reserve (Catherine Biggs (talk)) has expressed concern that the article is incorrect. Her information on developments was removed as the text was copied from another site (see this talk page's history). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not copy the text from another site, the text is from my copy deck that I keep on my computer. I am really getting very confused and don't know what to do re updating the information. Please can you help me? Thank you Catherine Biggs (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I do apologise. I was trying to make it clear to other editors that you had a problem with the article as it stands. Because the text is the same as on this website, someone removed it because it looked like a Copyright violation. I guess that's because you also posted the same text from your copy deck to the other site. I'll edit my comment there to try and make it clearer.

As for re-updating the information, for now I'll put a link to the other site on the talk page. It might be usable as a source to rewrite the information. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you AlmostReadytoFly, that makes perfect sense - irony is, I updated that site too! We are affiliated with ATTA and I try and keep all our copy standardized. Ok, so if I understand you correctly, I must just leave everything as is now and hope that someone picks up the info and updates the article?Catherine Biggs (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think so, but if you have other info such as press clippings, you should post links to those as well. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Freeze Panes - Top Row in Tables

Could we implement an option where the top row in a table (the one with labels) would scroll along with the broswer window when viewing long tables? Microsoft Excel has a similar feature called "Freeze Panes." It's rather annoying to have to scroll back up to recognize what a column means and we have many pages of long tables where I think such an enhancement would greatly aid the user experience. For example Assembly of the International Space Station TheFutureAwaits (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this question would be better suited to Village pump (technical), however I doubt that it would get much support for two reasons;

• Wikipedia strives to be as compatible as possible, so we keep the 'mark-up' as simple as possible. This allows the pages to be read on all kinds of devices.
• Huge tables are best avoided, and wherever possible information is presented in prose form.

I do see what you mean on the article Assembly of the International Space Station - if there was a simple way to lock the headings, I agree that it would be useful, but I don't know how it would impact on compatibility. Smappy (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't resist. :P — Bility (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Heading	Heading

Cell	Cell
Cell	Cell
Cell	Cell
Cell	Cell
Cell	Cell
Cell	Cell
Cell	Cell
Cell	Cell
Cell	Cell
Cell	Cell
Cell	Cell

fas

I would like to start a new article under this title. I intend fas as a technical term specific to ancient Roman religion. How can I do it? There are already more than ten pages that use the word as an acronim. Thank you for the help.Aldrasto (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it the meaning mentioned in Fasti? The disambiguation page Fas could add a link to Fasti. I don't know whether it is notable enough for its own article. If it is then see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles. It could for example be called Fas (ancient Rome). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In search of a Director/Producer

www.jomococo.com

The trajectory of TITLEMANIA by Brother Jomo Coco is to titivate the development of one-world and titillate the one-world society.

A Director/Producer is urgently required for the production of the film TITLEMANIA. 92.11.51.235 (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly 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 a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand 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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Help archives

Resolved

The Help Desk Archives at [1] seem only to go up to December 2009. I am reliably informed that it is now February 2010, and I strongly suspect that there have been questions and responses here in the last month-and-a-bit. Anyone know where they have gone and how to fix the archive? DuncanHill (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The archives were made but the links to them are updated manually on that page. I have added January and February 2010. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Disability Compatibilty feature on product pages

Hi Wiki,

I would like to offer suggestion for Wiki to consider adding this "Disability Compatibilty" feature on any products (TV, HDMI, auto, etc) that would help users to see whether if that product is compatible with specific disabilty or not. This also would allow companies to include that info as well for their product.

For instance, if one wants to know if they can use closed caption with HDMI cable. On the List of Display Interfaces page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_display_interfaces, it would include a column that shows if it's compatible with CC decoder or how it is done. For the auto, it would include compatibilty for disability with wheelchairs and where to get this.

I would like to see this on product pages so how can I do this?

Thanks, B --Beastcave (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please note that Wikipedia is not a manual, so this information may not be appropriate. As with all information, you will need to provide references to independent, reliable sources. If there are sources for the information (such as reviews in magazines - not from the manufacturer themselves) - then a mention might be appropriate.

The List of display interfaces is just what it says - a fairly simple list, leading to detailed information in each article. I don't think that the CC information would be appropriate on that list. It might be appropriate to create a List of display interfaces that support closed captions, but I think that the most appropriate place for this info is in Closed captioning - there is already some information there, and perhaps you could add to it. I hope this helps, and this is merely my opinion - I hope that others will give further ideas. In addition, you could start a discussion in talk:Closed captioning, perhaps. Best wishes, Smappy (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Essjay44/Ian Cutler

I have written this article and would like to add it to Wikipedia, I have used your article wizard to start it and there are numerous mentions of Ian in other pages so I wanted to put his own page up (I am his wife). However I have written the article and cannot see how to upload it so it is viewed by everyone (also want to add a photograph), I have read through your notes but nowhere in my article does the word move appear to be able to upload it. Can you help please.

Essjay44 (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is currently in User:Essjay44/Ian Cutler - that is the title, and the location - it is within your own userspace. If it were simply called Ian Cutler, it would be a 'live' article.

You cannot move articles until you have made at least 10 edits, and your account is 4 days old - this is called auto-confirmed. Once your account is auto-confirmed, the 'move' option will appear, however...

Before you make it live, I suggest that you make sure that the article meets the requirements - I'm not sure that, currently, the references are independent and sufficient to establish notability - please read about reliable sources. Because of your stated conflict of interest, you should also read WP:BESTCOI.

If you aren't sure, please put {{helpme}}, followed by your request for further help, onto your own talk page - that is, on User talk:Essjay44. That way, you can ask someone else to check it for you, and see if they think it would be OK to move to the live area. Good luck, Smappy (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey all.

I recently submitted a possibly unfree file (PUF) for review. You can find it at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_January_25#File:Agar_Rodney_Adamson.jpg. I, however, missed some of the later comments (the unsigned one, and BQZip's), until the PUF was closed and it once more appeared on my watchlist. Since I am still forthright in my belief that to host the file is illegal, and that, given time, I am sure could convince others of this, what is my best course of action?

Normally, I would look at deletion review, but since "DR is not AfD take two", I am hesistant - arguably Fastily has done the right thing here in closing as keep and yet we still host an illegal image.

Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Open a new case. I agree with you that it was incorrectly closed. The entire problem of not having the rule of shorter term in the US is exactly that items that have fallen out of copyright in their source country can still be copyrighted in the US. US law is not superseded by the Berne convention. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reopened the listing at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_February_9#File:Agar_Rodney_Adamson.jpg. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Printing Pictures with Articles

My system (if that is the word) is somehow set to NOT showing or printing pictures when I browse Wikipedia. How do I set it to show pictures?Ellyzahm (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it just on Wikipedia? If it's on all webpages, you could try checking "Show pictures" in the Advanced tab of your Internet Options in Internet Explorer, or "Load images automatically" the Content tab of your Options in Firefox. If it's just when you're printing, you may need to check the "Print Background Color and Images" box in File → Page setup. — Bility (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you use Firefox? Can you see images in another browser? In Firefox it's easy to accidentally block images on a site by right clicking an image and then clicking the wrong option. With Firefox you may need (possibly some details depend on the version): Tools - Options - Content - Load images automatically - Click the "exceptions" button and delete http://upload.wikimedia.org from the list - Highlight - "Remove site" button. See also Wikipedia:Troubleshooting#Firefox doesn't display images for another possibility. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bility and PrimeHunter,

 It turns out that it was my setting on Firefox.  Thank you for your help!

can't save to sandbox

Hi--I'm new and writing my first article. I used the Wizard and picked sandbox, but when I go to save, it says it will be publicly available and to use sandbox instead... I tried it again to be sure I didn't make any mistakes - same result. So then I created a user page and my own sandbox, but the result when I try to save is the same. How can I resolve this?

