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.

Ask a question

April 17

Question

Just a quick question here, Resurr Section (talk · contribs) has been going to articles about current events and removing the current event tag an he states "rate of edits does not justify current event tag" is that true or not because he has removed tags from several pages?--Cheers Kyle1278 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what he means by "rate of edits does not justify current event tag"; however most of his edits seem to be okay, as he has been removing the {{currentevent}} tags where the event mentioned was over a week past, and no longer recent. You might want to tell him on his talk page that there's a discussion over here involving him, and invite him to give a response. tempodivalse [☎] 01:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. "current event" tags are only needed when the edit frequency is really high (one edit oper minute or more.) I tagged the Intel Core i7 article when the press embargo was realeased, but nobody cared, and normal editing sufficed. -Arch dude (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Free/Fair use?

Resolved

 – user directed to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for a more nuanced answer

Alright, so I'm basically an idiot when it comes to using images. I'm currently working on GRB 970228. I would like to use this graph in the article. Should I email the authors of the article? Should I just call it fair use? Or free use? Should I try to recreate the graph myself? Yipe! Thanks. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright law is strange. It protects "creative elements," but not "facts." You cannot directly copy those images. You can ask the authors to contribute them to Commons under the appropriate licence. Alternatively, you can request their permision and then add the images to Commons on their behalf, but the "paperwork" involved is horrendous. You can also extract the factual information from the graphs into a table, and then create your own graph from the textual information: the resulting graph will not violate copyright, since facts cannot be copyrighted. If you choose to do this, you MUST carefully attribute your work to the orignal authors. Failure to attibute constitutes Plagiarism. Plagiarism is not a crime, but it is not tolerated on Wikipedia or in most academic and professional settings. It's clear from your question that you have not inention to commit plagiarim or to violate copyright law: my response an attempt to explain the situation, not to cast aspersions. If you would like help with this, pleae respond on my talk page-Arch dude (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as you don't do it too much, limited use of external links such as this are OK. Policy expressly states that such links, which link to copyrighted information which is germaine to an article but which could not be directly included in the article, may be included as an external link in the "External Links" section of the article. See WP:ELYES, number 3. One hundred such links may be excessive, but one or two seems like a good idea. Just link to the actual graph in the External Links section, give a clear description of the link, and that should work for your purposes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the image originally appeared in Nature. I believe that I am only able to access the image (and the article it appears in) because I have a subscription to the database through my university. Readers without such a subscription would not be able to view the graph unless it was uploaded directly. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case you may have a problem. You may be able to create your own graph from Nature's raw data, and cite the Nature article as your original source; but that may be still considered a "derivative work" under copyright policy, and may not work. I am no expert in these matters, but the people who patrol Wikipedia:Media copyright questions usually are. If you ask this question there, and explain all of the details as you did above, they may be able to walk you through the finer points of copyright as it applies to this situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks mates. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of service! I'll be marking this as resolved then! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing my mother's article.

I tried to edit the entry on my mother, Dorothy Uhnak; tried to delete the word "reportedly" in re: her death. I am her daughter; I was there. Do I need to produce a copy of the coroners' report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TracyElizaabeth (talk • contribs) 02:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source of some sort if you wish to include substantial information to the article. However, if you are a close relative of the person in question, I would advise not to edit that article at all, as our conflict of interest policy discourages that. tempodivalse [☎] 02:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We are sorry for your loss. Our policies may seem a bit strange, but please bear with us. You are free to edit the article to correct or remove any unattributed assertion, without regard to your "conflict of interest." (WP:COI). However, if an assertion in the article has a reference to a "reliable source" (WP:RS,) then you must not change that assertion yourself. Instead, you should discuss the problem on the talk page of the article. If that does not work, Please come back here for help -Arch dude (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you cite a newspaper obituary, that should be reliable enough of a source. Per WP:WEASELWORDS, you may have stylistic reasons for not including such terms. Try rewording the sentance into more neutral terms, such as "According to their Anytown News obituary, they died from XXXX" and cite the actual obituary as described at WP:CITE. If you are having trouble with the technical aspects of doing so, leave as much information as you can at the article talk page, and a more experienced editor can help you out. Heck, if you contact me at my talk page, I'll see what I can do to straigten it all out. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for your help. I'm brand new to Wikipedia. I just felt that since my mother was a stickler for honesty, I'd try to set the record straight, but will respect the "conflict of interest" clause.TracyElizaabeth (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Likewise very sorry for your loss. I gather you want to change the sentence "Uhnak died in Greenport, New York, reportedly of a deliberate drug overdose" to read "Uhnak died in Greenport, New York, of a deliberate drug overdose"? I think that, since the claim is cited, there would be no problem with this. A problem might emerge if you disputed the claim, in which case it would be best to say reportedly so that readers understand that the claim comes from a newspaper reporter and not from the family or a coroner. However, in this case it sounds as if you're the source of the newspaper report so you're unlikely to dispute what they're saying - does that sound correct? I'd suggest that you could go ahead and remove "reportedly", unless someone else objects? In fact, if no one objects I'll go ahead and remove it.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think editing an article of a relative in regard to publicly verifiable information is in violation of the Conflict of Interest Policies - just my view. If we followed a rule about verifying dates of death all the time, there'd be a lot of missing dates or citation needed tags, as most people don't bother to link to obituaries (etc.) to verify a death that is known to them to have happened. Anyway, since there is already a citation for her death, adding a word or taking out a word (as an editor) shouldn't be a problem, but do click on that "discussion" button up at the top of the page (next to "article") and leave your reasons there.Levalley (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

squamous interaepithelial lesion

Resolved

 – Wrong venue, consider asking your question at the Science reference desk. However, please be aware that Wikipedia cannot offer medical advice. Thanks, tempodivalse [☎] 03:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How can a pap smear show squamous interaepithelial lesion is a low or high grade?Nadialittle (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Science reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Additionally We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer. Contact your General Practitioner. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ip talk page

My friend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:173.79.58.33 needs help. 173 has been blocked for deleting their own user & disc pages. Ive dealt with jayron32 so I know how much of an ass he is; & jay32 continues to show it in his post on 173's page ( this is my personal opiinion though so I wont elaborate, but do read what jay wrote ). Anyways 173 want to communicate strictly thru wiki,(very strongly emphasized this 2 me, 173 doesnt want 2 be personally emailling any1) & since jay has overreacted & blocked ip isnt able to post on the arbitration page nor edit their own disc page. 173 wants the block reviewed & reverted so that 173 may still contact arbitration; as well as for jay to be talked to. 173 says how is editing their own page a disruption 2 wiki when wiki rules say that editing 1's own page is allowed. 70.108.62.201 (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC) — 70.108.62.201 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Need I mention now that the above IP has been blocked for block evasion, or is that obvious at this point. If the above user wishes to have their block reviewed, there is a list of email addresses listed at WP:ARBCOM. He may choose any arbitrator he wishes, type the email address into his favorite email program, and ask for a review of his block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, if he is concerned about email security, free throw-away email accounts are availible at http://mail.yahoo.com . --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally the user is mistaken in thinking he is allowed to delete messages at User talk:173.79.58.33. That page does not belong to any one user; rather it is shared by several people in the Verizon Internet Services, Washington DC pool. The messages on the page are addressed potentially to all the anonymous users who use the IP. If he deleted the messages, they would not be available to the other users.

