I inadvertantly hit the "permanently disable mobile version" link. How do I enable it again? I found an answer in the FAQ that directed me to the WAP site, but it is not the same as before. [[Special:Contributions/68.228.91.169|68.228.91.169]] ([[User talk:68.228.91.169|talk]]) 00:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I inadvertantly hit the "permanently disable mobile version" link. How do I enable it again? I found an answer in the FAQ that directed me to the WAP site, but it is not the same as before. [[Special:Contributions/68.228.91.169|68.228.91.169]] ([[User talk:68.228.91.169|talk]]) 00:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
== Merging Cells ==
Is it possible to merge cells B and C in [[Table_markup#Combined_use_of_COLSPAN_and_ROWSPAN]]? If so, how?[[Special:Contributions/174.3.103.39|174.3.103.39]] ([[User talk:174.3.103.39|talk]]) 02:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on expanding the List of Phi Beta Sigma conclaves and have found the dates for the 1935 convention in only one place, a flicker page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/phibetasigma/3541141443/). I'd like to find somewhere else with the information, though. Is flickr.com counted as a particularly bad reference? (i.e. bots that will remove it?)
Generally, user generated content (e.g. Flickr, Youtube, other wikis) is not considered to be a reliable source. However, Wikipedia guidelines are not set in stone (that's why they're called guidelines), and you are allowed to use common sense and make an exception if necessary. (Currently XLinkBot does not remove links to Flickr, so you don't need to worry about that.) Xenon54 (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In this case the Flicker image is an image of a specific newspaper article presumably in the December 20th, 1935 Washington Tribune, so I think that it is better than most Flickr data. I did eventually track down the blog entry in the Phi Beta Sigma historical blog that includes the flicker page and as such, I'm including the Historical Blog page. Normally, I wouldn't include blogs, but bluephi.net appears to be *very* well referenced for a blog (a lot of newspaper clippings and official fraternity magazine pages)Naraht (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the Flickr image is of a newspaper article, then the reference is that article and you should cite that, and not Flickr. Also, an article from 1935 is likely copyrighted, and thus its use at Flickr is possibly a copyright violation, so you should probably not link to it (linking to copyvios is not allowed at Wikipedia). You can cite the newspaper article like any other print source, and there is no requirement that print sources be availible online. --Jayron3205:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help with clean up tag
Hi, I need some help with the clean up tag. I cannot seem to format it properly. I can get the first sentence right but the second sentence is incomprehensible. Is there a way to fix this whilst keeping the first sentence the same.
There is no fee for using or editing Wikipedia. But you are not supposed post information from your personal knowledge. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to have been published earlier. And if you post something that is controversial or chalenged, you have to back it up with a reference to a reliable published source. (By the way, I removed your email address because we do not reply via email, and it is dangerous to post your email address in such a visible place.) —teb728tc05:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may also like to edit on the Thai Wikipedia. Sometimes the other language Wikipedias have different rules from the English Wikipedia. For example, I think the Japanese Wikipedia is more accepting of anime articles which are considered "non-notable" on the English Wikipedia. The smaller Wikipedias are often struggling for more content and their user communities may be more interested in adding information than deleting it. The English Wikipedia is the largest and most heavily edited Wikipedia, so we attract a lot more cruft. --Teratornis (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, and thank you for offering to help. Since we are trying to build a reliable encyclopedia, we ask that you follow certain rules. specifically, Subjects of articles must be notable, and information here must be verifiable using reliable sources. If our rules seem to be too complicated, then don't worry: just write create a user subpage and write anything you want that you think might eventually be useful according to our rules, and then come and ask us here to help you with it. Since you know about Thailand, you might want to start by working on the Thai Wikipedia, and then translating articles to English. Alternately, you may choose to edit existing articles here on the english Wikipedia. If so, please cite your sources, even it the information you add is "common knowledge" in Thailand. If it's common knowledge, then you can surely find a citable source. If you cannot figure out exactly how to cite a source, then add a note on the talk page of the article the describes the source in any way at all, and ask for help to put it into a proper form. Go ahead and try: the worst that can happen its that soemone will remove your edit. If that happens, try to work with that editor, or come back here again. Good luck! -96.255.161.148 (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Browser problem?
