Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance): Difference between revisions

Don't know where else to put his but...

I noticed some striking similarities between this Toronto Star article:
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/279429
and the associated Wikipedia article, especially under the Financial Problems section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rogers_Centre&oldid=172826443#Financial_problems_and_fallout (01:52, 21 November 2007)

What's especially telling is the sentence containing "massively discounted", it's almost lifted word-for-word.
Chozan (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into it, I sent the following letter to the editor...

To: Publiced@thestar.ca

Sent: Dec 3, 2007 13:44 Subject: Wikipedea not cited

Dear Editor,

Although we at wikipedia love to see our work recognised, especialy with all the bad coverage we have gotten, Lisa Wright neglected to properly cite us when she cut and pasted our article for Rogers Centre (I am refering to the history archives, November 21) into a report she did on November 24, 2007 titled "Sky Dome was profitable when Jays Won World Series."(http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/279429). With few changes in word selection, and no changes in order this article is more our work than her's. Now we do offer tutorials for citing our web site, and mabie your staff would benifit from such a training.

Although we havn't done an extensive serch for other uncited collaberations between our orgonizations, I am shure that shuch a serch would prove many writers have benifited from our shared interests.

Finaly, since wikipedia is a hobby for us, if you should choose to add us to your payroll the web site gladly accepts donations which can be given through the link on our home page, anyone who wants to donate will be welcome to.

Wiki editor "coffeepusher"

They said they were looking into it...no word on the donation, but it dosn't hurt to ask.Coffeepusher 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might have helped if your letter to them had been in better English. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dislexia+Blackberry(no spell check), it can be a pain.Coffeepusher 20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; didn't mean to bite, but it gives them a perfect excuse to ignore your mail and even criticise us. They don't know what you (and now I) know. Let's hope they're too lazy to make a point of it. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 20:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism is a very serious issue in newspapers and could easily get this reporter fired. Is that what we want? Maybe it is, and I am sure some kind of damage will be done to this woman's career. On the other hand, maybe she is not cut out for being a journalist, or maybe she is just an intern. We shall see. I am sure that the newspaper will not just ignore your letter. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 22:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it matters that much, email the Foundation and they can take the necessary steps. It's not so serious because of the GFDL, but we do ask for a credit. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily want this woman fired...but the editor needed to be informed, at least so they could check. Can you imagine what would happen to the reputation of a paper if it leaks out that they published a Wikipedia article ("why buy the [insert paper name here], I can just look it all up on Wikipedia"). So although I feel like this is a minor infraction, and don't want anyone to get hurt, The editor needs the information that this has happened in order to protect thousands of jobs. and I am not in a position to judge what their actions should be.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lyme disease - assistance needed

I do not feel qualified to edit this article but this reference badly needs to be put in regarding deer ticks. This is not well known info but very important.

_Quote from Cornell University @ www.entomology.cornell.edu/Extension/DiagnosticLab/IDLFS/DeerTicks/DeerTicks.html#N10040 <http://www.entomology.cornell.edu/Extension/DiagnosticLab/IDLFS/DeerTicks/DeerTicks.html#N10040>_

“Adult females feed on a host for seven to ten days, swelling to the size of a small pea, and becoming blue-black.”

Mike Peter

Someone who knows baseball?

Review done. Thanks! Jackollie 01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there someone who knows baseball better than I do who could take a look at the contributions of Dshibshm? He's made a ton of changes to player articles tonight. The first of his changes I found were things like removing a nickname or a player number, which I assumed was vandalism, but a lot of the changes are to positions played, etc. - things I'm not knowledgeable about. If the edits I've rv'd are actually good changes, I'll put them back if someone will let me know. Jackollie 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't work. What WikiP page are you troubled by? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Special:Contributions/Dshibshm. Earlier in the evening this person made a number of changes to articles on baseball players. I see that Dshibshm is now making a lot of minor edits to TV show articles. Jackollie 06:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pitcairn Island rape trial . . .