If the user is not a blocked user, he should create an account and login. That way he would not be bothered by messages intended for someone else. —teb728 t c 05:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Jayron: 173 says : I dont want email communication. I want all done through wiki. You have incorrectly taken this ability away. When did I edit war?
Now I am speaking: 1)I told 173 they need 2 report u jim wales, as jw is in charge not you. Also, what about civility? Reread your rude comment and edit summary. You really this 1 should create a whole new email account just for arbitration, that is crazy. 2)U r mistaken. 173 does own his page. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space . It says quote :

Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users, and can encourage further disruption; removal of template warnings is rarely an urgent or important matter, and it is often best to simply let the matter rest if other disruption stops.

U need 2 undo your wrong block, apologise, & step back.
Teb: wiki doesnt require having an account to participate. 173 was blocked wrongly again by jayron. If u look u'll c there was no edit war. 173 blanked then it was reverted by my stalker then j32 blocked 4 1 month. 173 wanted all their comments deleted & all comments posted to 173 deleted. j32 has a problem with that, but j ill just have 2 deal bc it is allowed. 70.108.88.137 (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you continue to evade your block User:lilkunta, anytime your 70.108.0.0/16 IP's come back, they will be blocked on sight by administrators. Momusufan (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding ISBNs

Resolved

 – Manuel-aa5 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello community,

every scientific text starts with ISBN-searching. In most cases the author is so stupid, that his text is a summary of the ISBNs. That was traditional scientific work; but what's about Wikipedia? Its the same! Step 1 means to search ISBNs for {{unreferenced}} articles. This work is very cool, but these ISBN will never be deleted in future. Even if a very controversal author wants to start an edit war -- he will be using the given ISBNs to make his work much better.

I've read some guides to Wikipedia:Bots and found out, that searching for good ISBNs can't be done by robots. The maximum of machine intelligence is, to find articles without book-references or format a given ISBN into {{citation}} template. Consequence is, that ISBN adding for existing wikipedia-articles is a work for real man. Isn't it? --Manuel-aa5 (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. If you are asking if it is OK to add ISBN information to articles where it is needed in book references, but is not currently there, Be our guest. I see this as rather uncontroverial wiki-gnomeish behavior, and could be rather useful. Have you been trying to do this and get constantly reverted? Are you asking something different? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me to be more explicit: I think that Wiki-articles without any ISBNs are anti-scientific. I think that in general, Wikipedia needs a system to motivate people to add good ISBNs to existing articles. One possible is to count all added Books and for every 50. ISBN the author gets an surprise: e.g. a photo of lesbian wikipedians or a sunflower logo or whatever. The main idea is to channellize the working hours of article authors into ISBN searching. Not into writing more or longer texts. That's the same what Jimmy Wales said with: "Quality first".--Manuel-aa5 (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "anti-scientific". If the reference is a book with an ISBN, then the ISBN should certainly be part of the citation. Older books may not have an ISBN and news articles and scientific papers do not. I certainly don't need any more surprises in Wikipedia. --Gadget850 (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your idea to motivate users to perform many small tasks that are currently difficult to automate sounds similar to the Amazon Mechanical Turk. Wikipedia also has a great need for tools that can simplify citation formatting to a mouse click (that is, if I'm looking at a document in one browser tab, and I want to cite it on Wikipedia, I should only have to click once to get the filled-out citation template). We have some Citation tools that help to some degree, but I haven't seen one that works reliably on every type of reference. Like the other two responders, I don't understand your emphasis on ISBN number, as only a fraction of Wikipedia citations are to books. Digital object identifiers and other schemes cover many other types of references. You might find {{Google scholar cite}} to be useful - sometimes it finds useful references, and sometimes it can generate filled-out citation templates for some of them. Perhaps as Wikipedia becomes more and more important, maybe all the world's content publishers will try to make their content easy for us to cite, by embedding metadata that our citation tools can parse. --Teratornis (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Page layout

Discussion moved to village pump technical noticeboard.

Articles for deletion

Normally I'd ask this on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, but because I'm so desperate to get the hell out of here right now and I would like a faster reply, I'll ask here instead. When you nominate an article for deletion and the contributors have each not made more than 2 edits to the article, how do you know who to notify? Especially if the contributors who have made "major contributions" made them three years ago? --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd recommend informing the creator. If that user hasn't been around lately, the most recent editor might be more appropriate. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or are some pages broken

For example I try to open Hypomania and my browser (IE 6.0.2900 behind a corporate firewall) reads it as a binary file to download. On downloading, the page is clearly not HTML. --203.202.43.54 (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And now it's working again. Oh well, I suspect it's an artifact of the corporate interwebs filterizer. --203.202.43.54 (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I would still suggest downloading IE7 or IE8 (I strongly recommend the latter), as sticking to the version of the browser you're using not only causes problems viewing webpages, it is potentially dangerous for your computer. Or alternately, you could switch to Firefox. Of course, it all depends if your boss allows you to. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 05:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problems reading WP in IE6.0 You should probably create an account and make sure you have your settings set correctly so that it opens such pages for editing, rather than download them. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

how can I help a user whose edits are almost always incorrect?

This user is not a vandal, appears to be very sincere and enthusiastic, but has no grasp of grammar or sentence structure.

Estiveo (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You have following options: (1) Let him doing what's he want. (2) What's about sighted versions? (3) Put a grammar-style on his usertalk. (4) Write a Bot to recognize the wrong edits (Like the grammar correction in M$-Word). (4) Post a link to some well written literature storys. (e.g. Nabokov "The chess player",The wizard of oz) to his user talk page. --Manuel-aa5 (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

patiently correcting the grammar/style of his/her edits is certainly one way; and/or if you feel up to "adopting" the user you could propose collaborating in his/her sandbox to get his/her contributions properly worded before he/she puts them in articles. or if you're running out of patience yourself, maybe the WP:Adopt-a-user program can help. Sssoul (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You may want to read the essay WP:COMPETENCE. I haven't figured out what to do about such editors myself, but it's my belief that—after the problems have been thoroughly discussed with the user, perhaps with a suggestion that he/she stops editing until he/she develops a better grasp of English—blocking is an option if the problems persist. Continuing to make edits that require cleanup by other users can rise to the level of disruption. Without more information about this case, I can't give a specific opinion on it, of course. Deor (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For some insight into what you might be up against, see: Dunning-Kruger effect - if the theory applies to a particular person, that is if a person cannot recognize his or her own incompetence, then persuasion alone may be a very weak tool. Wikipedia tends to screen out many if not most incompetent people by virtue of its daunting user interface. (Incidentally, this is why I view the user-friendliness initiative with some trepidation - useful improvements might result from the initiative, but if it succeeds in lowering the technical barrier to entry, it might have the unintended consequence of unleashing upon Wikipedia a larger sample of the general population's incompetence. Once upon a time, e-mail was also difficult to use, and as a consequence most of it was reasonably well-formatted and grammatical. Eventually e-mail became accessible to the masses, and the result is in your inbox every day.) Another way that Wikipedia defends itself against incompetence is via the emotional impact of reverting someone's contributions. Most people probably find it vexing to say the least when they contribute something to Wikipedia, and someone else clobbers it. A person whose every edit quickly gets reverted will probably soon lose interest and leave. If this isn't working for the incompetent editor you have in mind, one option might be to get him or her interested in taking photographs instead. However, a certain amount of competence is necessary for that as well. Someone who is irredeemably clueless might end up being one of those "negatively productive people" that Fred Brooks wrote about. (A negatively productive person is someone whose every hour of labor requires other workers to spend at least an hour cleaning it up.) --Teratornis (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I back SSSoul's suggestion on this. Provided that the content is good (encyclopaedic, worth keeping) except for the use of language, the person need not be hounded out by being "clobbered" all the time. Approach them through their Talk to offer some help with the language use, and if they need more help than you can offer, send them to the adoption program.