Thanks for your help

Lkcarnes (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Does the page you are getting say "Your edit has triggered an automated filter because it looks like you're just testing out editing. If you were intending to make a test edit, try using our sandbox instead..."? or one of the other two abusefilter messages you find with this search?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

jobs

Can you work for wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.14.164 (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which runs Wikipedia and its sister projects, is a non-profit organization largely funded by donations and, as such, does not have an extensive paid staff. Currently WMF employs 33 people. As WMF expands, there are job openings from time to time; see Job openings for information. Xenon54 / talk / 22:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And see the m:Philip Greenspun illustration project. Most people who work for Wikipedia, of course, are unpaid volunteers. You did not specify exactly what you meant by "work". Another way you might get paid to work for Wikipedia is to set up your own wiki where you would publish all your content first, under the same free licenses as Wikipedia, and then later you could contribute it to Wikipedia. You would be free to put Google AdSense on your wiki or try any other legal method to generate revenue from it. --Teratornis (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Templates

Is there any way I can make the main words of of a template a different color than the background? Mr. Prez (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Just like this, or this (see in edit mode to view the two different codes used). See web colors for a list of colors.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, but all I need is to know what to type in to get this to work, for example, to change the background of a template, I type in "|basestyle = background: red", or yellow or whatever color I want to change it to. I just need something like that. Mr. Prez (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please post the name of the template you wish to edit, what text in it you'd like to change, and what color you'd like to change it to? It's much easier to provide the fix (if I can't someone else surely can) than to speak in the hypothetical. For example, in the two templates you last edited, you can change text to another color in both of them using either of the two methods I highlighted above, so I don't know what you mean or why that explanation isn't sufficient without knowing what you're trying to do.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, here it is.

{{LA Ink}} I'd like to change the letters to red so I can change the background to black and have the words be visible. Mr. Prez (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think what you are looking to do is something like the code below; take the code, go the template, replace the existing code and click "show preview" to see what it will look like. I'm not sure how to change the colors of "v d e" in the title bar to make them more legible given the color change. I'm also quite unsure you should do this, unless you're planning to use this as an example to take and use for some purpose on your userspace without the category. Templates like this are standardized for a reason.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it worked. Mr. Prez (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

{{Navbox
|name = LA Ink
|title = <font color="red">[[LA Ink]]</font>
|basestyle = background: black
|group1 = <font color="red">Starring</font>
|list1 = [[Kat Von D]] • [[Corey Miller (tattoo artist)|Corey Miller]] • [[Hannah Aitchison]] • [[Kim Saigh]] • Pixie Acia • Dan Smith • Aubry Fisher
}}

[[Category:Reality television series navigational boxes]]

Ouch! I am not sure that either is/would be very easy on the eye... – ukexpat (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

February 10

I Need Help So That The Templates Work

Template:Xt2 (edit | [[Talk:template:Xt2|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Template:!xt2 (edit | [[Talk:template:!xt2|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please help me fix these templates:

[2]

[3]!174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How to "Talk" between contributors.

How to "Talk" between contributors. I have been asked to go to Talk - I can find nothing in Help or on the screen to indicate how. Searches find nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SC1WikiContributor (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You can make comments at Talk:Michael A. Monsoor, just as you have here. The talkpage for any article is available from a link at the top of the article, between the "article" tab and the "edit" tab. Make a new section at the bottom of the page, make sure you're logged in, and sign your comment by typing "~~~~" at the end - that automatically puts your username and a timestamp. Also, if you want to communicate directly with another editor, you can go to User talk:<username>, eg. User talk:SC1WikiContributor and make comments.--BelovedFreak 00:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See more at Help:Talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The tab is not "Talk" (one of my personal WP pet peeves); it is "Discussion". And for a newcomer, this is a sticking point. Bielle (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an instance of what I call synonym disease, which plagues many computer systems and does indeed raise the learning barrier for new users, who have to waste time trying to determine whether two synonyms refer to the same feature, or to different features. Ultimately the solution will be to build computers that learn to speak the user's language, rather than forcing the user to learn a new language. --Teratornis (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange problem when copying and pasting

Hi everybody. Here is the situation: when I am editing an article in Wikipedia, if I copy a piece of code of more than a few words, when I paste it all the text gets divided into several lines. For example here is what I get when I copy and paste in the edit mode the first paragraph of the article example.com:

'''example.com''', '''example.net''', and '''example.org''' are
[[Second-level domain|second-level]] [[domain name]]s reserved by the
[[Internet Engineering Task Force]] through RFC 2606, Section
3,<ref>RFC 2606, ''Reserved Top Level DNS Names'', D. Eastlake,
A. Panitz, The Internet Society (June 1999)</ref> for use in
documentation and examples. They are not available for registration.

It is really annoying. ¿Anyone knows what may be happening? Thank you all in advance. --LFS (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are you copying from? Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 11:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Which browser and operating system are you using? Do you copy it into a text editor or another program before copying back to the browser? Does it help to log out? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bringing Attention to an Issue

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to bring attention to an issue on the Mass Effect article, specifically that a link to an external wiki has been added twice and deleted twice under WP:ELNO; I believe the article may qualify for exception under the WP:ELNO guidelines (making it a valid link). Would it be appropriate to re-add the link, or to re-add the link and include a template such as External_links to draw attention to initiated discussion on the talk page? Or should I leave the article alone and wait for a response on the talk page? ialsoagree (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Help received in the IRC chat, thanks to Chzz and Xenon54. ialsoagree (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Creating an entry

Hello, How can I submit a quick short article ?

It seems like alot of HTML. I'm not experienced in this. Thanks! Deb Kushner <e-mail redacted.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.95.223 (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

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 Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is available to walk you through creating an article, but you will need to create an account to use it. if you don't wish to do so, you can submit a proposal for an article at Articles for Creation. – ukexpat (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions about the verified source policy

I've seen it explicitly stated several times that statements here, presented as fact, require an externally linked, third-party, verified source, yet the vast majority of content on the site has none. Therefore, I am extremely confused as to this policy's mandate, and how to go about addressing this in my own edits, and existing material as well? A specific example is the first sentence of the page, "Suzuki". It states in the first sentence of this entry that Suzuki began building motorcycles in 1952. You will notice, however, that there is no external link to a verified, third-party, source for this statement of fact.

It is important to understand that I am not refuting this fact, but rather I would reiterate that this is merely a verifiable example of a statement of fact not being linked to a verified, third-party, source. There are numerous contradictions in your own policy as well that I presume you are aware of. I won't get into that now. I have never edited, posted, authored, published, or even used Wikipedia very much. I am very excited to contribute to the site, however, the subject which I wish to contribute to is grotesquely vacant, and I have a lot to add. I am an expert on this particular subject, and think that would suffice. Moreover, consensus is a viable, arguably the best, tool to record truthful facts. Why the redundant precaution that is the verifiable, third-party, sourcing policy?

