:Are you searching at Google and clicking the links on the Google search results page? Several users have reported problems with that. If it's your problem then manually copy the url to the browser address bar instead of clicking the link. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 21:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:Are you searching at Google and clicking the links on the Google search results page? Several users have reported problems with that. If it's your problem then manually copy the url to the browser address bar instead of clicking the link. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 21:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I clicked on your username instead of the link. I have tried copy/paste, but the same thing usually happens. I'll try the purge (if it will work on IE). If not, I may switch back to IE7 or another browswer. IE8 has some neat features, but is very slow and does not seem to allow as many tabs/windows to be open simultaneously as IE7.
[[User:Cpmgrp|Cpmgrp]] ([[User talk:Cpmgrp|talk]]) 21:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
== posting pdf references that do not link to an external web site ==
== posting pdf references that do not link to an external web site ==
When i log in the usual way, i get the usual page confirming the successful log-in. But when I then click watchlist or main page or help desk, or anything else, i am suddenly not logged in. This means i cannot see my watchlist or edit under my user name. To make it more frustratingly strange, when i first started using this hotel computer a few days ago, i was able to log in with no trouble, and yesterday, it did this only a few times before it took my log in. Today, I have tried nearly 20 times: every time it tells me i successfully logged in, but next click shows me i have not. Any ideas (besides telling me I should get out of my hotel room and do something else)? 218.89.2.142 (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a problem with your computer. Some of the computers in Chengdu are...funny. I have a relative there, and he says sometimes he can't access the internet at all. Intelligentsium02:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a Navbar at the bottom of the Piper Halliwell page called Chronology of the Charmed Ones and their Companions. This Navbar is located on several of the Charmed character pages. It's not really a Navbar template, though, but just a table. It's harder to edit than a real Navbar, because it doesn't have the "v-d-e" (view-discuss-edit) that comes with every true Navbar. I read somewhere that these should be converted to true Navbar templates, so I gave it shot. I completed the template in one of my sandboxes and then created the actual template on this page. Then after all that hard work, I logged out. But before I left the room, I thought I'd check the template while I'm in a logged out state. It looked very different from when I was logged in. The spacings in three of the rows were all screwed up. I first had used "em" pad spacings and then tried "ex" and "px". The px got the closest, but even it is screwy looking after I log out and look at the template.
I first noted this "anomaly"(?) on my User page. I've created several Userboxes, and when I'm logged out, these boxes are larger and change the look of the page. The really curious thing is that the old Charmed quasi-Navbar looks exactly the same whether I'm logged in or not.
Template:Charmed Companions looks the same to me when I'm logged in and out, both in Firefox and IE8. I use the default MonoBook skin in preferences. Logged out users can only use MonoBook. Which skin and browser are you using? Using {{pad}} to align vertically sounds risky to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note about using the {{pad}} template... I switched to the {{loop}} template. There is still a small, slightly noticeable diff in the Simple skin, but it's significantly better than any of the three {{pad}} choices.
(out) Thank you all very much for your responses! I don't have but one browser, IE7; however, the information about the skin used appears to be right on. I use the "Simple" skin. I just changed to the MonoBook and found that there was then no difference between when I'm logged in and logged out. So it seems that when building such things as templates the MonoBook skin ought to be utilized to ensure that the template will look right to general readers. Thank you again for the education!
— .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss(^`.06:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Interesting, tho, that such a thing as changing the skin would make a dramatic change in the way a Navbar appears, isn't it?
Trying to align vertically by using multiple spaces (whether or not this is done with {{loop}}) can also be unstable, for example for readers with another font size in their browser. I think the only stable method for vertical alignment is tables with the vertically aligned elements in the same table column, but I don't know whether there is a practical way to do that for your purpose at Template:Charmed Companions. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How to upload an image?
I have reached to bring the exemplary image in the article but am not able to find a way to upload the exact picture through the exemplary image.The procedure ia a bit twisty..specially for new up loaders.. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olikawala (talk • contribs) 08:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add an existing image to an article, add [[Image:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information.