Manuel-aa5 has made a few small errors, and nobody's seen fit to pull him up on them. He can ask me, if he wants to know what they were.KoolerStill (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of Believer's baptism

who does one object to. If they question the neutrality of the article "believers baptism" ? Every time i add valid arguments against it. in the places meant for that that other have .

mine must be to powerful more than just a straw man because they delite them.

And leave only the ones by reformed protestants which they themselves also are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.141.196 (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments have been removed because you're not allowed to use an article to argue your position. This is an encyclopedia, and not a debate. If content is not supported by reliable sources, it is removed. If you post your personal opinions on a Wikipedia article, it will be removed. See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

since that article exhibits a dire shortage of in-line references, it's not very clear whether/how much is based on reliable sources - so it's no surprise if the person asking the question is baffled by his/her edits being removed for being unsourced. meanwhile, just to answer the original question of how to challenge the neutrality of an article: if talk-page discussions aren't fruitful, Template:POV_check would be one possible route. i've never tried it myself, but ... well, it exists. Sssoul (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion articles in general are prone to conflicts of interest, because someone who truly believes in a particular religion would have to act against his or her beliefs to be neutral about it. You might find some help in these WikiProjects:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion - "WikiProject Religion ... seeks to ensure NPOV across articles related to religion."
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism#Scope - "We will also help prevent religion-based censorship throughout Wikipedia."

--Teratornis (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Template to fix

Resolved

 – Problem was resolved at User talk:Equendil#Re:Your Help Desk request regarding Template:Country data Chechnya. tempodivalse [☎] 20:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem in Template:Country data Chechnya. --Aushulz (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What would the problem be ? That's not immediately obvious to me. Equendil Talk 12:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, could you please be a bit more specific: what is the problem, exactly? Then perhaps we may be able to help you. I currently don't see anything wrong with the template. tempodivalse [☎] 18:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Tankman Picture

The famous Tankman picture has recently been removed from the People's Republic of China article and the Human rights in the People's Republic of China article citing article 2 of the fair use in images, which says not to use "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)". Does that rule apply here, for a picture as historically important as this one? Should it be limited to use in articles about the man himself or the protests, despite it describing political implications that went well beyond those two articles? TastyCakes (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are the changes made in the file's fair use description: [1] TastyCakes (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll get better feedback at WP:MCQ. The question is whether the Tiananmen Square protests illustrate the human rights situation in China. Or ask the user who made those changes. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll ask at MCQ. The user has discussed it at Talk:People's Republic of China, I think he's pretty set in his opinion. TastyCakes (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Names

I am looking to start a new Wikipedia page on a specific person. There is already a page on a person with the same name. My person is different from this person. How do I start a page on someone with the same names as someone with a current page.

Ex. I want to start one on Bob Smith. There is already a Bob Smith, but mine's different. Where do I begin?

Lepo21 (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:DISAMBIG should give you some answers. Basically, if a new Bob Smith is an actor but the old Bob Smith is a baseball player, you might consider putting the new Bob Smith at Bob Smith (actor). If there's already a Bob Smith who's an actor, you might disambiguate this at Bob Smith (actor born 1888), for example. And as always, be sure to take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You need to disambiguate the name, and create the article as "Bob Smith (activity)" , see the many John Smith's for instance. Make sure your article adheres to our policy regarding biographies of living people before you do that and if the case applies, and otherwise our guideline regarding biographies. Equendil Talk 14:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation Issue

I've checked the FAQs extenisively and can't seem to figure out my citation issues. I've been editing the Blackbird (online journal) page. I've tried to clarify the sources by adding more precise citations; however, I still seem to be getting the message "This article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate." Is it because I'm only providing a link to the source and not detailed information about the source within the citation? I would assume this is the case, but I've checked some other literary journal pages (for example, Shenandoah (magazine)) on wikipedia and their citations seem to be in line with what I've been doing and their page doesn't have the unclear sources message. I'm trying to update the Blackbird page so that it will be in compliance with the featured content requirements. Thank you for your time and assistance.

Here are links to Blackbird and Shenandoah's wikipedia pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbird_(journal)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenandoah_(magazine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctcahill (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The tag is a template that another editor added to the article. However, it appears that the issue has been addressed, so you can remove the tag by removing the {{nofootnotes}} from the top of the page. It also appears that you are citing webpages, you may want to look at {{cite web}} as a better way to format your references. TNXMan 16:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The tags do not appear and disappear automatically; as Tnxman said, an editor places them manually on an article if he feels they have issues/problems. You have to remove them manually after you think you have addressed the issues. Looking over your article, I'd say that you've referenced it well enough, so you can remove the tag. However, you might want to take a look at {{Cite web}} for a tidier way to cite sources. tempodivalse [☎] 16:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I started a discussion recently to add a link to those templates to discuss how to remove them, but I seem to have lost it. --Gadget850 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid I have added back a couple of tags - see the article's talk page for discussion.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fresh start

I would like to make a fresh start here, because I've forgotten the password of account of a puppetmaster which is me. However I'm afraid that I'll get blocked permanentley because of socking. 78.148.102.206 (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You should probably post this at WP:ANI - admins are in control of the block button. – ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that user accounts only get associated with other user accounts based on two things. 1) The WP:DUCK test and 2) Checkuser. Checkusers only get run if it is believed that there is a reason to check; if you are not misbehaving AND if you do not act in a way that makes it clear who you are, then no checkuser will ever get run which may catch you. They aren't done just to check if someone is maybe socking, only when there is evidence of socking which needs to be confirmed. So, if you intend to only run one account, if you avoid the former areas of conflict, and if you never behave in a way that draws attention to yourself, you should not have a problem. However, most people who claim to want a "clean start" find themselves editing the same articles in the same way with their new accounts, which is a "dead giveaway". I am not endorsing that you violate the WP:BLOCK policy; but it should be noted that not getting caught is really not that hard... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that showing up at the talk page of one of your blocked accounts with your very first edit is NOT the way to go about not getting noticed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the majority of editors here are a forgiving group of people within reason. We enjoy seeing people turn bad habits into good habits. I'd think that if you approached the blocking admin, or the community at large as ukexpat said - that there would be a good chance of your being accepted back into the fold. jayron32 mentions some very valuable information here, and most of the editors here are not out to get anyone, or derail any good faith edits. Without knowing your history, I'd also mention that there are some very good mentor-ship programs that may be of some use. see: Wikipedia:Mentorship. Welcome back, and best of luck. — Ched :  ?  20:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions form Shadow Bloop

How is rice developed?

Please HELP me out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freak Show14 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Our article about rice might tell you what you want to know. Just click the link to go to the article. tempodivalse [☎] 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We're glad to point you in the directions to research your questions, unfortunately we're not really supposed to do WP:HOMEWORK. — Ched :  ?  21:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know what Shadow Bloop is? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No user named Shadow Bloop I could find. I found a YouTube Shadow BLOOP as in a blooper reel, but I have no idea what it has to do with the price of rice in China .... or how rice is developed for that matter. ;) — Ched :  ?  16:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I also found that and was equally puzzled when it had nothing to do with rice. Cheers, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

search

I was wondering, is there any search bar for information in an already selected page? For example, under the page European Union, I am looking for a phrase "was declared to be a first step in the federation of Europe". Can I find it directly without reading the whole page? Is there a search bar?

thank you

21:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbluestein (talk • contribs)

This feature is included in most browsers. ctrl-f generally works. Algebraist 21:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ctrl+F --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Most Rural States in the U.S.