I look forward to having it explained to me why there is so much content on the site that explicitly violates clear rules of verifying sources laid out in the terms of use. Additionally, there are English language errors on the, "Suzuki", page I mentioned earlier. For example, the word: acronym is improperly used to describe abbreviating the phrase, "Universal Japanese motorcycle.", with the three letters, U - J- M. Of course you know that this is not an acronym, but merely the first three letters of the phrase. An acronym is a word formed from the first letters of a phrase like, "Self contained underwater breathing apparatus.", or SCUBA. RADAR, SWAT, NASA, these are acronyms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlongwell (talk • contribs) 05:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on policy, but what it says on WP:CITE about only needing to source statements that are likely to be challenged may be why you find so much unsourced content. In your specific case, the year Suzuki started manufacturing motorcycles might be universally known and/or very easy to verify. As for English language errors, you're encouraged to fix any mistakes you see, although I would consider UJM to be an acronym for Universal Japanese Motorcycle (in definition, if not in common usage). — Bility (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability is, as you have identified, one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia policy. One major reason for this is that because anyone can edit here, and most editors are in some measure anonymous, there is no sure-fire way to establish the credentials of any editor. We can't prove whether or not someone who presents themselves as an expert is truly qualified - and we don't require people to demonstrate what reputation they have in the outside world. Here, the quality of your edits is the most important factor. It makes us much more open and accessible than projects that permit contributions only from people who have proven expertise; that has allowed us to grow quickly and reach a very wide audience. While we can't verify the qualifications of each editor, we can verify that a claim is supported by third-party sources, because we can require that articles include references to these sources. Readers are then able to check these sources themselves, to establish that a claim in a Wikipedia article is indeed a claim also made elsewhere. Requiring that claims be verifiable gets us around the problem that we do not and cannot verify the credentials of the people who add those claims to Wikipedia.

So why does Wikipedia contains unverified material? Again, it's because anyone can edit: there is no central editorial committee, no person with responsibility for checking every contribution to Wikipedia, and no exam that users have to pass to start contributing. You can put anything into Wikipedia (with obvious caveats about legality, abusiveness, and relevance) - but without a source to verify it, your material is liable to be removed or changed. Because there is no deadline on the project, we can sometimes tolerate material that starts out uncited: other editors can come along and source the material, improve it, and expand on it. (This is of course not true in all cases. Problematic unsourced material, especially in cases like biographies of living people, should be removed on sight.) But it is much better to have the material cited at the point it is added: readers will take it more seriously, and it spares someone else the work of cleaning up after the person who contributed the unsourced material.

It's great that you intend to contribute: the advantage you'll have as an expert on your subject is that you'll already be familiar with reliable sources in the area. This will mean you can easily cite the material to these sources. I have posted some links to your user talk page to help you find your way around. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a client (school project)?

I am taking year 13 TCI at Avondale College, Auckland. Essentially the standards I'm sitting require me to design a product, using some software applications, that my client needs. The teacher said that my client can be anyone.

I was wondering, could I design something for Wikipedia? A new set of templates? A new process like the Article Wizard? A bot? Publicity via a game site that teaches the 5 pillars of Wikipedia? I have no clue, and this topic is really wide, so I can do just about anything remotely related to computers (which, of course, Wikipedia has to be).

I need to have someone I can regularly consult with and follow up with, someone who will specify the need; then I'm supposed to come up with a solution. (Most of the time, in practice, this involves a kid coercing a teacher into semi-agreeing that their department needs a basic website or flash game.) I just want to be a bit different.

Does anyone have any idea what I can do?

This is probably slightly bizarre, and doesn't quite belong on the helpdesk, but I have no clue where else to put it. Any suggestions at all would be appreciated.

Thanks :)

SS✞^(Kay) 05:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Singlish - others will have more suggestions, but one starting point would be Wikipedia:Bot requests, where users have listed and discussed the kinds of bots for which they see a need. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How to edit an existing user-created infobox

Hi there. I read some of the articles on infoboxes to no avail. I would like to know how to update an existing infobox located here , titled S Piñera cabinet infobox. This is a knock off of the infobox on Michelle Bachelet's article. It does not include the complete party affiliations or complete titles. I would like to update it and perhaps revert it back to a sortable table; although the formatting on the current is more aesthetically pleasing. Can anyone give me a good specific link or help me out with it? I would really appreciate it. Thanks! --Soy Rebelde (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Both infoboxes are basically calls to Template:Infobox Chile Cabinet with most fields already filled in. That would be the place to edit if you want to make changes to layout, style, look, etc. If you just want Template:S Piñera cabinet infobox to have more parameters, or you want to change some of the info, you can add/modify the fields there. — Bility (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Category help

Please assist It appears that Bipolar (Up dharma Down album) has ended up in Category:OPM albums, even though they are two different groups. Can someone please recategorize this album (I can't presently)? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Done - it looks like the editor who added the category interpreted as a category for albums in the Original Pilipino Music ("OPM") genre (to which Up dharma Down) belong, but it appears instead to refer as you say to albums by the Californian band OPM. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Are people aware this wikipedia entry is directly copied from another site  ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

is a direct copy of ....

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cancopy (talk • contribs) 12:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. In this case, the other website is a copy of the Wikipedia article. At the bottom, it reads "The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL." --BelovedFreak 12:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - the original is the Wikipedia article, and the copy is the Absolute Astronomy version. Absolute Astronomy is listed as a Wikipedia mirror site. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What can be even more confusing is when you find text from an article in Google Books -- Icon and others are publishing a lot of Wikipedia articles, so they show up there. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

T-shirt

lets get a jerry/niggs/nolal t-shirt in production he is not only one of the greatest drummers that ever lived but he was a true artist. p.s they will sell like crazy LONG LIVE NIGGS NOLAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.149.63 (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with your T-shirt campaign. This is a help desk for questions about how to use Wikipedia. Do you have a question we can help you with? Karenjc 13:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with more than 3 million articles. One of them is about Jerry Nolan but this is not a fansite. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How to create a journal intro page on wikipedia

Dear Sir, I want to create a introductory page for a open access biomedical journal "Journal of pharmacy and bioallied sciences" ISSN 0975-7406

We want to write a similar page like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Postgraduate_Medicine

Please help us...

I try to write but not successful in my user area of himanshu18in

Please help.

with regards Himanshu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanshu18in (talk • contribs) 15:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, 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 with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite 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 Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at 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. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article. – ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The page Blood Types will not display on my laptop when saved to disk on a public computer.

Internet Explorer says it has encountered a problem and has to close. All other pages display OK. Must be fault on the page somewhere. Cutting and pasting to Word is not always great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.61.160.1 (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Blood type opens fine for me in Internet Explorer 8 and Firefox 3.5.7. Can you clarify whether you are trying to load a live version of the page, or have saved a copy to a local disk? (I am not clear whether you are on a personal laptop or a public machine from the question title.) Gonzonoir (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Frequency

What is the ideal length of time a account has to be actively editing to be eligible for Adminship, as I am interested to know. Also what would be considered as an inactive account. Thanks Paul2387 16:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Also could someone give me a list of things to look for when deciding wether to Support or Oppose a Rfa/Rfb. Paul2387 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The links on the Rfa page would be a good place to start. – ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages and articles mismatch

The article for Talk:White gold is Colored gold (through a redirect), while the talk page for Colored gold is Talk:Colored gold. Isn't it weird? (If this is not the right place for such queries, please tell me.) --Siddhant (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No it's not that weird. When articles are redirected to other articles, talk pages that have a history, such as Talk:White gold, are not redirected, so that the contents of the talk page are preserved and visible. – ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So, shouldn't Talk:Colored gold say something like: Hey, Talk:White gold could be of importance. (Of course, not for new discussions, but for 'historical' reasons.) --Siddhant (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{historical}}, which should help. TNXMan 19:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It helps someone visiting the Talk:White gold page but not someone visiting Talk:Colored gold (refer to my last comment). Also, it does not say anything properly about why the page is historical. Isn't there a guideline for such cases? --Siddhant (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I read Help:Moving a page, but it doesn't say anything about such cases :-( --Siddhant (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This was a merge, not a page move. When White gold was merged into Colored gold, it was redirected, but the talk pages weren't merged. —Akrabbim^talk 20:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if it did, it would not be 100% relevent because this redirect was not created as a result of a page move but was created specifically to redirect to that particular section of the colored gold article. If it had been a page move, the talk page should have been moved with the article.  – ukexpat (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So do we leave this here? Shouldn't something be done about this whole issue? --Siddhant (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Broken Robot