All the gadgets I use in my preferences have suddenly stopped working/displaying (see below). I've been contributing to the encyclopedia for nearly 4 years and I have never been warned or blocked for anything naughty. Is it a Wiki server problem, or a problem with my browser? (Firefox on Mac - latest versions.) I have re-checked my prefs and the items are still checked.
Editing gadgets:
Friendly, a set of tools for Firefox, Safari, and Opera that automates some of Wikipedia's more friendly, collaboration oriented tasks, such as welcoming new users.
HotCat, easily add / remove / change a category on a page, with name suggestion [example]
refTools, adds a "cite" button to the editing toolbar for quick and easy addition of commonly used citation templates.
Twinkle, a set of tools for Firefox, Safari, and Opera that automates common tasks such as reporting vandalism, warning vandals, and requesting deletion.
User interface gadgets:
Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page
After rolling back an edit, automatically open the contributions of the user rolled back.
Change the "new section" tab text to instead display the much narrower "+". *Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article. (documentation)
Moves edit links next to the section headers (documentation)
RefTools stopped working for me sometime within the last couple hours. I have been trying to figure out if I did something wrong or not. Everything else seems fine though. Not using beta at this time.Cptnono (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My page was deleted - the error message said it was deleted because other information was not found on google
I inserted information around a real person with real information on their life that is not available on the internet for we are just starting to put information up. The person is my grandfather, who was an artist. Please inform me how I can make sure this does not happen again. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynestlen (talk • contribs) 06:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything included on Wikipedia should be based off verifiable sources (published works of importance). Take a look at WP:RELIABLE for further info. Also, original research is not acceptable (see: WP:NOR). Another disclaimer is: WP:NOTMEMORIAL since this is not a memorial site to anyone but is intended to be encyclopedic text. Everything should be fine assuming your grandfather meaes the guidelines for inclusion (WP:PEOPLE). I just threw several links at you so if you get confused just ask questions and read more links at: Wikipedia:Your first article. Have fun and happy editing.Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have any newspaper or magazine articles or books been published about him? If nothing has been published about him then he doesn't meet our standard for having an article about him. Sorry. —teb728tc07:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually saw a several sources on a google news search. They were not in English but I assume they are about the subject. If someone has the interest to help it out there might be a worthwhile article here.Cptnono (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify what others have mentioned - references for articles do not have to be online - however, they should be verifiable. For example, you could use a newspaper article that isn't online as a reference, and just state the paper, the edition, the author (if known) of the newspaper article, and possibly the page(s)/column(s). Although not everybody would be able to verify it, it can be verified by someone in the locality the newspaper was published in. Similarly, if the information can be verified in a published book (not self-published), which could be found in a local library, etc, then this can be cited as well. The important bit is verifiability - other people should be able to find the source if they look for it - usually in a local library. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploading photos but first i need to undergone 10 edit
Why is it i need to have atleast 10 edit activities before i can upload my photos. Does it mean any types of editting for any kind of an article to be considered as valid edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Privatesurfing (talk • contribs) 08:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any edits count. You also have to wait 4 days from the time you registered. But if they are photos you took yourself, you can upload them to Commons:Upload with no edits and no wait. But you have to license them under a free license. (If they are photos you took yourself, you would have to free-license them even if you uploaded them to Wikipedia.) —teb728tc08:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions
A user's user page and talk page are being used inappropriately, and I'm going to nominate them for MfD. Is there a way to have them discussed on the same page?
Yeah, just make one entry and list both the pages in your nomination. We usually delete both the talk and main pages for articles at the same time anyway, so it's not like this is any stretch of procedure. --erachimatalk10:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the mfd template like {{mfd|GroupName}} and create a mfd subpage called GroupName where you can nominate related pages. Apart from that, it's just the normal procedure, which I think you are familiar with. ≈ Chamaltalk¤11:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why, when I type "noosphere" into the search function, does it execute a program function that asks me if I want to find a program or save the file to my computer? I have been searching for many things through Wikipedia and this is the only search term I have found that acts this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.131.146 (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are intermittently prompted for a download, then there is a connection glitch. The page is not fully loading and your browser does not recognize it as a web page, thus it thinks it should be downloaded. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk14:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On top. I use the red one very often and just used the lightblue one today. What does "rollback" mean in this feature? Reading rollback's feature, this sounds like the exact feature these can do. Here I reverted 8 edits at once by one user by using the blue button and here I used the red button. They are both from Twinkle because they add the Twinkle thing (TW) to the edit summaries • S • C • A • R • C • E •22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The feature your using is part of Twinkle, as PrimeHunter stated, and it performs the same "end result" that you receive with actual rollback permissions. There are some minor benefits of using the actual rollback rights, instead of the fake rollback via Twinkle. Rollback users process the function faster, both for the user and the servers. Twinkle performs this action in a automated process the long way by opening the page, making the changes and resaving it - resulting in the same effective "roll back" but in a slightly slower way; in all, nothing really to worry about.