In the 1990's West Virginia was classified as the 2nd most rural state in the U.S. I believe New Hampshire was # one.

In 2009, what are the most rural states in the U.S. ? What is West Virginia ranked in ruralness ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.162.132 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Miscellaneous reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

April 18

TYPHO

Resolved

 – Probably was vandalism, it has been removed. Thanks for pointing it out. tempodivalse [☎] 18:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics Mice range in size from 1000 ft to 2100 ft long.

I was reading and i came along this. MICE THATS THE KEYWORD

REALLY ??? 1000 FT LONG MOUSE INTERESTING LOL LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU CHANGE IT im still interested =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.126.77 (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Could you please provide a link to the article in question. There is a chance that the article has been vandalized or something like that. You, or one of us, could fix it, if you helped us find the problem... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I went to the most likely culprit, mouse, and sure enough... Reverted and warned.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Need some help

Im involved in a online game community where its page is at www.spartansfleet.com How can i create or submit information so when people google "spartansfleet" a wikipedia result shows up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagadis (talk • contribs) 09:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't. In order to achieve such a result an article would need to be on Wikipedia about the website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source by definition, and as such it only contains articles on subjects that are already known in the wider world by having been been the subject of substantive publication in multiple, real world, reliable sources (newpspapers, magazines, books, documentaries, academic journals, etc.) that are completely independent from the subject (meaning a website and anything written by it members are invalid sources on itself). We have a guideline for web pages to see if they meet our inclusion standards at Wikipedia:Notability (web). I took a look at some of the things we check into to see whether a website is a valid subject of an article and found that the site you mention does not appear to be. With only 18 Google web hits and none to reliable sources, no news or book hits, no other sies that are found through Google to link to yours, only 1,831 members, and not in the top 100,000 websites by traffic ranking (per Alexa), it is very unlikely the website is a proper article subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

free public,criminal,and health records

I have been searching the internet for hours looking for a web site that provides public, criminal,and\or health records free of charge and have failed to find any such site or state\federal government organization which can or will provide this information. Can you help me out please in finding this website,organization, or any information that will help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.234.250 (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You can try asking at the reference desk, since this page is only for help in using Wikipedia. I think it's highly unlikely that you will find such a site though, because of privacy laws that would prevent such information being published freely on the internet. Chamal ^talk 10:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Steal ISBNs from Britannica?

In Wikipedia there are many articles with {{unreferenced}} box. Is it possible to steal the missing ISBNs from Encyclopedia Britannica? --Manuel-aa5 (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You can always reference the Encyclopaedia Britannica, yes. Was that what you meant? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) An ISBN isn't something that needs to be "stolen", you can find information on how to add the ISBN at Wikipedia:ISBN. Anything that has the {{unreferenced}} tag, or {{fact}} tags attached to it can be fixed if you have a reliable source which verifies the information. You can read about references at WP:REF. — Ched :  ?  15:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles usually need to be fixed by some kind of literature search. If Google does not lead you to an appropriate reliable source online which can be cited, you may have to find books in the library. One you know the correct book to cite, the ISBN is easy to get. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

One problem is with multiple editions, each with their own ISBN. Page numbers may not match, text may have been edited and even the title of the book may have changed. The ISBN should be from the book that you actually used to make the reference. Please don't just grab a number and stuff it in just to fill the blank. --Gadget850 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think when the questioner writes "steal the missing ISBNs from Encyclopedia Britannica", the questioner means: on seeing a Wikipedia article with the {{unreferenced}} template, look at the corresponding Britannica article, see its sources, and cite the same sources from the Wikipedia article. Since anybody can cite a source, citing the same source that someone else cites would not constitute "stealing". However, a source that Britannica cites may or may not apply to the corresponding article in Wikipedia - that would depend on whether the Wikipedia article makes similar factual claims which the source would support. To determine that, one would have to read the source document. If all you know is that Britannica cites a source document, and you cannot access the document (because it's not online, and not at your library, etc.), then you should not cite the source from Wikipedia, because you would not know exactly what you are citing. --Teratornis (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, since Britannica is a commercial competitor of Wikipedia, and would benefit commercially if Wikipedia were to fail, it's probably best not to even look at copyrighted Britannica editions when editing on Wikipedia, to minimize any possibility of inadvertent plagiarism. Instead you might restrict yourself to looking at older Britannica editions that are out of copyright, such as the 1911 edition. --Teratornis (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I would mirror what Teratornis has said. It is bad form to include a book as a reference to something if you didn't even open the book yourself. Possibly valid as a "further reading" addition, but not as a reference. However, based on several comments made by the OP on this and other places, he seems to have a serious misunderstanding about what ISBN is. ISBN is nothing more than a serial number assigned to a book. It provides a unique identifier for a specific printing and edition of a book, and nothing more than that. It is not a statement of reliability or anything else. The OP seems to feel that ISBN is somehow a "magic bullet" which has some sort of mystical usage if applied to references at Wikipedia articles. Many older books have no ISBN numbers, but it does not make them unreliable! Where availible, when using a book as a reference, it is a fine idea to add the ISBN number as part of the Bibliographic information where it is availible. But to just drop ISBN numbers into articles as though they are somehow some sort of magic pixie dust which will somehow make articles that have them better seems like a weird idea indeed! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I may be going off on a tangent here in regards to the OP (Original Poster)'s question - but it may have some value too. We don't want to use Britannica as a direct reference since it's a tertiary source itself, but rather we'd want to use secondary sources where available. I know that's not directly related to the original question as I understand it - but thought it may be a piece of info worth adding. — Ched :  ?  20:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No. When a Wikipedia editor adds a reference, the Wikipedia editor is implicitly affirming "I have read the cited reference, and I have found that the cited reference supports the assertion in the article." You cannot add the cite to a Wikipedia article based solely on the existance of the cite in the Britanica article. You can cite the Britanica aritcle, or you can go read the reference yourself and then directly cite the reference. You cannot simply cite a reference that you have not read yourself. Note: I have broken this rule myself. When I use a public-domain article from the DNB to create a wikipedia article, I preserve the citations from the origohnal. However, I make a specific notation inthe reference sectin of the article and annotate each reference to indicate that these are "derived" references. -Arch dude (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding an external link

I am attempting to add an external link to the page "Reformed Epistemology". My edit shows up in the preview. But after I click "Save" it does not appear on the site. The page does not appear to be protected. Trainingtimothys (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you pass the captcha? When external links are added, you must enter the captcha password. This is a preventative measure against spambots. tempodivalse [☎] 14:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what you're referring. Your account only has one edit (this post) and the article Reformed epistemology shows that the last edit was on the 16th. Did you hit "save page" at the bottom of the page after making the edit? TNXMan 15:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting an acronym

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I want to create a new page Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard and set up a redirect from PCI DSS - easily done from what I can tell, but is there some sort of etiquette for this sort of thing? Should I also copy across the discussion page? Random name (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've moved the page to Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard and left PCI DSS as a redirect. The talk page has also been moved. The best place to go for guidelines on article titles and such would be this page, but if you have further questions, please feel free to ask here. TNXMan 16:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff - thanks for that TNXMan! Random name (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Just another FYI, you learn about moving pages yourself at Help:Moving a page. TNXMan 16:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How to create a Spoiler Alert???????