May I have some assistance in trimming, cutting and rearranging the Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004? The article was written piece by piece, almost day by day, during the trial and appeal, and it is not a unified, encyclopedic article. Kindly visit the page and detail on the Discussion page there what you think should be done and how you can help, if possible. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 08:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

assistance With KWKM-LP

I tried to transfer and edited that particular information into KWKM and I have not finshed editing that, what do I need to do? I have information from the defuctional American one affiliate from the outlying areas outside of Phoenix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ks sonflower (talk • contribs) 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? - Rjd0060 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Articles

Can someone tell me how to find a previous deletion debate for a recreated page? The Afd page is only ordered by date & I don't know even roughly when the debate occurred. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the page? If it was deleted as result of an AfD discussion, the discussion page should be in the articles' deletion log. Anyways, just type:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article title here

in the search bar, and it should bring it up. - Rjd0060 23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just done this and it redirects to the new AfD. This may be a problem with Twinkle & I have notified its author. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the page? - Rjd0060 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I found it. But according to this, you moved the page from the original nom, to the second nomination. - Rjd0060 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Twinkle insisted on calling it a 2nd nom, perhaps. There's nothing behind the redirect anyhow, I've looked. All a bit arsy-versy and it appears it had been previously speedied. I've left a note on the Afd explaining this. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see you left a note on the TW page, and that should be fine. But I really don't think twinkle would move a page (which is what has happened). Twinkle would just create the page with the title "2nd nomination". - Rjd0060 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I moved the page because Twinkle told me the Afd already existed and it would have to be "2nd nomination". Can't actually remember the dynamics of it now, it's a long time ago, and everything now seems to be as it should be. Probably better left until User:AzaToth gets back to it. Certainly the Afd can be seen & its creator has been notified. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better pic for Template:Conflict Analysis and Resolution Project?

Can anyone think of a better pic to use for Template:Conflict Analysis and Resolution Project? I haven't been able to find anything... Thanks, Sarsaparilla 04:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Confused

I am very much a newbie at Wikipedia, but have been editing some pages. I'm fairly sure I'm doing stuff wrong or that is frowned upon. In an effort to improve my contributions, I sought out Help and Forums. Help is OK, but seems very specific and limited. What I mostly got out of it is to be "bold," which may be bad advice to someone like me. Are there any forums or newsgroups where people are complaining about how other Wikipedia editors are behaving? I could learn a lot about community expectations in a place like that.

I came to this forum with a specific question. I clicked on the link at the top of the page for Wikipedia:Ask a question, and was taken to a personal user page that seemed to have nothing to do with it. There was no mention there of even asking a question, much less any instructions on how to do it.

My question is, when I edited the page Egyptian cobra, the reference I created did not appear properly on the page. I asked why on the Talk Page, but no one has responded (big surprise). I can see no difference in what I wrote there, and other references I have written that worked properly. Can anyone tell me what I did wrong?

Apologies if I'm posting this in the wrong place, or am wasting your time. Prignillius 14:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference doesn't show up because there was no reference tag on the page. In general, ref tags are collected and displayed wherever the <references /> tag is placed. I went ahead and put the references tag on the page by using the template {{reflist}}. But a thumbs-up to you for knowing how to reference things properly. In the future, I'd advise you to use some of the citation templates listed at WP:CIT. Just take one of those templates and put it between a ref tag, and you're good to go. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for fixing that page! Also, thanks a lot for the pointer to the citation templates. I will go fix the citations I have made. Prignillius (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most pages are watched by multiple people so that blatant errors will be recognized, so being bold is OK. But it is admirable that you have come here. Thanks for asking. If you ever need direct help, please contact me at my talk page and I'll do what I can. --Kevin Murray 14:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is a very kind offer. You may rest assured that I'm going to take you up on it. Prignillius (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any time you have a question on a talk page, just click the little tab at the top with a + sign on it; this creates a new section header (the little box on top) and gives you a box into which you type your question, remark, comment, concern, whatever; and automatically puts it at the bottom of the talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the tip, Orange Mike! Prignillius (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non member needs page changed - personal information

I'm not a member of Wiki and I discovered today that someone had posted my name and the name of a book I wrote on the Xavier House Publishing (Kentucky)page on Wiki (I cancelled the contract on having them publish the book). I'd like to get the reference to the "sixth book" 16-3-3 and my name removed without joining Wiki. Can someone do that for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.3.8 (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've removed that paragraph from the article since it wasn't sourced and since the book was unpublished, it wouldn't really belong on the article about the publisher. Tra (Talk) 22:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with a certain page working

Hello.