Change the Name of Wikipedia Page
I require spacing in the infobox as at present it is displayed as "TheWonderfulSaintTitan" and obviously this should be The Wonderful Saint Titan
Is the only way to achieve this is to change my username from TheWonderfulSaintTitan to The Wonderful Saint Titan?
With your last edit you became WP:Autoconfirmed. Now you should be able to WP:Move it. —teb728tc 23:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Before you move it however, you might want to be sure you have established the subject's notability and provide references to reliable sources. As long as the article is in your user space nobody is likely to hassle you about issues the article may have. As soon as you move it to article space, it is open to scrutiny. —teb728tc23:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
creating signatures
I've just started trying to change my signature. I don't know a lot of html but i think what I'm trying to enter is correct. I just want different color text and background text for it. However, when I try to save it in "my preferences" it says to check the HTML tags that there is an error.
How about using [[User:Lime in the Coconut|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;background:#006400;color:#7FFF00;font-size:24px;">Lime<span style="background:#8B4513;color:#FFF8DC;">in</span>the<span style="background:#8B4513;color:#FFF8DC;">Coconut</span></span>]] It yields LimeintheCoconut —teb728tc23:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is evidence of a part of an external link graphic present in my infobox. i want the external link to remain of course but why is this graphic not complete or there at all?
If I understand you correctly, you want to display an image that is hosted externally without uploading it either to Wikipedia or Commons. That is not possible; the Wikipedia server software will display only content that is uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons. If you created the graphic yourself without copying from anyone else, you must license it under a free license—one that allows anyone to reuse it for anything. —teb728tc22:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the little arrow to the right of an external link is not displaying properly then it's probably a problem in your browser. It often happened to me in IE7. I see the arrow in the box on your user page. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
August 16
Tmbox
I have a tmbox on my userpage that I'd like to align to the left margin as all userboxes and the TOC. How can I do that?
I have tried making a table, but when I did that, the tmbox lost its yellow colour.
Thanks a lot. I really appreciate your effort. I have to admit that I'd really like to keep the yelow colour, and that the small letters also don't help in pointing attention to themselves.
I am familiar with 2 of the editors in that discussion. One of them has left Wikipedia, unfortunately. The other is on a loose wikibreak. But I wrote him anyway, and hope he'll have a solution. Thanks for that idea. Debresser (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could also ask on Template talk:Tmbox and read the archived talk pages. Maybe this problem came up before. And keep checking here for a couple of days, maybe someone will more knowledgeable will chime in later. --Teratornis (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have poked around various help pages for awile now, but have not found anything to explain what is going on with a template I edited recently (Template:Infobox Sailboat Specifications)
I made each of the fields optional using #if which works for the most part, but with inconsistent spacing.
If you look at pages that use the template, spacing is fine unless two or more fields in a row are unused. When that happens blank lines show up in the infobox where the fields would go.
Thanks for the link, I have switched the template over.
Are there any good pages discussing how to use conditional fields in templates? I would still love to know what was causing the issue in the original template. —MJBurrage(T•C)20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inexperienced Need Help
Concerning User:DIREKTOR – Is This A WikiBully?