Resolved

 – Wikipedia does not warn about spoilers, please see WP:SPOILER. Thanks, tempodivalse [☎] 01:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How do i hide something that can be viewed upon the reader wanting to but not all the time because it is a spoiler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AricNeo (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't. See WP:SPOILER.  GARDEN  20:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)]

(edit conflict) Yes, it is against our policy to provide spoiler alerts. Please see our relevant policy: WP:SPOILER. Hope this helped. tempodivalse [☎] 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a mistake to say "our" policy. There is no editorial board at Wikipedia and this is a matter on which there is no consensus, and merely a temporary (I would say somewhat arbitrary) decision about what to do. It could change someday. I think it's bad policy, so do some other people. I realize that some people believe the decision is entirely consistent with everything else about Wikipedia, but I believe the policy conflicts with the official policy of the Wikipedia Novels Project. Just my view. Anyway, there is no "we" at Wikipedia - it's a huge group of volunteers and it is neither a democracy or a consensus based group. Indeed, it's often hard to know how policy is made - but some of it is not agreed on by everyone.Levalley (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, maybe that was a poor choice of words on my part. When I said "our policy", I really meant to say "Wikipedia's policy". tempodivalse [☎] 22:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Still a poor choice of words. It is (assuming it has consensus which Levalley denies) a Wikipedia style guideline. It doesn't claim to be a policy. —teb728 t c 23:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I saw the check mark template on the WP:SPOILER page and for some reason confused it for {{policy}}. Guess I need to read more carefully. Thanks, tempodivalse [☎] 23:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguating from a possibly non-notable subject

In searching for person Foo (= person1), I found an article on another person of the same name (= person2). person1 may not meet WP notability requirements. It's not clear what to do from WP:DAB and MOS:DABRL. Perhaps {{Otheruses4}} or {{For}} in the lead section of person2, with a red link to person1, to quietly raise the question of whether person1 is notable? (I only know enough myself to write a negligible stub about person1.) Enoent (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes like {{Otheruses4}} and {{For}} should not link to non-existent articles. See Wikipedia:Hatnote#Non-existent articles. If person1 has no biography but has a significant mention in another article then that article might be linked. Disambiguation pages may have red links if other articles have red links to the same target, or if the subject seems clearly notable but nobody has written an article yet. But don't create a disambiguation page if it will only have one blue link. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps specifics will help. person1 is David Plummer, creator of ARP, a notable computer technology in use on hundreds of millions of computers. However, the article on ARP did not cite him—I just added him, per practice on other Internet technology pages—and he is not mentioned anywhere else in WP. person2 is David Plummer, a musician and children's writer. There are at least five more distinct David Plummers referred to in various articles.

My take on my David Plummer is that he is notable enough that other people may search for him and find the musician instead. Likewise, perhaps less so, for the others. MOS:DABRL gives the example of a short definition on a disambiguation page in lieu of a red link; it's not clear if this is the best way to disambiguate a notable person from people notable enough to be mentioned in another article but not notable for an article of their own, or if any disambiguation is called for.

(Let's be clear: I'm less concerned about the Plummers per se than about how such situations should be handled.) Enoent (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Other people with the same name as David Plummer only have very brief mentions in other articles, so I wouldn't make any hatnote or disambiguation page on David Plummer. Readers will just have to use the search box to find the little information we have about them. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Scanning a database dump

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Village pump (technical).

After freeing up about 80GB of disk space, I've downloaded a copy of the March 13 database dump (enwiki-latest-pages-articles.xml.bz2) and have uncompressed it to XML using WinRAR. I'd like to scan it to identify, count, and possibly extract articles whose content match any of several regular expressions and would like to know the most direct path to doing so. Is it mandatory to set up and load the data into MySQL? Is there a way to extract all of the articles to text files and scan them there? Is the a tool for scanning them directly in XML and extracting the articles with hits? What's the best approach for a newbie? I suspect it has been asked before, but my archive search did not yield a clear answer. There's a wealth of information scattered about, but a bit much for me to digest all at once. A little guidance would be much appreciated. I'm running Vista (wish I were running Linux). Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This Help desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. Your question is about researching Wikipedia. You did not mention why you want to do regular expression searches on Wikipedia's content. Therefore we can't be sure whether your step is the best path to whatever your goal is. Lots of people do lots of searches on Wikipedia's content; maybe someone has already set up a tool somewhere to do just the kind of search you want. Your question does not sound like a "newbie" question. Rather, it sounds like something only an experienced Wikipedia user would think about trying. What you need to know is probably somewhere in the links under these entries in the Editor's index:

• WP:EIW#Download
• WP:EIW#MediaWiki
• WP:EIW#Query
• WP:EIW#Research
• WP:EIW#Search

I'm pretty sure that anyone who knows how to do what you are asking how to do probably had to read lots of manuals to figure it out. But I could be wrong; maybe there is some simple way. --Teratornis (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to say: thanks for the links. I didn't know about the EIW page before. It gives me some good information, but not entirely what I'm looking for. However, I'm sure I'll return there to see what other good information it leads to. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that I was new to Wikipedia or to databases or programming, I'm experienced in all – especially the latter two. What I am new at is Wikipedia database dumps. I'm not much of a writer, so I would like to contribute from the technical side. Presently, I would like to learn the tools needed to scan the dumps for pages having poorly formed dates (as described here). This is not something I can do through a search engine, and since I may need to test and tweak the queries a bit, it is not something I can just put in a request for. So I'm currently looking at setting up a WAMP package, populating the database using mwdumper or one of the other tools on mw:Manual:Importing XML dumps, and then running queries similar to SELECT cur_title from cur where cur_text regexp "[Ww]hatever" against the database. So I have questions are: Am I on the right track? Should I further investigate tools that scan the XML directly, like ParseMediaWikiDump? I an not sure if this question should be asked here, at the Village Pump, or in some other forum. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you are on a track that will work. You should definitely try setting up MediaWiki under a WAMP (see mw:Manual:Wiki on a stick), even if you don't end up using it, because the exercise is instructive. You will learn about the MediaWiki database schema and other stuff you don't get to see on Wikipedia as an ordinary user. I don't know if it is absolutely necessary to set up your own mirror of Wikipedia, but that is one method that would probably work. Parse::MediaWikiDump sounds interesting too. If you are comfortable with Perl, that might be simpler than setting up a Wikipedia mirror. You cannot use a conventional for-the-masses search engine, to be sure, but someone may have set up a Web-based tool that can do regexp searches against Wikipedia's content. Wikipedia is turning into a nice large corpus of data that lots of people want to search in lots of ways, and some people are trying to cater to some of these needs in ways that conventional search engines do not. Google doesn't provide regexp searches on the whole Web because (I guess) that would be too expensive. But Wikipedia is small enough (compared to the whole Web) that it might be feasible for someone to play around with. When someone sets up an experimental Wikipedia-only search engine, obviously they have to provide more features than Google does, or what's the point? So regexp's might be in play. That's certainly something I would think about if I were setting up a Wikipedia search engine. You might as well see what's there. If you do determine that you have to set up your own mirror, read all the links I gave you about queries and research. Among the people who research Wikipedia, I am virtually certain there are some who have done pretty much what you want to do. Find out where they hang out. Look at the histories of the pages about Wikipedia research to see who is editing them, and ask them who to ask. It's unlikely that someone who has done this sort of thing is reading the Help desk, but you never know. Keep checking this question for followups until it goes into the archive. And good luck. --Teratornis (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm up to the point where I've got a XAMPP and MediaWiki installed and am using mwdumper piped to mysql to populate the database. Currently it's running at about 1,000 pages per minute, which works out to about a 48 hour load for 2.8 million pages, assuming it doesn't slow down more. I thought I read somewhere that it might load faster if I dropped the table indexes, but I don't know how to do that in mysql (yet). If anyone has suggestions for speeding this up, I'd love to hear from you. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Try out Wikipedia:CATSCAN. It's an easy to use SQL Searching Tool.--Manuel-aa5 (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice tool. It's not quite what I need, but I'm sure I'll find a use for it in the future. Fro now, I need to search the body text of all pages for various regular expressions. Something I'm sure is too costly to do on the live database via the tool server. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The database scanning function of AutoWikiBrowser should do what you want. Graham87 10:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank You! That is exactly what I'm looking for. -- Tcncv (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