If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must find out what the proper license of the image is. If you know the image is licensed under a free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure what license the image takes, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article naming
I created an article about Step some time ago. It's a physics simulator included in KDE. The question is - the article's current name is Step (KDE) - would a more descriptive name like Step (physics simulator) or Step (sofware) be better? Kotiwalo (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very few people have actually edited the article, it might take ages before a real discussion would begin. I don't have a clue myself, nor do I really care - I just want to make it sure it's good for as many as possible. Kotiwalo (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is partially just my opinion, but Step (physics simulator) or Step (software) sounds like it might be more appropriate to me. WP:NCDAB says that disambiguating words should consist of generic classes, rather than proper nouns. A quick look through Category:Linux software suggests that most article titles with ( brackets ) use something like "(software)" or a more specific descriptive term like "(web browser)", but there are a few "(KDE)" titles scattered about as well. --☇Kateshortforbobtalk☄13:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can say that the Step (KDE) title is incorrect, as Step is not a KDE. Rather, you could use Step (KDE program) (or something similar), for example. However, step is a physics simulator and it is software, so those would both work, and I'd recommend one of those two. hmwitht14:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Due to the fact that Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL, all edits must be kept for attribution purposes, and so your account cannot be deleted. You do, however, have the right to vanish, which you can exercise by (1) requesting your user page (found at Special:Mypage) and/or user talk page (found at Special:Mytalk) be deleted, by adding the {{db-userreq}} template to them; (2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers); (3) never logging in to your account again. The "right to vanish" does not mean anyone has the right to a fresh start under a new identity. Anyone who wants to continue editing should request a change of username instead so edits can be reattributed. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that RTV would apply here, the user said he uses IP's most of the time, so he doesn't really need an account. ceranthor11:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't use your account. It will not be deleted (and in generally, cannot be deleted - there are very exceptional circumstances when it would be deleted, but not for non-use) - all edits will still remain attributed to it. Personally, I would use it rather than IPs for editing, as there are benefits to using an account rather than an IP - but each to his or her own! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
proposed deletion of 'maple palm'
hi,
i noticed my update to 'maple palm' has been proposed for deletion by someone, who apparently does not care about the lgbt film world. this is typical and why it is so hard to maintain steady careers for actors, writers and directors in a niche market. if 'they' don't know it, it's not significant... great... what a wonderful world this is.
best, besser09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Besser09 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:N for our notability guideline and WP:NF for our movie-specific guideline. You can contest the proposed deletion, but the article is likely to get deleted anyway unless you can verify the notability of the subject. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit - the proposed deletion was contested almost a month ago. The article isn't going to be deleted (for now at least) so instead of criticizing Wikipedia's notability guidelines you could focus on improving the article in question. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PrimeHunter - the article as originally written would be hard to justify for keeping. Thanks to editors Werldwayd, MichaelQSchmidt and ThaddeusB, who found citations and brought it up to the quality for a basic article. I am surprised to see this question when the Proposal for Deletion was removed on 4th August!
I must point out that the the OP (Besser09) is a newcomer to Wikipedia, so let's not bite the newcomer!
To Besser09 don't be disheartened by any proposed deletions! Most editors (even very experienced ones) have articles that they have created proposed for deletion! May I suggest that you re-read the welcome message left by XLinkBot on 23rd June on your talk page - it gives useful links to guidelines and policies. As a community, we do not care about whether a film is mainstream or LGBT - we care about Wikipedia as an authorative encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not censored! If you have any questions about other articles you may work on, feel free to ask here (or you can contact me on my talk page). -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a place for such questions. If you have a question regarding Wikipedia and editing, ask it here - otherwise, see our reference desk (note that we don't give legal or medical advice). Kotiwalo (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have downloaded a picture on the above subject and I would love to contact that person regarding
his/her rebuild of the motorcycle which I do belive the name is Annecananne. Can you help me as I am doing the same but a 1974 360E Honda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.61.179 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that a template used for most navboxes has been changed today. All navboxes that I can find (let's use {{Ohio}} for an example, and see the bottom of Bellevue, Ohio for an example of how this is clogging up some pages) have suddenly lost the ability to be collapsed, and I'd like to see which template has just been modified to remove this ability. However, I can't figure out which template this is — could someone please tell me which template has been edited in this way? Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw the problem. I don't know what caused it (may have been a software problem and not an edit) but it's gone now. Update your cache if you still see it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
my name is Neva Gilbert I was a 1954 July playboy centerfold. You have that information. How can I add new information to yours? I am alive and well and a working actor living in New York City. I have been trying to do this for days. How do I contact to add this to my profile?