SineBot is broken. It signs many of my already signed posts. I left a message on Slakr's user page four days ago (it seems that he controls this robot). He hasn't replied, and the problem is still happening. What can I do to make the robot stop? •• Fly by Night (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fly by Night (talk • contribs)

At a guess, the problem is that your signature doesn't contain a wikilink to your userpage. Instead, it contains a link to your userpage with all the spaces replaced with nonbreaking spaces for some reason. Algebraist 19:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)I suspect it's the &nbsp's in your links to your user page and talk page. I assume you're putting them in so it doesn't do a line break in the middle of your sig? If so, you only need to put them on the right side of the pipe, not the left. That might fix it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've deleted them. Now let's see if it will work. •• Fly by Night (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Article quality" gadget not working

I enabled the gadget in my preferences which "displays an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article", but it doesn't work. Any help would be appreciated, thanks.--Louprothero88 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you remember to clear your browser cache? – ukexpat (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I just tried that (I use Firefox) but it still isn't working.--Louprothero88 (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It works fine for me. Have you just enabled it, or has it always worked but suddenly failed? SS✞^(Kay) 06:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sick Article

I've just come across an article about a murderer that killed a 15 year old boy. It goes into detail and is quite disturbing. Who are the Wikipedia police? •• Fly by Night (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't have them. If you see something that needs improving, take a shot at it yourself. If you have questions as you go, feel free to post here. TNXMan 23:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need improving, it needs removing. It talks about the brutal murder and dismemberment of a 15 year old child. Surely an encyclopedia shouldn't contain topics like these. Sure, a reference to certain prolific criminals; but graphic detailings of their crimes? This isn't a snuff site, is it? •• Fly by Night (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But also note that Wikipedia is not censored so don't delete content just because you find it distasteful. If it is accurate and cited to a reliable source it stays in, subject to the guidelines on undue weight. – ukexpat (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. This page covers a disgusting topic and an encyclopedia is not a place for such a topic. An encyclopedia should be a place of learning. There are no age restrictions on this website. I would not be happy to let my children read that article. It is sick and disturbing. It ought to be removed. •• Fly by Night (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed with respect to a multitude of "things people don't like", such as images of Mohammed, the contents of the Pegging (sexual practice) article, explicit images such as at autofellatio, etc etc ad nauseam and the consensus is that we do not censor. It is not Wikipedia's job to protect children, that's their parents' job. Inevitably you would never be able to decide where to draw the line or who should be policing it and imposing sanctions. It's done and dusted and it ain't going to happen. – ukexpat (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the article because it is on a living person as well as because the victim's family is out there, and the article was very poorly sourced. This is not an endorsement of the position that the topic doesn't belong. As Ukexpat says above, if this rigorously cited to reliable sources it would be a wholly different matter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

First option: Would it be possible to create a pop-down box with the top looking like "Potentially Disturbing Material (show)" with show being a link that opens up a text box, like some of the bottom-of-the-page link boxes, to put particularly disturbing material in?

Second option: Put a banner with the text "The following article contains material that may be disturbing or objectionable to certain readers. By reading past this banner, you acknowledge that we have warned you." on such articles.

Regardless, some kind of tag such that we don't have little kids reading about dismemberment or, more importantly (to me), their parents complaining to Wikipedia or the press that "little Timmy has nightmares because of a Wikipedia article" is important, from a moral AND legal standpoint. -- Nutarama (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for disclaimers. See Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Add something to the general disclaimer saying "Content may be offensive, don't blame us."? -- Nutarama (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The number of people who read the disclaimer is probably less than the number of people who get offended at various things. --Teratornis (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(←) The original poster may be interested in Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection, a sanitized selection of Wikipedia articles suitable for distribution to schools. --Teratornis (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Other points:

• If the English Wikipedia implements flagged revisions, that would at least shield the eyes of vulnerable readers from the egregiously offensive vandalism that pops up from time to time in various articles. Even though Wikipedia editors typically revert such vandalism within a few minutes, if a casual visitor happens to see it, he or she may not understand what is going on, and feel troubled. This would not help for articles that offend some people but reflect a consensus of Wikipedia editors.
• Anyone is free to set up their own mirror or fork of Wikipedia, and edit it to be kid-safe or whatever else they like. This would be a lot of work, but at least it would be straightforwardly possible, in contrast to trying to shift the consensus on Wikipedia.

--Teratornis (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content disclaimer starts with large capitals saying "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS CONTENT THAT MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Leading photos of certain articles

Why is it that with products such as the iPod, the leading photo is always one of the newest generation (if one can be found), but with automobile models, any image is used regardless of the vehicle's generation? Shouldn't the newest generation of a vehicle be the leading image the same way the newest iPod image is? Tamajared (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be because we always prefer free photos from the Wikimedia Commons over fair use images, so we take what we can get that's free, which is likely to be from a random production line over time, but I really came to say that you might try asking at a more targeted venue: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Also check Commons:Category:Automobiles and its subcategories to see whether newer photos are available for a particular model. Some users specialize in uploading photos to Commons, and expect other users to choose from among the photos on Commons to display in the various language Wikipedias. If no good photo exists on Commons already, you can try searching for freely licensed photos with {{Flickr free}}. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so our photo coverage reflects the interests of our volunteers. It may be, for some reason, that there are more Wikipedia users interested in photographing iPods than automobiles. Or maybe iPods are easier for amateurs to photograph. Wikipedia's photographs and illustrations tend to be uneven among various topics, to say the least, so if you have any to contribute it would help a lot. Part of the problem is that it's not exactly simple to figure out all the licensing and copyright stuff that goes along with uploading images here or on Commons. See Commons:Commons:First steps if you want to try your hand. --Teratornis (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Do disambiguation pages require references? I would like to know, as I am editing an disambig page on chronic leukemia. Immunize (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no reference required and in fact, none should be included. A DAB page entry should not be more than a very short description that is enough to disambiguate the entry from its fellow topics, so that others can reach the article they are actually looking for with a similar name. When I've seen people adding references to a DAB page, it's normally because they have missed the purpose of the page I described, and are trying to expand the topic. Please also see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#References. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

There is also a manual of style for disam pages at WP:MOSDAB. – ukexpat (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

February 11

Contents of section I want to edit don't appear on edit page

I wish to correct a misdirected link in the References section of the article on Stalking. But when I try to edit this section, all that appears in the edit box is one short line, not the whole contents of the References section. How can I edit this?Strippy6 (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The references themselves are in the article's body. Click the ^ next to number of the reference you want to edit to find it in the text. Then edit that section. Please see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for more details on how references work. --Mysdaao ^talk 00:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

URL including square brackets

Resolved

How do you fix this? 84.41.34.154 (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)  Done... all done!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Internet video

There are many websites offering video files in internet, the most famous would be Youtube. Is it OK to provide these websites links in the External link section in wiki articles? Arilang ^talk 01:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not explicitly prohibited (WP:YOUTUBE) but is not usually a good idea as you can easily run into copyright issues. Xenon54 / talk / 01:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's alright when the channel is an official channel, such as Hollywood Records (channel) or CNN (channel). However, videos uploaded by regular users are almost never appropriate, as ones of encyclopedic value are usually copyright violations. Liquidluck✽talk 02:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this news would change somethings?

"An ISP such as iiNet provides a legitimate communication facility which is neither intended nor designed to infringe copyright," Justice Dennis Cowdroy told the court. Arilang ^talk 12:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Other place to put this?

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen several ongoing "discussions" about wikipedia sourcing, and I realize this is not the place to make a suggestion on how to fix it. However, I know that "Help desk is a highly visible page", so this will be noticed. Therefore the question: where would I suggest a method of completely fixing the issue at hand? My suggestion follows.