April 19

Template

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If an article's citations all are to the same source, for example that they all go to the company's own website - what template do you add? Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Onesource}}, or perhaps {{Primary sources}} in that specific case. Algebraist 00:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Or possibly {{self-published}}. – ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

what does this mean?

"The time has come", said the walrus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.138.245 (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer 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. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Algebraist 00:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Walrus and the Carpenter. DuncanHill (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Recover password

Hello - I was banned some time ago for an outburst etc, and would like to return to normal editing - but have forgotten my password, and did not supply an e-mail for the account - how can I get back in?77.86.67.245 (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you did not provide an email and have forgotten your password, then unfortunately, there's nothing with which we can help you. You'll have to create a new account. However, I feel that I must officially warn you that creating accounts to evade a block is not allowed. TNXMan 02:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not blocked as far as I can tell - the page is clear of warnings and other stuff - can I reuse the username as it is obviously not in use - it is "HappyVR" ?77.86.67.245 (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to the block log for that account, you have been blocked indefinitely. Also, there has been no activity there since 2006. So, we can't really know that you're the original owner of that account. Sorry, but it looks like you'll have to register a new account. Please bear in mind what I said earlier though about creating accounts to get around blocks. TNXMan 02:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still blocked.oh. Can I appeal that - and where? And if the appeal works will someone be able to recover the password? 77.86.67.245 (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You can appeal the block (and thus create a new account with no repercussions) by discussing the issue with the blocking admin. You can drop Redvers a note on his talk page. Like I mentioned earlier though, there's no way to unlock this account since you have forgotten the password and didn't enable email. TNXMan 03:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have put an unblock request on the user page, User:HappyVR, as my talk page is still blocked. I understand that I possibly could re-use the same user-name - without the contributions - as the account is defunct - if anyone can direct me to instructions on this I would appreciate it, though I will wait for an unblock response first.77.86.67.245 (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Tnxman307 said that in order to appeal the block on your old user, you must discuss the issue with the Redvers on his talk page before creating a new account. N Waldner (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

print

I can't get my computer to print a page from Wikipedia. Is this my computer or does Wikipedia not let the user print the information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.33.72 (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to print. There's a link on the left side bar saying "Printable version". Go to that and try to print. Chamal ^talk 03:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Chamal_N— Printable version does not do what you seem to think it does: see Help:Printable. 68.12.33.72— By "a page", do you mean a certain page or any page? --Gadget850 (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I merely directed him to the printable version thinking that the normal version doesn't print because of some problem with formatting etc that is not compatible with the printer. I didn't tell him that that is the version to print, but just to try with it :) I'm not a tech wizard though, I don't know if it would work or not. Chamal ^talk 11:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A question?

Last night I posted a new page, and the page actually did appear today when i googled it but only within the wikipedia wbesite but not yet officially on google (can't find it when i google it). How long does it take for the page to be officially posted or did I by any chance miss a step?

Many thanks Jelena —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enalej011 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Usually takes 72 hours. There's nothing on Wikipedia or its users' end to make this happen. It's all on Google. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not compete in a contest for Google rankings. – ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Renaming a photo that has mis-identified an animal

There are a few pics in the "angora goat" section that have been mis-identified and are not angora goats. just wanted to change them so they are correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.241.19 (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What photos? To get the name of an image file, click on it to see the image file page. For example, the topmost image in the Angora goat article is File:Bounce.JPG. If you disagree with the identity of an object in an image file, look at the image file page to see the user who uploaded the file, and leave a message on the user's Talk page with your best explanation of what you think is wrong and what would be right. --Teratornis (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Presence

Resolved

 – Problem was solved down the hall at WP:AN/I. Chamal ^talk 06:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo has moved Presence to Presence (Led Zeppelin album) depsite there being clear consensus on the Talk page to let the Led Zeppelin album stay Presence. MegX (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem has been raised at WP:AN/I and a possible solution obtained. Please do not bring up the same issue on several pages; this can be taken as forum shopping. Chamal ^talk 06:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with a certain page

I've been trying lately to clean up the page, List of Monster Buster Club characters, but it seems to be a losing battle. It's actually one of the worst wiki pages I've ever seen, but whenever I try to clean something up, or remove unnecessary info, it gets reverted (usually by one particular user). I'm really not sure what the best course of action is. Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You sound on the way to getting into an edit war. DON'T.Have you tried explaining your view on the page's Discussion page? if the other user comes to the party, you might be able to sort it out there, in a civil manner. As a next step, invite other users to comment. An "outside" view might help you resolve your differences on what is necessary information. See Wikipedia:Requests for commentfor details. It also includes further steps to take. KoolerStill (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen worse articles, but I suppose it's not too shocking that an article about a children's cartoon might attract a different type of editor than you'd likely meet in articles about scholarly or scientific topics. If you see a particular editor who is violating policies or guidelines, check out the editor's user talk page to see if the editor has accumulated any warnings, blocks, etc. Get an idea of whether the editor has a pattern of problems with other editors. If you can't work things out by discussing on either the article's Talk page or a user's talk page, the next step would be to explore the options under WP:EIW#Dispute such as the requests for comment. I second the above advice to avoid getting into a revert war. See WP:3RR. --Teratornis (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In particular you should not be reasserting a proposed deletion. Proposed deletion is for uncontroversial deletions. When someone rejects your prod, it obviously is not uncontroversial. —teb728 t c 07:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Foreign language content

Are edits like this: [2] to be undone with a proper edit summary? This is en-WP, but I don't want to seem xenophobic. Thanks. Tiderolls 10:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, text dumping in foreign languages should be reverted instantly unless somebody adds a translation tag which indicates they are in the middle of translating. thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Tiderolls 10:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't access Latin symbols

Hi. You know when editing you have the choice to go between wiki markup and Latin symbols etc. For some reason mine is stuck on wiki markup and when I click Latin to access a foreign letter such as é it doesn't work. Could somebody please explain why it isn't working, its been like it for a few days and I need it now because I'm drawing up templates for Guinea which have a lot of them in. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Mine is working fine (Chrome on WinXP). ‡œώЩםظʘ DuncanHill (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tried in on chrome and internet explorer (WinXP) and it doesn't make any difference. If I click Latin or Greek in thebox to change from mark up its as dead as a dodo Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Are they greyed out or can you highlight them? I ask because I find it almost as fast to highlight a symbol, copy Ctrl+c and then Ctrl+v paste.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you actually have the pulldown, then JavaScript is working. Didn't you have some other issues recently? I suggest you go to Special:Preferences and restore default settings. --Gadget850 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did have some problems. For instance say I clicked edit this page, at the bottom there is the insert column which contains wiki markup Latin etc. When I open that box and click Latin for instance it is just dead. None of them are greyed out it just isn't responding. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What skin are you using- monobook? What browser? Try asking this at WP:VPT. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW- this is called edittools. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Where do I go to ask someone to translate an article from another language Wikipedia?