Sincerely, Neva Gilbert My address is [email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.233.60 (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best way would be to find reliable references to the information your want added (see Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources) and then go to the talk page for the article (here) and mention the references there - explain that you are Neva Gilbert, and that you would like the information added (do not leave your e-mail address!). If the sources of information are reliable and can be verified (NB these do not have to be online sources - offline sources like newspapers and books can be considered as reliable), then the information can be added. Please note that reliable sources are essential - we have no proof that you are the Neva Gilbert mentioned in the article - even with an e-mail address - whereas reliable sources showing the information you want added would do the job! If you have any other questions, you can either leave a message here, on the article's talk page, or on my talk page (just click on "Contact Me" in my signature). Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I suppose you should probably read the Conflict of Interest policy, but I don't want to bombard you with policies and you haven't shown any COI. Best to just ignore me follow PhantomSteve's advice for now :) (Well, not about the email, don't leave your email address) ----occono (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding that, Occono - I was thinking of mentioning it, but I was aware that my response was pretty long as it was! I also specifically suggesting getting someone else to add it to avoid COI! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage (e.g., Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen, but Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence).
Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid. Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form as in Franz Josef Strauss; and rarely, as with Mount Everest, it will be completely different.
Thanks! I assume this means the article should be renamed. I am too new here to know how to do that so if someone else would care to do it (or point me to the instruction page) I will. Surfer83 (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[intervening edit conflict which now make much of this moot]
But you don't need to delete the German title, which would still be useful to many people and may already have been linked (either within Wikipedia or outside). In fact you shouldn't. Instead redirect the page to the new English-language title once the move has been completed. (This occasionally works in reverse when the foreign-language title is better-known than its English equivalent, but this wouldn't be such an instance.) The redirection would be part of properly-managed move, anyway, but I just thought I'd explain.
By all means, don't hesitate to ask an administrator for help in Moving or Renaming a Page (there should be a link at the top of the edit or discussion page). Yankee Stadium (1923) and Yankee Stadium ares still suffering from a well-intentioned but badly-managed move by an inexperienced editor (there are hundreds of older links to "Yankee Stadium" that still haven't been checked for where they should now go.) —— Shakescene (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Shakescene. However, if someone types in the German title, they would be redirected there - and "What Links Here" showed only one page which was not a User Page or administrative-type of page - and I am about to correct the link on that page to link directly to the article. If there had been a lot of other pages which linked to it, I would have referred this to someone more knowledgeable! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - even that one was a redirect page! The article is actually an orphan! (The links it has are either to User pages or "Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability/Listing by project" listings (plus this Help Desk). -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the Prince Namor page by putting his being mentioned by name in song lyrics, and its not there anymore. I even gave a reference. What is up with that? If you want I should scan a Misfits booklet with the lyrics, I can.
(I added the section heading above, and incidentally linked to the article.) The editor (67.175.176.178) who removed your item and somebody else's didn't give a reason, but I would agree with them that a passing mention in a song is not an encyclopedically notable fact, even if it is sourced. If you want to argue the case, the place to do so is on the article's talk page, but you might also put a note on 67.175.176.178's talk page telling them of your concern and inviting them to join in the discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember once seeing a tool used to identify instances of words or phrases in articles - somebody was illustrating the number of times YouTube was cited by entering 'youtube.com'. Does anyone know where I might find it? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what specific tool you saw but go to Google and limit it to searching Wikipedia by typing site:en.wikipedia.org. Place your search for a phrase in quotes either before or after the limiter (with a space between it and the quoted phrase). You can also use Special:LinkSearch to search all Wikipedia pages that link to a particular external site like youtube.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:49, 23 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) 11:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia logo - a foot?
why is the wikipedia logo (located on the top left corner) that of a foot and what appears to be a blueprint of high heels. is this just me or is this an error/hacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.3.122 (talk)
You must be on a user's user or talk page in order to be able to warn or report to AIV. Twinkle's documentation is pretty thorough and you should definitely become familiar with it before going off and using the script. Remember that you are always completely responsible for any edit you make with Twinkle, and misusing it can get you blocked. Xenon54 (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Occono. Meta-wiki is not in a different namespace but is a different site. Meta-Wiki is the global community site for all of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects, which includes Wikipedia. Because of its relationship to Wikipedia, it seems appropriate to have an administrative page here explaining it. Administrative pages are placed in the Wikipedia namespace. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC) (misread your post, obviously)[reply]
....I know that stuff :) The template at the bottom of the page links to other Articles on Wikimedia Foundation projects, only Wikipedia:Meta is in the Wikipedia namespace, why? It seems to be an Encyclopedic article on Meta-Wiki.----occono (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There may be enough reliable sources on the site itself to create a targeted article. If so, go right ahead and edit the redirect. The material from the administrative page can be merged into the article and ultimately redirected there. I guess it could be moved over the redirect but I wouldn't call it presently an encyclopedic article because it lacks sources. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meta-Wiki is currently a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. Therefore only an administrator could properly move a page over the existing redirect (avoiding a cut and paste move). However, that might be doubtful because Wikipedia:Meta is a longstanding page in project space, about a wiki of primary interest to Wikipedia editors rather than readers. However, I can see the problem in having Meta-Wiki as a rather degenerate redirect. (I consider a redirect to be "degenerate" when it links to an article describing a much larger set that contains what the reader was probably trying to look up. Imagine for example searching for France and instead getting redirected to Europe or Country.) Currently the redirect may be rather confusing to someone who wants the Wikipedia:Meta page. You could fix that by adding a Hatnote to the top of Wikimedia Foundation (perhaps with the {{Redirect}} template) that says:
Meta-Wiki redirects here. For information about the coordinating wiki for all Wikimedia Foundation projects, see Wikipedia:Meta.