Long Discussion
The key word in your post being "presumably". :) Find yourself another one of your crappy "forums" to talk about your presumptions. Just forget about this, Luigi/Brunodam, you're not annoying anyone - you're just turning out amusing. I think I'll file a checkuser in an hour or so, you'd better believe it when I say I'll delete everything you wrote if you're a sock. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
"Freedom of speech"??! :) LoL, aren't we "high and mighty"? A little too "high and mighty" for a sock of Brunodam/Luigi trying to pick a fight with Users by writing his opinions in bold on a wiki talkpage. Hoping that your essays will attract other, real users and start a fake dispute about a non-existing controversy? Nice try... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: Hello Comrade! xD Ban you!? Why in the world would I want to ban you? You're wacky, you're a lot of fun - I like that! :D And since even a brain-dead, brutish Slav communist can see through your sockpuppet "disguise", you're really not a problem. Why not, have some fun on Wikipedia! I'll just make 100% sure none of your transparently biased, behind-the-scenes plotting works. Now we all know POV-pushers of this sort must also be checked for sockpuppets. Be sure you will NOT be able to resurface undetected here again. Best regards :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You're leaving! But why? Oh I see... you're getting out before you can get banned. Good thinking - that way enWiki doesn't really ban you, and you still "win"! Come back soon :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah well, don't be too amused. Its a sock all right, probably yours but certainly someone's. If its not you its probably one of the dozens of sockpuppeteers I helped put away. Could be anyone (if its "not you" by some wild chance, that is). Either way I wouldn't put much stock in a sock's opinion, I'm actually all heart :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't you worry Rex old boy, "my menace" is here to stay. It only gets more annoying and "menacing" as the months and years go by... xD gosh I'm evil --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
My very well sourced propaganda, Rex, lets not forget. With your sock report I doubt you'll have to endure the um..."suffering" for much longer. ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this type of behaviour condoned in Wkipedic circles (I think this man is a bully). If it is not can you please help me and point me in the right direction to address his tactics used against anyone who doesn’t agree with his POV?
Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that I am inexperienced in Wiki protocol and I am trying to learn and adhere to the principles as best I can. So I am saying here that I may have crossed some protocols due to inexperience and the sensitivity of the issues that were in question, however in my opinion the Direktor is way overreacting and abusive. Kind Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Ok, this is a tremendously large post, yes, but these are out-of-context attacks on my person and if I am to respond, I have to respond to each in-turn.)
Yes, I agree, when a user with a personal agenda against me goes around all my contribs and creates a nice collection of all the times I've almost insulted someone, it looks pretty bad. Here's the thing, though, this is like the third or fourth report on me User:Sir Floyd has created/endorsed in the past two days or so for various things he can come up with. All have been rejected as unfounded. He is on an agenda to get me blocked. WP:HARASS applies, I think. There are seven quotes up there, they were taken out of context and even altered to make me, with my somewhat too jokey mode of conversation, look like a "bully" (before I start a note: nearly all bold text was inserted by User:Sir Floyd, and he added words to my posts). I have overreacted in nearly all of them, I admit, but they are something of a collection of my worst moments, I do not think they make me a "bully".
The first four quotes are from the talkpage of User:Sir Floyd, this account is almost certainly a sockpuppet of User:Luigi 28 (or User:Brunodam, though less likely). I won't lay down the case here, but the account jumped immediately upon creation into User:Luigi 28's POV-pushing. But lets go through them all:
"The key word in your post being "presumably". :) Find yourself another one of your crappy "forums" to talk about your presumptions. Just forget about this, Luigi/Brunodam, you're not annoying anyone - you're just turning out amusing. I think I'll file a checkuser in an hour or so, you'd better believe it when I say I'll delete everything you wrote if you're a sock."
I'm referring to the "crappy forum", and the Wikipedia cafe at itWiki in which Users who were reported by me on enWiki are badmouthing me on a daily basis. Accoring to User:AlasdairGreen27's advice here: "DIREKTOR, You should head over to itWiki more often. Highly entertaining. They spend more time moaning about you than is probably healthy. (...) they're over at Bruno's blog moaning and grumbling about how they've all been blocked or banned." Further, I'm also saying I will delete his provocative posts if he's a sock (as we are supposed to do), and that his provocative posts are not annoying anyone.
"Freedom of speech"??! :) LoL, aren't we "high and mighty"? A little too "high and mighty" for a sock of Brunodam/Luigi trying to pick a fight with Users by writing his opinions in bold on a wiki talkpage. Hoping that your essays will attract other, real users and start a fake dispute about a non-existing controversy? Nice try..."
Exactly what in this post constitutes a personal attack? I'm accusing the User of being a sock and of trying to pick a fight on Talk:Josip Broz Tito. It is certainly likely he's a sock, and a pretty obvious one at that (I probably should've immediately posted a checkuser). He has arrived on the page, found that he was contradicted by sources and Users, but continued to argue and bicker with no proposed changes to the article. I overreacted, yes, but I didn't actually insult him.