I know this would require software modification, but it should be possible to create three "views" of wikipedia, one for the common reader, one for registered users, and one for administrators. Then, use de.wikipedia-type content filtering or similar (for example, a certain number of editorial "thumbs-up"s, ala Urban Dictionary's ratings system) for publication of properly cited and formatted material to public-view wikipedia. On registered-view wikipedia, display everything that current wikipedia contains, including blatantly unsourced information (different from public-view), as well as editor's comments on the article like the current in-line source code comments. Then on administrator-view wikipedia, give the administrators one-click roll-backs for public-view wikipedia and simple tools that they can use for their administrator-ly duties. Instead of having anonymous edits go directly onto public wikipedia, have them post to editor-view wikipedia, and include on editor-view an easy-to-use history viewing setup. Have edits post instantly on editor-view.

This solution would eliminate badly unsourced and un-wikified information from public view and keep normal readers from dealing with annoying [citation needed] tags in the middle of print. I acknowledge that it would make simple edits and re-ordering of information take more time on public view and reduce the impact "notable anonymous users", but it would stop vandalism by anonymous users and keep public-view clean of editor-important-only things and unverified information.

So It Is Written, -- Nutarama (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Implementation of the de.wp filtering system is currently under discussion here at en.wp. You can find it at the Flagged Revisions proposal, and linked pages. There has been much discussion about how to implement this proposal; you are free to comment in any of those discussions, if you wish. Intelligentsium 01:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Intelligentsium -- Nutarama (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey help desk!

Your archivist tool is dead. Everything from Feb. 10 and now Feb. 11 is in the archive for Feb. 9! It'll be simpler to fix before it goes much farther. -- Nutarama (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. An editor accidentally removed the date headings in [4] two hours ago. Those days are not archived yet but are deliberately part of the same long page spanning the most recent several days. I am readding the date headings so the archiving will work correctly when the time comes. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

layman-isms

I have read many articles and FAQ points about contributing to Wikipedia. Still, I cannot figure out if adding metaphors or comparisons to common situations in order to help understand highly technical or specialized articles is ok. For example, I just read an article about whips (as the word is used in politics). I was having trouble understanding the political nuances, which interfered with me understanding what "whip" means. Then I thought to myself, "He's like an Outlook calendaring guru who makes sure that the most people attend the important meetings." I thought, I bet other readers of this article would understand that analogy. Should I edit an article like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.232.225 (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't understand it and I already know what whip (politics) is. I haven't heard of "Outlook calendaring guru" which gives 205 Google hits while "party whip" gives 82700. "minority whip" and "majority whip" give more than 200000. Making your own metaphors without a reliable source is against Wikipedia:No original research although it may not specifically mention metaphors. Your metaphor also has some problems that I think makes it unsuited to explain a whip. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Before I say this, know that I am a Wikipedia fan. Although, due to the community-contribution nature of Wikipedia, it is not admissible in most university research papers... even in that context, it is valuable for the "References" section of each article. In fact, I've donated (humbly so) out of my own pocket. Having said that, please read into the following no implications nor cycncism... because they are not intended:

Wikipedia has MULTIPLE articles that link to Doc Brown's "flux capacitor" (an actual article in Wikipedia). There are Wikipedia articles on more X-Men than I ever knew existed. In that context, what is so wrong about making an analogy that my many peers would understand?

Again, please read no insult nor ill will into what I've said. I simply wish to explore the logic and limits of "Wikettiquite" :) If nothing more, maybe this message will have you considering a wiki of analogies :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.232.225 (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem is that the kind of metaphors like you describe are very often culture/knowledge specific. Not everyone is familiar with Outlook, let alone its calendar features (I very rarely use the calendar in mine) and even fewer people know what the word "guru" would mean in the context of your metaphor. You would need to provide links to Outlook and Guru. So, for example, my mother would have no idea what Outlook is, and my niece would have no idea what a guru is. For similar reasons, we do not add layman's measurements to large quantities - things like "...equivalent to 30 football fields", "...the weight of 124 elephants" or "...as much water as held in 70 olympic swimming pools". If you attempted to add "...like an Outlook calendaring guru" to the whip (politics) article it would probably be reverted very quickly as "irrelevant", "not helpful", or "what?". You might even be accused of vandalism. Astronaut (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you find something unclear in the whip (politics) article, quote the exact sentences on the talk page and explain exactly which parts you don't understand. Other editors with knowledge of the subject can then discuss how best to clarify the confusing material, most likely without resorting to analogies with unrelated subjects. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, read by a global audience, not a creative writing project, so we avoid flowery or culturally-specific analogies. The main problem with analogies is that they are not identities, so it is difficult for the reader to guess exactly which properties of two objects are analogous. For example, cats are analogous to dogs in many ways (four legs, fur, tail, sharp teeth, warm blood) but obviously different in other ways. Someone who was unfamiliar with one or both could misunderstand a statement such as "A cat is like a dog" and picture a barking cat. Most likely, a party whip is different from an Outlook guru in some important ways. --Teratornis (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, if a particular article is extremely technical and unlikely to make sense to the nonexpert, we can write a simplified version to go along with it. See for example:

• General relativity
• Introduction to general relativity

--Teratornis (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I accidently deleted very first paragraph, while trying to add some info on Tirhut. I am trying to revert it back to what it was displaying yesterday, but can not do it. Please revert it back. Sorry,

Hi I accidently deleted very first paragraph, while trying to add some info on Tirhut. I am trying to revert it back to what it was displaying yesterday, but can not do it. Please revert it back. Sorry, Amarnath Jha

Fixed- I hope Tirhut looks like it should now. Thanks for reporting your problem! Don't worry about mistakes, almost everything on Wikipedia is fixed easily. If you can't figure something out, just come back here. If you'd like to learn more about editing, take a look at Wikipedia:How to edit a page. If you'd like to experiment, try the sandbox.

By the way, if you run into this problem again, click the "history" tab at the top, next to the "edit" tab. Then click on the date of the version you want to revert to, and then click edit and save- you'll have reverted back to the old version. Also, when editing try clicking the "show preview" button before clicking "save". If something doesn't look right in the preview, you can quit before saving. Thanks, Liquidluck✽talk 07:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

nickname

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant to be "frisbeesandflipflops" but it looks like instead I am "Frisbeesandflipflops" with a capital F. I need to change this but do not know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frisbeesandflipflops (talk • contribs) 06:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but user names, like article names, are capitalized by default. You may, however, choose to create a signature so that whenever you sign your name on a talk or help page like this one your name appears in lowercase. You may do this by clicking "my preferences" at the top right corner and, on the "user profile" tab, scrolling down to "signature". Create your signature in the white box (for frisbeesandflipflops (talk), type ([[User:Frisbeesandflipflops|frisbeesandflipflops]] ([[User talk:Frisbeesandflipflops|talk]]), and click the check box beneath that says "sign my name exactly as shown".

Make sure to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of each of your messages! Thanks, Liquidluck✽talk 06:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And you can add {{Lowercase title}} to your user and talk pages so that they display with a lower case first letter (as I have done on mine). – ukexpat (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! frisbeesandflipflops (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC) (I signed this time)

Who is Allowed to upload images, etc?

Greetings, I love Wikipedia for its extensive coverage of history, esp American history. Often times I will be reading about a subject for which there has been a (US) postage stamp commemorating the event. The US post office has, since 1847, the year of the first postage stamp (5 cent Ben Franklin) issued a wide variety of stamps depicting Presidents and other notable Americans, along with those commemorating historical events, etc. For example, in 1947 the PO issued a 3c stamp commemorating the 150th anniversary of the USS Constitution. It's an engraved stamp and depicts the ships sails and rigging quite clearly. I have an extensive US stamp collection I have taken many quality photos of and would like, where appropriate, to add them to the various historical illustrations. I tried to upload a photo-image of the 3c USS Constitution stamp but it says I am not an 'autoconfirmed used'. What do I need to do to be able to upload photo files, etc? User name: gwhickers

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwillhickers (talk • contribs) 06:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

After you make 10 edits and your account is 4 days old, it is autoconfirmed, which enables you to upload pictures (amongst other things).