I just created a new entry for the village of Wynndel, British Columbia, Canada. I don't understand why if I enter "Wynndel" or "Wynndel, BC" (with or without the comma) into the search box I don't get a matching entry. Entering "Wynndel British Columbia" works fine.
Nothing is wrong. Your article is located at Wynndel, British Columbia. Unfortunately, the software that runs Wikipedia is not smart enough to realize that when you type "Wynndel" or "Wynndel, BC" you mean to go to the article you created. You can, however, make this behaivour happen by creating redirects at those locations. Xenon54 (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's search index has not added the article yet (this will happen automatically) so it cannot be found by searches currently. If you click Enter or Go at the search box then you go directly to a page by that name if it exists, and that functionality doesn't require the search index. You actually have to include the comma in "Wynndel, British Columbia" to go there. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess I did it right then. I just assumed that the indexing was done right away. I'll check in a day or so. Hopefully I'll have time and expertise to add more in the future. Bob (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page blanking is normally vandalism, unless it is done to remove copyright violations or attacks. Also, if it is done by the author of a page and no one else has edited it, it may be regarded as a request for deletion under WP:CSD#G7. A partial removal of content may also be vandalism, or carried out for one of the reasons given above, or a removal of unnecessary content per consensus or simply a removal of vandalism. In such a case, the editor would normally explain this action in their edit summary or article talk page. Recent changes patrollers normally revert unexplained removal of content/page blanking as vandalism unless it is an obvious removal of an attack etc. It's best to contact the editor who did it if you are uncertain. ≈ Chamaltalk¤03:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I think your question is easier answered by looking at when blanking is not considered vandalism. Removing unsourced material from articles that you challenge is enshrined in policy. See WP:BURDEN. Removing material that is original research, or fringe, or provides undue weight, or otherwise is not neutral point of view, even when sourced, is not vandalism. And, of course, removing material that violates our policy on biographies of living persons is not vandalism. Vandalism, at base, has to do with intent. Is a person removing material for a good faith reason or are they a... vandal? (vandal=bad faith). What must not be forgotten, though, is that if you're going to perform such removal, always leave an explanatory edit summary and possibly a note on an article's talk page explaining the removal so you don't appear to be a vandal, despite good intentions. We cannot read minds so removal of material without explanation invites scrutiny and, depending on context, a presumption that the edit should be reverted. The word "blanking" often is used to refer to not just any removal, but removal of large swaths of material or a page's entire content. There are few reasons to do so, and such edits better have a good explanation. I hope that hjelps clarify matters. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One important thing to note is that removing talk page messages from your own user talk page is NEVER considered vandalism; users are allowed to remove any messages, including to fully blank, their own user talk page, and such actions should not even raise an eyebrow from anyone else. See WP:BLANKING. --Jayron3205:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You overstate the policy. 'Blanking your own talk page is not vandalism' and 'blanking your own talk page should not even raise an eyebrow from anyone else' are two very different statements. It is not vandalism, but I certainly perceive users to who habitually blank comments off their talk pages as either antisocial or trying to hide something, and will not, as a rule, support them for any positions of community responsibility. - BanyanTree07:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User subpage use
Is it ok for me to use one of my user sandboxes to create a document that isn't related to Wikipedia, but that I want organized and formatted like a Wikipedia article, so long as I delete the content after I have copied it into a word processor? Ks0stm(T•C)03:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content must be related to Wikipedia (such as the draft of an article you intend to move into the mainspace, something you intend to use in your main userpage etc) even in your userspace. See WP:UP, particularly the section WP:UP#NOT. ≈ Chamaltalk¤03:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who will know or care! Just get on with it because no one patrols User pages, as far as I know, for such trifling infringements (especially considering that you were kind enough to ask). - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you do not even have any deleted contributions, which means you did not save your work to the English Wikipedia. Unless it was written for a different Wikipedia, if you did not save it, it is lost for good. --Jayron3205:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're going to have to tell us what the problem is, actually. At least what you think is wrong with it? Is it some issue with the article itself, or the way it is displayed or what? ≈ Chamaltalk¤07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might have registered in Wikipedia some time ago but I cannot remember the username or the password that I used to register.