"Re: Hello Comrade! xD Ban you!? Why in the world would I want to ban you? You're wacky, you're a lot of fun - I like that! :D And since even a brain-dead, brutish Slav communist can see through your sockpuppet "disguise", you're really not a problem. Why not, have some fun on Wikipedia! I'll just make 100% sure none of your transparently biased, behind-the-scenes plotting works. Now we all know POV-pushers of this sort must also be checked for sockpuppets. Be sure you will NOT be able to resurface undetected here again. Best regards :)"
This post has even (1) been altered in order to WP:HARASS me, I did not call User:Sir Floyd a "comrade" ("Re:Hello Comrade!" is the title). (2) It is a response to this provocation (entitled "Hello Comrade!") on the part of User:Sir Floyd, where he called me a communist "cry baby". I still did not say much about User:Sir Floyd in my response. I stated he's a sock, biased, and a POV-pusher - not really "insults", more like facts if we look at his edits on Talk:Josip Broz Tito. All that's left is the part where I call him "wacky", this is how I talk: I did not mean that in any derogatory way, I was actually trying to "lighten-up" the conversation after his provocation. I also called myself "a brain-dead, brutish Slav communist" in a sarcastic way, not anyone else. Is calling someone "wacky" after he calls you a communist dictator-worshiping crybaby a personal attack?
"You're leaving! But why? Oh I see... you're getting out before you can get banned. Good thinking - that way enWiki doesn't really ban you, and you still "win"! Come back soon :)"
Again, how is this a personal attack? I'm saying he's a sock and is leaving before he can get reported. I repeat - the bit of sarcasm here was meant to be "good-spirited". It was taken far too seriously. Even so, I don't see how accusing a user of being a sock is a personal attack?
Yeah well, don't be too amused. Its a sock all right, probably yours but certainly someone's. If its not you its probably one of the dozens of sockpuppeteers I helped put away. Could be anyone (if its "not you" by some wild chance, that is). Either way I wouldn't put much stock in a sock's opinion, I'm actually all heart :)
In this post I am discussing User:Easy4all who's connections with User:Brunodam's sock, User:Marygiove, are currently being investigated. There can be no doubt that the account User:Easy4all is someone's sock. Suffices to say that the account was created the day before yesterday and the only edits this supposedly "new user" made were directed aagainst me personally. In other words, all that this account did was badmouth me. See further evidence here under the Evidence subsection. I'm actually not insulting anyone, but I'm saying that the account is an obvious sock. When I say "I wouldn't put much stock in a sock's opinion, I'm actually all heart", I'm responding to User:Easy4all's badmouthing me on the same sockpuppet report page. Taken out of context. Not actually a personal attack.
"Don't you worry Rex old boy, "my menace" is here to stay. It only gets more annoying and "menacing" as the months and years go by... xD gosh I'm evil"
Oh yeah, here's another "personal attack". I'm responding with a joke to being called an evil menace (by Sir Floyd or Easy4all), and I'm taking it pretty well, I think. :)
"My very well sourced propaganda, Rex, lets not forget. With your sock report I doubt you'll have to endure the um..."suffering" for much longer." ;)
Yes, again, I'm "jokingly" accusing the User of being a sockpuppeteer. Is this a personal attack? Also, this is again taken out of context. Its is a response to a "conference" on how good it would be if I was banned [2] where I'm called: "one of the worst balkan editors, and if banned a lot of fighting inside en.wiki will disappear".