However, you can immediately upload pictures to Commons, and use them on Wikipedia. Appropriately licenced images should be uploaded to Commons, as they can then be used by other language wikis and Sister projects. Smappy (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You might be interested in joining WikiProject United States History and/or WikiProject Military history. Smappy (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm glad Wikipedia is useful to you, and thank you for offering to donate pictures. Since you are uploading images you took yourself of a U.S. federal government work, it would be very helpful if you uploaded them to the Wikimedia Commons, where free use works are stored, instead of uploading them directly to the English Wikipedia. You will need to create an account there as well, but here's a direct link to the form you will use to upload your image: link.

Autoconfirmation is required to upload images directly to the English Wikipedia in order to cut down on potentially non-free images (images which are neither in the public domain nor qualify for fair use). It occurs automatically when an account has at least ten edits and is at least four days old. Autoconfirmation also enables users to move pages to new titles and edit semiprotected pages such as United States, along with other permissions. Thanks, Liquidluck✽talk 07:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How to Edit Headline?

I can edit the article body, but not the headline. I'd like to delete the word "Gullichsen" from "Ahlström-Gullichsen family." I've cleaned up the article, but I can't access the headline for edit. How should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quercus2 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The title shown at the top of articles is the actual page name - in this case, Ahlström-Gullichsen family. To change this, you have to move the page - but you cannot move pages yourself until your account is a little older, so please head over to Requested moves#Current requests, and add your request there, giving the reason. Smappy (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How do I delete a Wiki book?

I've got an uneasy feeling I'm being spectacularly stupid but how do I delete a Wiki book (user book) that I created just to get some practice using the system, editing the book, etc? If I 'clear' the book or delete the last article, I can't save the empty book and there doesn't appear to be a 'delete' function.

Be gentle with me... *:) R L Lacchin (Gloucester, UK) (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Only administrators have the option to delete pages. For pages in your user space such as this one (User:AstroWiki/Books/Scratch), if you place {{db-userreq}} on the page an administrator will delete it for you. Cassandra 73 (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Help resolving a dispute

I don't know where to best put up this request for help in settling some kind of a dispute. I am really getting tired in a continued discussion with an editor over the proper way of editing articles, who keeps ignoring style guidelines, writing text in presentation style (bullet lists), informal tone, and worst, writing text based on original research that is mostly completely flawed, never referenced, and almost always inaccurate or simply plain wrong. Please take a look at various edits and discussions at User_talk:Eyreland, User_talk:Nageh, Concatenated error correction codes, Error detection and correction etc.

Maybe some more experienced can come up with better, more convincing arguments to the editor this is directed at. Thanks for any help. Nageh (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I asked for WP:3O. Nageh (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture upload

Hi

I'm trying to upload a logo to the box at "Energinet.dk" - as for instance on Dong Energy's site - but I can't seem to figure out how to do it. I'm able to upload an example file but can't put our own logo on the site. I'm cirkeling around when trying.

Can you help me?

Best regards Stine, Denmark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lange1234 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Images are uploaded at Wikipedia:Upload, but only autoconfirmed users are able to upload images. Your account will automatically be autoconfirmed when it has made at least ten edits and is at least four days old. Your account has made enough edits, so when it is four full days old, you will be able to upload images. Once an image is uploaded, use it in an article by adding [[Image:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]] to the page, replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. Please read Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for more information. --Mysdaao ^talk 13:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Standard image advice message follows:

• If you want to add an existing image to an article, add [[Image:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information.
• If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must find out what the proper license of the image is. If you know the image is licensed under a free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure what license the image takes, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy. I hope this helps.

And as you have a conflict of interest, please read WP:COI. – ukexpat (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark Boardman wiki page deleted

I tried adding details to his profile and it has been deleted.

Apparantly it was because the (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

What does this mean ? Do the moderators not know who these people are ? He is listed on many pages for his presenting / Journalism work etc.

I feel the page for tie up some missing links on Wikipedia when the Mark Boardman page is added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.0.2 (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the page, it did not indicate why the person was notable enough to warrant an article. Furthermore, it also appeared to be advertising for Boardman. I would suggest reading our info on writing your first article. TNXMan 15:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

I wanted to upload a photo from a website. I found a similar image from the same site. I have tried to copy the licence page from the existing file, but change it to fit the image I wanted to load. Could someone please check that I have done all the legal stuff correctly? I don't want to get sued. •• Fly by Night (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine but the license is suitable for the image to be uploaded to Commons - so the image is tagged to be moved there. In fact, thousands of Geograph images have just been uploaded to Commons so it's always a good idea to check there first, Also, Geograph makes it easy to complete the copyright/licensing stuff - on the Geograph image page, just below the image is a link that takes you to a second page where there are various boxes, one of which contains all the copyright/license code you need for Commons, so just copy and paste it into the Commons upload form. – ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Do you mean that I uploaded it to the wrong site? •• Fly by Night (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "wrong", it's just that Commons is the best place for appropriately licensed media so that they are available for use on all Wikimedia projects.  – ukexpat (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Error message when uploading the logo of my organisation

Trying to upload the logo of my organisation I receive this message:

This page is currently protected and can be edited or moved only by administrators.

• Some templates and site interface pages are permanently protected due to visibility. Occasionally, articles are temporarily protected because of editing disputes.
• The reason for protection can be found in the protection log. If there are no relevant entries in the protection log, the page may have been moved after being protected.
• You can discuss this page with others. If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple change, start a [[[:Template:Fullurl:]] new section] and insert the text {{editprotected}} followed by your request. An administrator may then make the change on your behalf. For move-protected pages, see requested moves.
• You may request unprotection of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotrfromtheese (talk • contribs)

It looks like you are trying to upload a file with a protected filename. What is the name of the file? – ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

After posting here you have uploaded File:EUREKA research and development logo.gif so I guess you worked it out. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Defaultsort/redirect cursor location

The last couple of days when clicking on DEFAULTSORT or REDIRECT from the WikiMarkup box it positions the cursor one character to the right of where it should be; you have to move back a character before pasting text... I'm using IE8 GrahamHardy (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It works fine in Firefox, so this is presumably one of IE's little perversities. The denizens of WP:VPT might know more. Algebraist 17:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It worked fine in IE until yesterday (10th Feb)... GrahamHardy (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have Beta enabled? Does leaving Beta solve the problem? --Shuhari (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got beta enabled... GrahamHardy (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have Experimental features enabled under Editing at Special:Preferences then try disabling. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no experimental features enabled... GrahamHardy (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Same problem here - IE8 on WinXP, do not use beta, no experimental features, haven't changed any gadgets or .js or .css Was working fine until a couple of days ago. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have asked WP:VPT to visit... GrahamHardy (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems OK in Firefox 3.0.17 / Windows XP / Monobook / no beta / no experimentals. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

incorrect re-direct

From Bill Crosby to Bill Cosby...not the same person.

Bill Crosby was a blues singer that recorded for Columbia in the 1940's.

Please correct, Thank You... Bob Bergmann Owner BoogiebobsRecords.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.125.221 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, when someone decides to write an article about the blues singer, the redirect page can be turned into that article. Until then there is no harm in having the redirect. – ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It was also posted to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#incorrect re-direct and somebody changed the Bill Crosby redirect to point to William Crosby where Bill Cosby is one of three people. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving documents from Google cache

I am having some problems finding reliable sources to backup claims of Anna Nalick marriage. So far, I've only encountered two sources, one comes from a Los Angeles Times supplement, which apart from not being appropriate enough (it's an article about wedding cakes) only mentions she's married. Despite that, I added it to the article anyway.