On the page Moshe Shmuel Glasner, there is a problem getting the page to display properly.

In the first section, "Method of Study", there is an entire first paragraph that shows up on the edit but not on the normal page.

Sections four and five, in their entirety, show up under edit, but do not show up on the normal view.

Additionally, several pieces of information under "Resources" and "References" do not show up.

In other words, there is content that DOES show up under Edit, but this content does not show up under the normal viewable page, and I cannot figure out why.

I have been able to determine, however, that if I paste this same content elsewhere on the same page, or on the Sandbox, it does not show up there either. Therefore, the problem seems to be not with where the text is, but rather the text itself contains some character that prevents its being displayed properly.

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much! Sevendust62 (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I found a missing </ref> tag but it was fine. I counted the paragraphs and they are the same for edit mode and article mode. Thus, I suspect that you are continuing to see a prior cached version of the article. Try bypassing your browser's cache (ctrl+F5 on many computers) and see if that doesn't solve the problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I had already deleted all my Temporary Internet Files, and this did not work. I also just now tried the ctrl+F5, to no avail. The fact is, new edits DO show up. If I edit section 2 or 3 or 6, etc., the new changes do show up. It is only sections 1, 4, and 5 that have these errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevendust62 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the page, and look at the table of contents at the top, you'll see that sections 4 and 5 are nameless. Click them, and you'll be brought lower in the page, where you'll see two section division lines, without any text. Click Edit, and you'll see that indeed, there is a large amount of text to be shown. Similarly, in section one, click Edit and you'll see an entire paragraph missing in the normal view.Sevendust62 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I say paragraph, I mean in the convention sense of two blocks of text with a blank line between them. When there is a section flanked with the two equal signs, I refer to this as a section. Thus, sections 4 and 5 show no text at all except in edit mode, and section 1 shows an entire paragraph in edit mode, that is missing in normal view. Sevendust62 (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite several attempts at solving this problem, and almost as many claims that it is in fact fixed, this problem continues. I have tried totally retyping the text from scratch, but this accomplished nothing. Any help is tremendously appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevendust62 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered that in printable view, all the text shows up. Therefore, I invite anyone please to compare the normal and printable views; one will notice that the printable view has text (in sections 1, 4, 5, resources, and references) not present in the normal view. Sevendust62 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Apparently the problem is only on my computer. I have fully up-to-date IE7 and Firefox. The following screenshots show what I am using, but what no other user sees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rabbi_glasner_problem_one.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rabbi_glasner_problem_two.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rabbi_glasner_problem_three.JPG 15:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Grammar help

Please help by fixing the grammar/punctuation of the following sentence:

Players not only control combat units ranging from infantry and tanks to helicopters, fighters and bombers, armored trains, surface warships and submarines, stationary gun turrets; but—especially in the later—games—also many support units, including ammo and fuel transports, scout and radar units, road and trench construction vehicles, and others.

Thanks a lot! SharkD (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this text appear? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical wargame (note, I edited it a little, so the errors may not be as striking). I spliced the text together from bits found at Battle Isle series. SharkD (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<proposed change>Players have the ability to control combat units of many types, including tanks, jet fighters, bombers, helicopters, armored trains, surface warships, submarines, stationary gun turrets and infantry. Especially in games appearing later in the Battle Isle series, players can also direct support units, including among others, ammo and fuel transports, scout and radar units and road and trench construction vehicles.</proposed change>--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design sockpuppet attack?

Suddenly, a number of different editors have taken to deleting whole sections of the Intelligent Design article, all using the same language. If somebody puts the section back, a different editor appears and deletes the section. I'm not a regular there, so I don't know what to do, and I don't know where else to report this suspected sockpuppet attack. Please help. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:AN/I. Thanks This is a Secret ^account 04:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I know I'm right!"