In short, all of these posts are accusations of sockppupeteering, responses to provocations taken out of context, and an attempts to make my light mode of conversation seem far worse than it is. I am an editor with three years on Wiki and 18,000 edits. I am NOT a "bully". These people are trying to get me banned by any means necessary. --DIREKTOR(TALK)10:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do acknowledge the fact that Sir Floyd isn't innocent in here either, but he was acquitted in a sockpuppet investigation, and two wrongs do not make a right. Since you're an experienced contributor, you should know how to keep your cool. Kotiwalo (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was not aquitted of being a sock. No such report was ever made. The report was on the connection between User:Rex Dominator and User:Easy4all (since all that account did was support his "reports" against me). A checkuser on a possible connection between the long-time sockpuppeteers User:Luigi 28 and/or User:Brunodam (each with something like a dozen socks) was never asked for. I am rarely wrong about socks of these two characters - not a single report by me on their socks ever came back negative (today's on User:Rex Dominotor was the first report of mine that did). I'm thinking of reporting him right now, but I think I'll get CTS if I don't rest my hand a while :P --DIREKTOR(TALK)10:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rex_Dominator see for yourself. I don't even refer to people as sockpuppets/puppeteers until the results are clear, but I'm not sure what the policy is. In any case, I suggest that you stop arguing because it won't do you any good. Apologize to each other and get back to working with articles. Kotiwalo (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said above, that is a report on a possible connection with User:Rex Dominator, not with User:Luigi 28 and/or User:Brunodam (which is what I was referring to when I accused him of being a sock). His mention in that report was a quick check. Please bear in mind that socks of those two users have been harassing me intermittently for months and years, even seeking me out in the real world, posting my home information on the web, and threatening me personally ("We are coming!"). The above quotes are a collection of my worst moments, taken out-of-context, and I believe they are in no way indicative of my character. Nevertheless, I sincerely apologize for them, as I'm certainly not proud of such episodes, even though they have been manipulated to appear far worse than they are. --DIREKTOR(TALK)11:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have determined that DIREKTOR isn't an evil menace, and the sockpuppet discussion doesn't belong in help desk, so I'd call this issue settled. I'll contact Sir Floyd and ask him about a few things that spring to mind when looking at his edit history. Kotiwalo (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New user here, with new page & need review of it & what I can do;
I don't want number's, where my link's are, and I don't quite understand the full setting's, you know, control. I want to get it just right like I want, just it's a tad confusing, so to speak. I can play with this/that back and forth to get (?) just right, but please, not 3 hour's or so to do it. I can catch on quick, IF, I undertsnad that which I have access to. I mean, I try to edit now, and get a download file to download - what is that? No program to id the file, thus, to open. I wanna have access to all your possible feature's, but I think they need to be in a more easier understandable format, ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreydavidmorris (talk • contribs) 11:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In brief - as a new user (less than 10 contributions) you are not able to upload images to Wikipedia; you can upload non-copyright images to commons, but that won't help in this situation. I will see if I can find a logo and add it to the article; I will let you know here. Chzz ► 17:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I thought that this user would have been autoconfirmed, as I thought active accounts were grandfathered in when the right became active. TNXMan18:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've generally noticed new pages showing up a couple hours or so after adding—having said that, I created a new article yesterday and it hasn't yet shown up.--SPhilbrickT19:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there's not, but you can convert $/square foot to $/square meter manually ($/ft2 x (1 ft2 / 1 9.290304 × 10−2 m2)). Hope that helps! E Wing (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes go through disambiguation pages to check the pages that link there and improve (or remove) the links and I've stumbled on something odd. Mal is a DAB page. The "What links here" page is here and you can see several entries, including Amta and Haripal. However, neither of those pages seem to have a link to Mal anywhere that I can see. Even when I edit the entire page and do a word find using Firefox, the letters m-a-l apparently don't occur in that order anywhere on either page. What am I missing here? Matt Deres (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Mal" is in the template {{Municipalities of West Bengal}}, which is transcluded in both articles. Often, when checking "What links here" entries, one has to look at the templates transcluded in the article, entries in which won't show up in the editable text of the article. But they will show up in "What links here" for all articles in which the template is used. In this case, the template should probobly be altered so that Mal is a redlink (perhaps by adding a disambiguation parenthesis), since we don't seem to have an article about the place. Deor (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Thanks for that. I can't believe I didn't think to expand the templates when searching; I thought for sure they'd operate as distinct entities. That template seems to be deprecated; most of the listings there actually use a more specific template on their article page, which is why there aren't dozens of hits showing up at the what-links-to-mal page. Matt Deres (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Mal seems to be the same place as Malbazar, but I don't know enough about the region to be sure. If the template is going to be used, perhaps a change to that name would be in order. Deor (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help wikify article
Al Williamson is an article that I roughly threw together that's been through a peer review. There's a 'To do' list on the talk page. Eventually I want to take it to a GA review. But not right now. I don't have time to work on it, so if anyone wants to pimp it up, you are cordially invited to do so. It's a fairly sizeable article, with extensive references, so I think it's got good GA potential. --Scott Free (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)--[reply]
Please quote error messages when you report them. What people see on a page can be different for several reasons. I could only see one error message when I examined the page: "This template must be substituted. Replace {{GASweepsHold}} with {{subst:GASweepsHold}}."