The second one, despite again being not very appropriate (it's a mere "Congratulations" note), includes the wedding date and the city in which the rite took place. There are two additional problems with this source: first, the document is no longer accessible, and second, the only existing copy is located in Google's cache, in a HTML-only form, which would not be a problem except for the original document being a PDF, thus the layout is seriously mangled.

I'm thinking in using such cache copy to make a permanent backup with WebCite, but I wonder if there are too many drawbacks with the reference to even consider it for inclusion here.--Lashiec (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

help with posting photos

I have created a Wikipedia article and have photos on Wik. Commons that I want to add but cannot understand the instructions on how to do it. Pls. help. I am frustrated and don't know where to turn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary reals (talk • contribs) 22:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Caption

Let's assume you want to add File:Nelson Mandela.jpg to an article. If you want to add an image to the infobox of an article, type "File:Nelson Mandela.jpg" (no quotes) where it asks | image= . If you want to add an image outside of an infobox, type [[File:Nelson Mandela.jpg|thumb|right|100px|Caption]], which creates the image you see to the right. Replace "Nelson Mandela" with the name of the image you actually want to add. Hope that helps, Liquidluck✽talk 22:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But also note that there is no consistency among infoboxes. Some require a "full" link such as [[File:Nelson Mandela.jpg]]; some don't need the brackets, viz File:Nelson Mandela.jpg; and yet others don't need the "file", viz, Nelson Mandela.jpg. The relevant infobox's documentation is the best place to check requirements. – ukexpat (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sport or Sports in title?

I just moved the page Sport in Slovenia to Sports in Slovenia and the article's creator promptly moved it back citing the article Sport in Germany among others. I have never heard the singular form of sports used in this manner, has anyone else? I was about to move all pages titled in a similar manner but decided to consult first. Supertouch (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As a speaker of British English I have no problem with Sport in Slovenia as a title. For example, see A Question of Sport. For me, "sports" would tend to indicate a number of specific sports rather than sport in general. Since these articles exist in their originally created form, and are OK in at least one variety of English, my instinct would be not to move, but Sports in Slovenia is a sensible redirect. Karenjc 00:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But wouldn't Sport in Slovenia imply that only one sport is being played? The article deals with a number of sports? I checked on Wikipedia the definition seemed to support this understanding—unless of course that definition only indicates American usage. Supertouch (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an American vs British thing. Compare BBC Sport. As Karenjc said earlier, "sport" is the more general term referring to all of recreation, while "sports" is a defined subset of activities. Compare Sky Sports for the latter usage. In America "sports" is always used, compare CBS Sports. Since the article deals with a European topic, "sport" should be used. Xenon54 / talk / 01:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia traffic

Where can I find some information on the daily hits that the Wikipedia site gets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.181.43 (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Statistics for links to all kinds of data of this type. Karenjc 00:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

More specifically, see Help:Pageview stats. Liquidluck✽talk 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

February 12

My post

Please be advised that I have entered a page for wikipedia and I got a message back saying it was promotional. I can't see where ut is promotional and would be happy to change it and resubmit it, but I need some direction as to what needs to be changed etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Melonie_Dodaro&oldid=342105862

Could you please advise me.

Thank you.

Melonie Dodaro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melonie Dodaro (talk • contribs) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The major problem is that you've written the article about yourself. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged because of the inherent problems with conflict of interest and bias. There is no indication that you are notable, i.e. important enough to deserve an article; if you were, chances were you would already have an article. Also, all information must cite a reliable source. Although you cite sources, they all appear to be self-published, unduly promotional, or otherwise unreliable. Xenon54 / talk / 01:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

One qualification, this is a user page. It is acceptable to create a user page about yourself but it should relate to your Wikipedia activities and not be used as a free webhost to post a resumé, curriculum vitae or similar promotional activities. – ukexpat (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Qualification to my qualification: if it is intended it as a user space draft, it will almost certainly be speedily deleted if moved to mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also note that being the author of a book by a vanity press is not a qualification of notability. Anybody can be published by a vanity press, notable or not. -- kainaw™ 04:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Messed up" a page on accident

I was editing the "CD90" in an attempt to fix a spelling error ("peptie" should be "peptide") and I hit the back button while the save was being recorded. It simply deleted the word rather than fixing the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.93.210 (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Check CD90 again. It looks fine to me. -- kainaw™ 03:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

kato

Dear sir: I searched wikipedia about Kato cranes but i did not find any yhing about this title please add some material for this case. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.98.240.130 (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate question removed ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody else has answered you, so I'll have a go. Wikipedia is entirely created by volunteers, who create the articles that they are interested in. Asking your question here might cause some editor to say "Yes, I'd like to write an article on that" - but there are other ways that are more likely. (Incidentally, an anonymous editor added Kato cranes to the disambiguation page Kato in 2008, but because the article has never been written, the link is red.) Here are some suggestions:

• If you have some knowledge about the company (but not if you are associated with them, see WP:COI) you might consider writing the article yourself. Be aware, though, that it is not easy for a new editor to write an article which will last in Wikipedia: see WP:YFA.
• You might put a message at Talk:Mobile crane asking if there is anybody there who would like to create this article.
• You could put a request at WP:Requested articles. --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia hangs on Monobook theme when clicking links (Firefox)

Occasionally when I click links on Wikipedia pages, it seems that it takes an extra second to recognize the click and go to the new page. This only happens on Monobook. Any ideas? Greenythebeast (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to post my first article without much success

I'm a newbie.

I've created an article and it's within the "my talk" section of my account, and edited and saved it a number of times, and I thought that once it's saved, it's automatically added to Wikipedia. But it doesn't show up in the search box when I type in the title. So obviously it isn't public, or at least I think that's the case. I clearly am doing something wrong. So how does it get moved out of ""my talk" and into a status so others can read it and find it when searching? Any help will be appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deejayscribe (talk • contribs) 07:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Deejayscribe (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You have to physically put the article in wikipedia, you cant just put it in your talk space or it will stay in your talk space. For simplicities sake, you can simply copy the article to this page, but you'll have to search for and create articles on your own in the future. Happy to help :) User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig 08:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Your first article. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help moving a page

Resolved

 – Article moved, redirect deleted as typo -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just registered, and as such I'm not able to move pages yet. Could someone move Hear Full of Black (Song) to Heart Full of Black (Song)? Thank you very much. User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig 08:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have moved it for you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig 08:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved it again to Heart Full of Black (song). Disambiguations are not capitalized. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That banner on top

That banner on top Wikipedia is suddenly nothing but grey! You know, the one which displays things like global sysop proposals and all that. Is it intentional? 113.253.206.192 (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it should be completely clear, both MediaWiki:anonnotice and MediaWiki:sitenotice are empty. Try purging this page, and then see what happens: click to purge. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

HOW DO I PROTECT a new ARTICLE on a new topic FROM overzealous nonspecific Administrator VANDALISM? The administrator does not reply on the talk page

Resolved

 – At least in this forum. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bull Market 15:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Emily Margaret perry AustinBull Market 15:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm posting here because an administrator vandalized my article. The below describes what happened--

Basically, I posted part of the article, it was up a few seconds, and then an "administrator" wrote that I vandalized!

(It was a new article on a new topic on Stephen F. Austin's sister, who was herself one of the founders of Texas.)

Then I posted to the talk page of the administrator and nothing then happened.

I am terrified of doing more work on this article and being wiped out again by an overzealous police force.

What do I do?

Below is the pertinent part of my post to the talk page of the so-called administrator named PMDrive1061...