I'm trying to help a newbie editor who's changing a lot of articles because, well because... "I know I'm right and the reference works are embarassingly wrong!" Is there a policy essay I can refer him/her to that covers this? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V, WP:RS, This is a Secret ^account 17:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN. Corvus cornix_talk 18:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I was doing stuff like that, I had an editor explain the rules to me (which I am shure you have done) and then invite me to contribute with cited articles that reflected what I thought was right. he kinda worded it like "that is a really interesting point, however we need a citation to back it up...what do you have?" needless to say, I couldn't find anything that held up, and what killed most of my arguments was WP:SYNTH.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of fictional historical events

Would some kind sysop please send me a copy of the deleted article Timeline of fictional historical events or tell me where to find a mirror? Or just undelete it of course, but I don't suppose you'll go for that. Thanks. -Itsjusttheonce (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is User:Dynamite XI/Timeline of fictional historical events.--Patrick (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -Itsjusttheonce (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how can I get a word added to the dictionary?

affectionate...to show physical signs of affection by kissing, cuddling, patting, etc. affectionated....to have been the object of physical affection,ie, kissing, cuddling, patting, etc. affectionation...the act of showing physical signs of affection, ie kissing, cuddling, hugging, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.140.159 (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a place to publicize something you made up one day. To get a new word into use, you need to use it, and urge others to use it. Dictionaries report what words are used, not what words somebody thinks should be used. (And "affectionate" is already a word, an adjective, with an entirely different meaning; your chances are pretty much zero here.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the correct image license?

Image:Twinkle-rollback.png This is the first time I've uploaded an image, and I need to know if it has the correct license. Any help is appreciated. --EoL talk 01:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double fracture

Can someone please fix the references at UN Parliamentary Assembly so they conform to WP:MOS? I promise I'll return the favor the next time you fall off a ladder right when your WP:FAC is pending. :) Where's my Dragon Natural Speaking... Sarsaparilla (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the question about wikipedia statistics

Hello, I am a graduate school student of MBA from Taiwan. I and my advisor, Professor Chu, are interested in the diffusion phenomenon of your famous wikipedia website very much. I and my advisor and have some questions about the diffusion data from this URL below,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia

we hope we could apply the formal diffusion model from management science to figure out your successful story. We believe your wonderful experiences could provide people a lot of great intuition if people could apply a proper academic research to figure it out.

At the bottom of this website, there is a data set, describing the

shape of Wikipedia growth in the domain of English. It make me have two questions from this data set. First of all, faced with this data set, I can hardly distinguish the numbers of size is from auto-posting robot, the Rambot, or from the real people. Could you help me to

obtain the data which have already disassembled those two different

processes of data (edited by program and editing by human being)?

Second, what makes me so confused is that the formation of dates is

irregular. I was wondering why the pattern of the data set appears in that way. Is there anything happening inside those irregular data? Could you provide me further story or idea which may help me to figure it out?

Thank you for your response in advance. I hope I can get acquainted with the statistics of Wikipedia which can help us to explore the nature about the diffusion condition of Wikipedia.

Once again, thank you very much.

Best wishes, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiewi (talk • contribs) 06:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Vandalism

Hi, i have read the WP: Vandalsim page and still didn't figure out exactly what i should do with an anonymous IP adress i could trace and everything, but didn't know what to do. Can you help me? I'm quite new and beggining to edit and want to help fight vandalism :)

The question is: exactly what actions should i take after correcting the vandalism? Creating a userpage with the IP adress?

@@ Line 271: / Line 271: @@
 Best wishes,  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jackiewi|Jackiewi]] ([[User talk:Jackiewi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jackiewi|contribs]]) 06:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Dealing with Vandalism ==
+Hi, i have read the WP: Vandalsim page and still didn't figure out exactly what i should do with an anonymous IP adress i could trace and everything, but didn't know what to do. Can you help me? I'm quite new and beggining to edit and want to help fight vandalism :)
+The question is: exactly what actions should i take after correcting the vandalism? Creating a userpage with the IP adress?