I'm looking for someone who could translate de:Nibiru into English. Do you know where I could find someone? Serendi^podous 14:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this list should help you out. I believe that User:Lectonar is an active user, but I couldn't swear to it. TNXMan 14:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

how do I ..

How do I rename a file/photo that I have uploaded with a slightly wrong name? (Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

You can ask an administrator to rename it. Or you can upload it again under the correct name. Chamal ^talk 14:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you (Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Pages in the image (and category namespace) cannot be moved. To change the name of an image, you need to upload it again, and copy the image description. After you do that, mark the image for deletion by placing {{db-g7}} on it. However, it appears that you are marking this as in the public domain. If it is, please do not upload it here at all. Instead, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons, so that all Wikimedia projects have access to the image. Simply sign up for an account there (note that there is no autoconfirmed wait time there as there is here in order to upload an image). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

right! will do. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Hmmm... I was under the impression that this was possible, until Fuhghettaboutit apparently corrected that. I thought this was enabled by a recent software change... I seem to remember even reading a signpost article or something similar on this. Do we have any more info on this? Chamal ^talk 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, answer found: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-23/Technology report. Apparently it was enabled and then disabled because of bugs. I should keep up with the news. I deserve a trout for that :P Chamal ^talk 15:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't punish yourself too harshly, all well that ends well. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Making a new page!!!!??

Hw do I do It??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay Bolton (talk • contribs) 15:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

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 which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people. Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation.

tempodivalse [☎] 15:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

OK assuming all that is complete ,, where will i actually find where I write and upload pictures etc??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay Bolton (talk • contribs)

Well, to start writing, simply type the title of the article you'd like to write in the search box at the top-left area of your screen (you might have to scroll up to the top to see it). Then click "Go". If the article you want to create doesn't yet exist, then you can click the "create this page" link in the search results, up at the top. Then, an edit window will appear. Type away! When you're finished, just click the "save page" button. For inserting images, check out this link, which should be of help: Wikipedia:IMAGE#Using_images. Hope this helped. tempodivalse [☎] 16:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Creating a new case under the Wikipedians by alma mater category.

I have tried now on two occasions, and have not been able to add to the category Wikipedians by alma mater. The goal is addition of the California State University, Fullerton to the category. I have not been successful in locating instructions for this process. I will be glad to do the work, if I can determine how it should be performed. William R. Buckley (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is done by pasting {{educat|California State University, Fullerton}} in to the page. I have done this by looking at the related categories. I went ahead and made the edit, let me know if this is what you wanted. TNXMan 16:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Resolved

 – Wrong venue, please ask your question over at the reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks! tempodivalse [☎] 17:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Are these sources ok to use for factual citations. The Red Peacock (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-72035237.html www.huffingtonpost.com/

Please ask over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Highbeam usually doesn't list full articles unless you've signed into an account. Whenever possible, it's better to find the original source they took it from. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How to remove an "Additional Citations Needed" tag???

I today edited an article that was tagged "additional citations". Article on Frank Wu.

The citations were readily available and took maybe a half hour to find and edit

Is it now MY responsibility to remove the TAG?, or does someone else do that? VentnorNJ (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No-one has a responsibility to remove such tags. If you think the tag is no longer appropriate, feel free to remove it. Algebraist 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you referenced all, or most of the article - then you might as well remove it - if further facts remain unreferenced then leave it. As said above - its not your responsibilty though.FengRail (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

complete subst

Resolved.

Hi, what is the quickest way to completely subst nested templates to the corresponding wikicode? Repeated subst->show changes->subst gets tedious pretty quick. Thanks in advance. decltype (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you want Special:ExpandTemplates. Algebraist 21:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That may very well be the case. Thanks! decltype (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's the tag you use when you see someone who is apparently the subject of the biography editing his/her own biography?

I know I've seen this tag before. I frequently see this issue on my copyediting rounds, and while it isn't always a big deal, sometimes it seems worth it to note, especially in article where there are neutrality or other content-related issues. I had the tag at one point, but can't find it. While I'm on that topic - is there a main list of the various tags that produce banners for articles? Thanks in advance.--Levalley (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe you mean {{COI}}. I think Wikipedia:Template messages is the best answer to your second question, unless you want to look directly at the templates transcluding Ambox. Algebraist 22:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There's also {{autobio}}. decltype (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And there's {{autobio-warn}} as well, for warning people who seem to be editing their own biographies. tempodivalse [☎] 22:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

editing errors

I tried to edit the tiny reference you had for the Auto Red Bug page. I wanted to check wikipedia for a full article, but none was available. Then I googled "the red bug" and found genuine articles online.

It is worthy of a full article, but as I went in to perhaps enhance or add a reference, I well... apparently didn't do it right and it got flagged. I am now rather disenfranchised with the idea of being a wikipedia editor/contributor since it is about as easy as the last time I tried to be involved in a wiki. I had forgotten how frustrating they were unless you practically think in html or whatever wiki's are formatted in.

sorry if I messed things up and I don't think I'll be bothering you again. I was just trying to add the link

http://www.oldwoodies.com/feature-redbug.htm

For folks that wanted to reference "the red bug" or any such. Fun little info, but not much worth trying to learn to edit a wiki even if I can write etc.

Sorry if I irritated anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stopher Hambone (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the edit at Auto Red Bug for you. I appreciate it can be difficult to edit pages at first if you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia. You might be pleased to know that there is a project to improve usability at Wikipedia so hopefully it would be easier to edit Wikipedia in the future. For now, you might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Cheatsheet which should give you the basic information on how to edit pages if you change your mind and return to Wikipedia. Tra (Talk) 23:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be very curious to know exactly how the usability project could help in this instance. --Teratornis (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Auto-assessing bots

Resolved.

Does anyone know if there is still a bot that will auto-assess any articles that use stub templates? I thought there was one but can't quite find it. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You might find something in WP:EIW#Assessment or WP:EIW#Bot. --Teratornis (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This search might provide some clues. --Teratornis (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I found a few options. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

April 20

Archive box

While editing the archive box on my talk page, I was trying to put the asterisk next to make a bulleted list. But instead of getting a bullet next to the text, I get an actual asterisk. What's up with that? Also, I was wondering if it was possible to change the background of the archive box. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 00:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that the asterisk is on a separate line? If it isn't, then the bullet will not show up. Also, check to make sure that there are no "nowiki" tags surrounding the asterisk, that might be causing the problem. As for your second question, simply subst: the archive box and save. Then, go back to edit it again and you should be able to alter the "background:" parameter. Hope this helps! tempodivalse [☎] 01:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The problem was the fact that it wasn't on a separate line. And thanks for the second tip about the archive box, but what I meant by background was in changing its color. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC

The RFC here is being used very poorly. There are many differing opinions about how such an RFC is to be used, when and whom is appropriate to close it, and what recourses are to be considered. Is there any sort of guidance regarding this specific RFC that can be given to the situation? PLEASE assist. it's a mess over there. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct help? You may also find some helpful content on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. I would say that perhaps the talk page may be the first place to ask questions if you're not sure how the process is supposed to work. Hope that helps. — Ched :  ?  06:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Heading

This is my first time adding info to wiki. How do you activate a new heading eg The Town Today for a town listing? I have tried to get this info up for Clare, South Australia and Penwortham, South Australia. Does an administrator need to do this? Thanks, Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarewino (talk • contribs) 03:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For a new heading, put it on a separate line surrounded by '=='. For example:

== The town today ==

Note that we use lowercase letters for non-proper nouns in headings, except for the first letter. For more information, see Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Headings. Hope this helped, hmwithτ 04:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline for the standards. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Tried to enter notes about my changes in the Edit Summary -- did not accept notes, only my changes

As stated, I tried to explain why I made such elaborate changes to the Mary Monnett Bain article, because I figured previously writers/ editors would be unhappy about my changes.