Any help to protect this article from attack is appreciated.Bull Market 15:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bull Market 15:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear PMDrive1061: I had been working on the Emily Margaret Perry/ Emily Margaret Brown Austin page for a few days on Microsoft Word, and literally seconds after posting anything on this new page, you decided to delete the page claiming 03:40, 12 February 2010 PMDrive1061 (talk | contribs) deleted "Emily Austin Perry" ‎ (G3: Vandalism) No contacting me, no writing a note. Just delete it and type "Vandalism". Did you stop to look at whether there was anything here before? Like when pioneer Emily Perry arrived in Jones Creek, TX, when I arrived at this page, there was nothing written. What possible vandalism could I have caused. I was in the Wikipedia wilderness and you told me I had cut down the trees. But it was tundra and there were no trees other than those that I was planting and that you summarily mowed down.

It is the good farmer who removes the weeds, leaving the flora behind. You uprooted the whole garden.

This reminds me of the police officer who uses unnecessary force on law abiding citizens who mind their own business, claiming they did it to prevent the citizens from potentially vandalizing. As direct as I am here, I'm new and you are very experienced and an award recipient many times over. I'm sure you had a good intention. I wuldl sure like to hear from you, though.

Bull Market —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Market (talk • contribs) 04:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Bull Market Signs this here BM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Market (talk • contribs)

Hi Bull Market. PMDrive1061's contributions show that s/he hasn't edited on Wikipedia since you posted on his/her talk page. All our admins are volunteers and few of them are present on Wikipedia 24/7. I expect s/he just hasn't seen your message yet. I can't see the deleted article so I don't know what might have led to the vandalism tag: it may have been a simple mistake. You did the right thing in contacting the deleting admin, so the next step is just patience. Give PMDrive1061 a little longer to respond, remember to assume good faith of our volunteer editors and admins, and I am sure a solution can be found.

If after some time you've still had no response your next port of call is deletion review, where others will give their input into the rationale of the deletion. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ETA: I see you've changed the title of your post: I know you're upset, but please try to assume good faith of other users rather than accusing them of vandalism. You've just found out for yourself how upsetting it can be to have others describe your efforts as vandalism, and you're likely to get a much better outcome if you put your question civilly. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The page was deleted. For non-Admins, here was the content:

Emily Austin

Emily Perry

Emily Austin Perry

Emily Margaret Austin

Emily Margaret Brown Austin

Emily Margaret Austin Perry

To Bull Market, I can see why someone might think it looks like vandalism. It has no meaningful content, just a name repeated in various forms. It certainly isn't yet an article by our standards. What I suggest you do is read Wikipedia:Your first article and create an article in your own user space. If you have any problems, ask here again.

A couple of other tips. Never leave personal information in an edit, eg phone numbers, email addresses. And please sign with 4 tildes, like this ~~~~ , you don't have to manually sign and signing like that makes a link to your talk page, etc. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Administrators are volunteers like other editors and have other things in their life, for example working (for pay) and sleeping (at a time which may depend on their time zone). You posted to User talk:PMDrive1061 only 11 hours ago and the user had not edited since then when you came here. You created Emily Austin Perry with a list of 6 variations of the name and no other content. That is not a meaningful article and many vandals create meaningless pages like that so the creation was mistaken for vandalism. Otherwise it could have been deleted per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A3 (no content other than a rephrasing of the title). You can work on an article draft at a user subpage like User:Bull Market/Sandbox. When it has real content you can create an article. See Wikipedia:Your first article. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Or try the revamped article creation wizard. Also, please assume good faith.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. It's 7:32 AM here in California and I just checked my talk page to find this person's note. I've left polite word on his/her talk page. Thanks for the support, all. Hopefully, misunderstandings like this won't happen again with this user. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, all. I've left a reply to the note. Hopefully misunderstandings will not happen again with this editor.Bull Market 17:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Market (talk • contribs)

Edit Frequency (repost)

What is the ideal length of time a account has to be actively editing to be eligible for Adminship, as I am interested to know. Also what would be considered as an inactive account. Thanks Paul2387 16:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Also could someone give me a list of things to look for when deciding wether to Support or Oppose a Rfa/Rfb. Paul2387 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The links on the Rfa page would be a good place to start. – ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally, an account should be active for at least a year before considering standing for adminship. This page also has a list of what !voters look for in a candidate. However, the more you make adminship your goal, the less likely it is to happen. "Trophy-hunting", as it were, it somewhat frowned upon. The goal at Wikipedia is to make a good encyclopedia, not hold adminship tools. TNXMan 15:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also edited the section title to differentiate between the earlier post and this one. TNXMan 15:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see on your userpage you say that you would like to "become an admin and do some maintenance work". It's good that you're willing to help out. There's a lot of maintenance to be done around here and most of it does not need admin tools. See Wikipedia:Maintenance if you're looking for more ideas. --BelovedFreak 16:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Per to my questions above, I have rephrased them they are:

Which of these accounts would you say is eligible for Adminship based on activeness and which aren't?

1. An Account active less then a year

2. An Account Active for 1-2 years

3. An Account Active for more then 2 years

Thanks Paul2387 16:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

For an indication of what I look for, see User:Phantomsteve/RfA standards - I don't think I am too far away from the 'average' editor in what I look for. Other people have their own standards of what they are looking for (see here for some examples. There are no fixed "rules" as such, and someone could have been editing for less than a year and succeed, if they show the right variety of edits. Someone could have been editing for 5 years and not succeed. Time is not the prime consideration (although obviously someone with only a few months is highly unlikely to succeed). I hope this helps. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why Rollback?

I've requested permission a few weeks ago, and failed. A couple of days ago I was editing an old revision of Super Bowl XLIV or what not. I then saw the "This is an old version of a page. If you edit it, all changes after it will be deleted" sign. Isn't that just like Rollback? Just go in to an older evision and make a constructive edit, and all the vandalisim afterward will be deleted. Get my point?

EXAMPLE: (Keep on clicking Next contribution). [[5]]

So, why do we have rollback? From what I see, the feature above already takes care of it. Any explanations?

Buggie111 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The method you described can be used to manually undo changes. Rollback is just a faster way of making reversions. As it says at the top of Wikipedia:Rollback feature, "The rollback feature is a fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense." It is not the only way to revert edits. More ways are described at Help:Reverting. --Mysdaao ^talk 19:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, rollback gives users access to WP:HUGGLE, which cannot be used without it. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WIKI COMPLAINT AGAINST AN EDITOR

WIKI COMPLAINT AGAINST AN EDITOR

Hi I want to find out who I can complain to about one of your editors. I have tried to add factual and historical data to one of your entries and he keeps deleting it The events took place over 30 years ago and I was integrally involved in these events

Lynton Kosis <blanked> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondigold (talk • contribs) 19:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The first step to dispute resolution is to discuss the issue with the other editor. Who is the other editor and what is the issue concerning? TNXMan 19:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the No Original Research policy. Wikipedia has no mechanism to tie an editor's user name to the person's name in real life, and no way to determine what qualifications the editor has. Thus there is no way to verify that a Wikipedia editor was even alive 30 years ago, much less that he or she was involved in a certain set of events. Thus, any information added to Wikipedia articles must be verifiable by reading, listening to, or watching reliable sources such as books, journals, professionally published videos, etc. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The editors concerned (for there are more than one) have left their reasons in the edit summary each time they have reverted; and they have also left messages on your personal talk page, which is located at User talk:Bondigold. I note that you have not responded either on that talk page (which is the best place to respond), nor on the talk pages of the editors who left the messages (which is the next-best place).

Many of the aforementioned edit summaries and messages contain links to help pages, policy documents etc., which it is a good idea to be familiar with. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Changing title of article

I've written a page on my father but erroneously left out a punctuation mark (it comes up as D Sudhaker Rao, and I'd like it to come up as D. Sudhaker Rao) can I change this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanwada76 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)