It's caused by this code at Talk:Chicago Theatre/GA1#Checking against GA criteria: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk||{{error:not substituted|GASweepsHold}}<div style="display:none;">}}. The code produces the quoted error message when the code is not in the Talk namespace, so it happened when it was transcluded on the non-talk page Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review. The code originates from a substitution of {{GASweepsHold}}. You can remove the code if you want. The message is only intended to be displayed when {{GASweepsHold}} is transcluded instead of substituted, but the way the code checks for that causes the message to also display when a substitution of {{GASweepsHold}} is transcluded in another namespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You came to the wrong place. This page is for help on using Wikipedia. Pokerdance has started a discussion on this here. Please continue your discussion there. ≈ Chamaltalk¤04:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a uploaded file is such that when you zoom into it you can see someone else's private information, in this case a license plate, is it allowed on Wikipedia? Divod (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it showing something other that the license plate? The plate would hardly be private information, for it is visible to everyone on the road. —teb728tc08:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the picture doesn't it? If it's something offensive or embarassing, it's unlikely the owner would want that here. I guess the person involved can use WP:OTRS and ask it to be removed if they want. ≈ Chamaltalk¤08:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an page on an Organization called SoftDEL Systems on my User page. I want to have a review. The article can be found at User:Peswriter/Softdel. Please review and give feedback.
Just a quick glance, the business lines bits needs some work as it reads like an advert - "With technology advancement the desire for higher precision/resolutions and performance has increased many folds", "With its alliance with BACnet [10]and hands on experience in Building Automation product development and sustenance SoftDEL enables firm to introduce new products rapidly." - just the fact, no puff. I'll take a look at the sources later (if someone does not beat me to it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.8 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bad gateway
I can't see any wikipedia page on my iphone - I keep getting "bad gateway 502" errors.
This happens as it try to go to the mobile version (en.m.wikipedia).
Now, that's way too annoying. I don't care about the mobile version, I just
want to be able to read the site. Paolo - 17-AUG-2009 09:15 EDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.15.132 (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a case of child support and the father has not been paying for quit sometime. Income tax season is coming up, I need to know how about making it so when he files,because he is behind, that He will pay what is owed from his tax return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SnPh (talk • contribs) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.8 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.--SPhilbrickT14:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about the lead section, I'd say it's not enough for any reader, let alone a transformers gamer :) It's just one sentence. WP:LEAD says it should summarise the article adequately, so yes, a little more info there would be good. ≈ Chamaltalk¤14:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It affects some but not most IE users. It happens on normal article pages and not uploaded files. Users have especially reported it happening when clicking on a link to Wikipedia from a Google search results page. In that case I think it can be avoided by manually copying the url to the browser address bar. Otherwise I don't know a solution without changing browser. When does it happen for you? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily Deleted Articles
I recently created an article, entitled Astro & Glyde, which was speedily deleted on the grounds that it was biased. I have since altered the article to make it objective. Am I allowed to resubmit the article, albeit changed, or will I be sanctioned for reinstating an article that was previously deleted from wikipedia? I am unclear as to what the policy is on this - can deleted articles be resubmitted if there is substantial change in them? Thanks. Higginson21 (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the article has been improved, there is no policy against recreating the material. The only times you would be prevented from recreating the material is if the article has been protected from creation or previously deleted via a deletion discussion (in which case, you would have to show an improved article in your userspace before recreating). TNXMan16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you do resubmit the article, be sure that it demonstrates the notability of the company according to the criteria at WP:ORG. All facts, particularly those that demonstrate notability, must be backed up by references reliable sources independent of the company. —teb728tc20:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that's fine. My question was in fact really about the technical difficulty that I am encountering. I will see what they say at thechnical village pump. olivier (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a rather specific question. A long long time ago I was editing the page of the Harvard Glee Club, a choir that is notable for the number of composers who have written pieces for it. I added a list of all such pieces that I could identify. Each of these pieces has a note smack at the top, or on the inside front page, that says it was written for the harvard glee club, and I clumsily tried to explain that in the introduction to the list. However, in a subsequent attempt to get the article "good" status, an editor specifically complained that this list was "entirely unsourced." I would like to give another go at getting the article "good" status but I think this is the only issue from last time that will be hard to fix. Is it really necessary to manually cite each item on the list? What is the difference between