I wrote the book, Money Methodism and Madness, the Story of Mary Monnett. I am Cynthia Rush. So it is my book (a footnoted text book about Mary's life) they are relying on (and listing as a reference at the bottom of the article) when they make statements about her life. An earlier writer made derrogatory statements about someone in Mary's life. It's not that I disagree about what a jerk this person from Mary's life was, it's just that we cannot absolutely substantiate it -- and the footnoted book I wrote, which the writer used as a reference, only presents the facts, it does not present opinions. So I revised the article to be less of a referendum on this man's conduct and more of a statement of the facts we know about Mary's -- since the article was supposed to be about Mary.

Anyway, the Edit Summary at first would not accept my typed words. I later came back and tried again, and it seemed to accept my (brief) explanation for the changes I'd made, and yet, after it saved, it had not saved an additional version nor had it added the Edit Summary.

What gives???

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.214.101 (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary box will accept no more than 200 characters, so if you write past that limit, it will discard the excess characters. Second, editing articles that you have a close connection to is strongly recommend against, read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to know more. Third, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral, that means articles are supposed to represent facts, not opinions. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 05:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on Talk:Mary Monnett Bain. See Wikipedia:Talk page and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --Teratornis (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That happening is actually very common. Tt would sure help new editors a lot if the edit summary box only accepted the limit of characters that will be shown/recorded. hmwithτ 14:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hillsborough disaster described wrongly?

I just wondered why the Hillsborough disaster is described as a 'human stampede' - surely 'crush' is more appropriate? 194.217.93.82 (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse.  GARDEN  11:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Need image of Wikia founders

Could someone adept at image manipulation refine File:Angela Jimbo Piotrus - Wikimania 2006.jpg to include just Beesley and Wales? I need an image of the Wikia founders (another will do of course). Thanks, Skomorokh 13:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have any version of Windows, pull up the image ([3]). Once it loads, right click it, and click "copy". Open your program of Microsoft Paint (Start > Programs > Accessories > Paint). Go to Edit > Paste. Move the picture as far as you want it left & top, and then, you can crop the picture from there. You can drag the dots to take out area on the right and bottom.

If you use Windows Vista, you can make it much easier by simply saving the picture & opening it in the image editor, where you can crop it with the click of a button.

If you use a Mac, I have no idea. hmwithτ 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

However, you can request article-related image alteration/improvement in the future at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop. hmwithτ 14:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Windows? Hey man, I said I was incompetent, not stupid! Seriously though, thanks for the advice, I'll ask those hombres (I could do it myself but I'd like it done properly). Regards, Skomorokh 14:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Type of files when uploading music?

(I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question).

I would like to upload a music file under the licence "fair use". Which type of files can I use when uploading music?

The music file is a "wma" in the Windows Media Player. But I also have the music on CD.

I hope that someone will help me. Thank you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that we generally use the ".ogg" format when uploading audio; however, I am a rather a newbie when it comes to technical stuff, so I don't have a clue what ".ogg" is. Sorry I can't really help much. tempodivalse [☎] 13:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We use .ogg files. For more information, see Wikipedia:Media help (Ogg). hmwithτ 14:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

how do i post a biographyDprice65 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

how do it post a biography?

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 which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. TNXMan 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops

I tagged a redirect page for speedy deletion recently (in preparation for a page move) and can't remember what it was called. It's not in my watchlist, so I assume it was deleted. Help. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it was Dusan Popov? TNXMan 16:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's it. Thanks. (I'd make a lousy spy.) Clarityfiend (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly what good spies would want us to think! TNXMan 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Are censored sources acceptable?

Today, I stumbled upon the Republic of China article, which at some point was citing a page on the chinese Wikipedia. I removed it since IMO any source coming from censored media cannot be considered reliable. According to WP policies, was that the right thing to do? In general, should we accept sources that come from countries which don't allow freedom of speech? Laurent (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about citing censored media, however, instead of citing Wikipedia pages (in this language or others), we should cite the sources they mention. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and should cite reliable secondary sources. I hope this helps! TNXMan 16:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We generally don't cite Wikipedia at all. But we certainly do cite censored or partisan information sources. The same source may be reliable for one statement and unreliable for another. If a large Chinese newspaper says that a nuclear reactor exploded near Beijing, we may safely conclude that it happened. If the same newspaper gives a detailed report about a large demonstration on Tienanmen Square we may not conclude that there was no violence because it's not mentioned. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia does not "come from" the People's Republic of China exclusively. It receives edits from Chinese speakers throughout the world. Because the Chinese government tends to (imperfectly) block the Chinese Wikipedia within mainland China, only a relatively few people with technical skills are able to circumvent the block there. Thus the contributions of mainland Chinese are not proportional to their huge population size. When you see an edit on the Chinese Wikipedia, there's a fair chance it originated from some location with free speech. The Chinese government does not censor the Chinese Wikipedia, because they cannot. That is why they block it. --Teratornis (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinks in columns

Are there any guidelines for using wikilinks in adjacent columns? For example in the orchestra article, you'll find four columns, each listing the typical orchestral instruments for a certain period. When I was searching information about the modern orchestra, I was interested in the instruments they use, but I felt a certain discomfort when searching for a wikilink to one of the listed instruments, as I had to look for it in one of the three previous lists. So I edited the article and putted a wikilink on every instrument in every list. Some time later, another user undid my changes, while saying:"Links should appear ONCE only."

So now I've been reading the wikipedia's guidelines on the topic of wikilinks, but I couldn't find a conclusive answer. It did state that tables on wikipedia should be able to regarded on its own, but I do not know if these lists qualify as tables.

Can anyone give me a more direct answer to my question? Teleevisie (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:OVERLINK to which the other user refers, is merely a guideline. It can be broken. The idea is to end up with the solution most practical for your average reader, and if that means linking more than once, then do it. In this circumstance, IMHO, the current "solution" is imperfect. The correct solution will probably involve more links. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See the recent discussion for some ideas:

• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 April 6#List of wikilinks in an article

--Teratornis (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How can i write my own page as a part of the encylopedia?

i want to know how i can write something inside the encyclopedia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayanprod (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to create an entirely new article, see WP:FAQ#CREATE. However, Wikipedia deletes thousands of new articles by new users, so you should first tell us what you want to write about, so we can advise you on whether Wikipedia will accept an article on the topic you have in mind, and how to make it "stick". --Teratornis (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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 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 nsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. Best of luck. tempodivalse [☎] 17:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Contributing to Wikipedia

I have been trying to add a page titled "FNC, Inc." Everytime time I submit the page, it gets deleted. I am interning at FNC in Oxford, Mississippi this year and I need to get this up. Why won't the page stay up when I am working for FNC and contributing the information?

Wfgillis (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)