doing that and simply stating at the top that each piece carries the dedication note? It's all good faith anyway, since no matter how it's cited, people will have to go look up the pieces to "prove" the citation is correct. The only difference I can identify is that the former will take hours and hours of work. Any feedback on this question would be appreciated! --Dmz5*Edits**Talk*18:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One sneaky, underhanded, dirty way around this is to create your own website using a pseudonym, throw all this information onto it, and then cite your own web page as a source in the article. Of course, this probably violates a couple of guidelines and is probably unethical; and as the encyclopedia ages and its references become better and better, your own website will become less and less acceptable as a reference. But, hey, it's not as much work. Of course, now that I've given that advice, some individuals are going to be on the lookout for such underhandedness. Tempshill (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess I could contact someone affiliated with them and ask them if they wouldn't mind creating a subpage on their website that lists the info. They have all the music more or less in front of them there anyway. But yeah, moderately unethical :)Dmz5*Edits**Talk*01:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unethical. You have done a bunch of research to create your list, but Wikipedia does not publish original research, because we explicitly do not validate the identity of our editors or vouch for them. Therefore, you must publish your research elsewhere, under your own name or at least at a place that we can trust and that will take responsibility for the accuracy of your research. After you have done that, you can then cite that source. Because this particular research is completely objective, we can cite the result without worrying about the stricture against self-publication. Remember: we are here to build an encyclodedia, and the rules are in place to guide us. In this particular instance, an unthinking adherence to the rules is getting in the way, so we must look at our goals and adapt the rules: WP:IAR is the correct rule, here. If you are truly paranoid, publish your research under your own name soemwhere on the web, and then come back here and ask another editor to actually create the list. As long as you do not attempt to hide what you are doing, it is not unethical. -Arch dude (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
how can I change my password
hi, i want to change my password as secure action I do regually for all my ID on web, I cant find the option in my profile, can someone helps me, thanks you--Sarah.gkhia (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the term Iran was used in Persian literature by prominent historians and there are valid, reliable sources such as the Encyclopedia Iranica, than would it be relevant. I don't know if this is the right place to ask this. If it isn't, could you please direct me to another talk page that would discuss and answer my question. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me?19:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can I use talk pages without my discussions being archived or deleted? I post things about improving the article but admins keep archiving it and deleting it. And they just say WP:POINT or trolling. Why is this?--Cddoughty (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can't move a file. What you do is reupload it with the new name. Reference the original file name from the new file page. —teb728tc20:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently Wikipedia doesnt have an article on that person. This is likely because she may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I would suggest you use Google instead. --Pgecaj (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. You can find her here or here Please note that Wp does not allow such querys please try google or chat forums instead--Notedgrant (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
adding pictures
Hi i wnat to add a new picutre on a aricle about a city. the image has a copyright image on it. so step by step how can i add the image to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torres27 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are not supposed to use images you find on the Web at all on Wikipedia except for a handful of fair use exceptions and images that specifically say they are licensed under the GFDL or one of the compatible CC licenses. So, please don't bother — you're supposed to locate a freely usable photo. Tempshill (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, use of an image under copyright should be avoided, see WP:IUP. In some circumstances, when a fair use argument can be documented (and it must be documented) an image under copyright can be used, subject to restrictions. See WP:FAIR for details, and step by step instructions.--SPhilbrickT23:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could a free replacement of the picture be made. If so, you would have to convince the copyright owner to release it under a free license or find a free replacement or make your own free replacement. There is no way to use a replaceable non-free picture here. —teb728tc23:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mass nonsense/spam edits
I've seen at least three edits in the last half-hour or so, all from different IPs editing different articles, adding:
"Please type the following into your address bar in order to discuss this (or any other topic)..."
I found a site that called it a bulletin board for pedophiles - interestingly, I couldn't post the site name as I got blocked.--SPhilbrickT23:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are spambots; automated processes that spam Wikipedia articles by using a variety of open proxies to avoid blocking and cause us no end of troubles. I will cross-post this to WP:ANI for more attention. --Jayron3201:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
August 18
Enable mobile version
I inadvertantly hit the "permanently disable mobile version" link. How do I enable it again? I found an answer in the FAQ that directed me to the WAP site, but it is not the same as before. 68.228.91.169 (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please do your own homework.