I have found an error in an entry in Wikipedia.
How do I rediscover my username and password?
My email is <removed>
Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.243.88 (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't remember your username, it's going to be hard to find it again. If you have at least a vague memory of what kind of thing it was, you can try looking in Special:ListUsers. If you find the username, you can retrieve the password by using the "Email new password" option at Special:UserLogin. Otherwise, just create a new account and use that. Or you can edit without using an account, but your edits will then be recorded with your IP address, as in here. ≈ Chamaltalk¤07:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you recall editing an article? If so, you might find your edit in the history of the article. The history would tell the username associated with the edit. —teb728tc07:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help with citations
Hello, I am looking for a page that describes in detail how citations on Wikipedia work. I know I can just type [1] nad give a link to the citation at the bottom of the page but I noticed that some pages have special codes that link the citations. What page can I find this on? Thanks Tgv8925 (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Tgv8925, we have several templates for citations that work really well. See this page: WP:CITET. There are two different citation styles that are regularly used on Wikipedia, so templates are given for both kinds. You will see, for example, that for citing books, you are given the option to use either {{tl:cite book}} or {{tl:citation}} (book). I tend to prefer using the first format (you'll see throughout the page that it's given as {{tl:cite book}}, {{tl:cite journal}}, {{tl:cite web}}, etc.). All you need to do is copy and paste the template parameters that are given in the Common usage column. It should go inside your <ref> </ref> tags; if you're not sure how to use those, see the link that Chamal gave you and Referencing for beginners. Fill in information after each parameter (see the other columns on the template page for some examples on how) and delete the parameters you don't need. Hope this is helpful, too, :-) Feel free to ask if you have more questions! Maedin\talk08:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...In February 2009, Professor Black proposed a number of Scots law changes so as to expedite the Lockerbie appeal verdict.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2486999.0.Expert_devises_changes_in_law_to_speed_Lockerbie_appeal_verdict.php |title=Expert devises changes in law to speed Lockerbie appeal verdict |date=2009-02-05 |author=Lucy Adams |publisher=[[Glasgow Herald|The Herald]] |accessdate=2009-02-06 }}</ref>...
Put this at near the end of the article...
==References==
<references/>
The <ref>...</ref> tags create a footnote, and the <references/> tag displays all of the footnotes that have been created. If you want to see other examples, just open any article that has footnotes for editing (but remember not to save the page). Good luck! Peter Chastain (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is a YouTube video original research?
Hello, on an entry that talks about a Youtube video posted as part of a social action campaign, does a description of the Youtube videos posted by the campaign need any other citation than the Youtube videos themselves. i.e. it doesn't claim the Youtubes are 'research' but simply describes the content.
The videos led to a major public figure calling for urgent changes to the law - the reason for mentioning the content of the videos.
There has been an objection on the talk page. The objection says 'original research'.
If the alternate meaning of an article title does not have an article on its own, but a section within another article - do you link to that article title, or directly to the section? --KnightMove (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that if (for example) "Placeville" is both a place and a book, then the book is located at the article "Placeville" and the place (which would be located at "Placeville (place)") is located at the article "Placeville County" under the section "County seat"?
I think you would link directly to the section, because linking to the article might cause a "how did I get here?" moment. So if I wrote "Rupert Griffin was born in Placeville", I wouldn't link to "Placeville County", I would link to "Placeville County#County seat". Xenon54 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The piano company Steinway & Sons has 2 headquarters – one in New York City and one in Hamburg. The two headquarters are equal. The Danish article about da:Steinway & Sons has the two pair of geographic coordinates in the up right corner. Is it possible to get the same in the English article about Steinway & Sons? Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any way to do that while retaining the useful features of the {{coord}} template. The Danish article uses a workaround that invoves a direct link to Geohack, which I don't think is a good idea. Instead, I've added the coordinates in the infobox, where the locations are listed. Is that OK? Deor (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would break terribly quickly when users switch skins for instance. The better idea is to simply not have a "title" coordinate at all, and just specify 2 inline coordinates in the infobox. The "title" should really only be used for articles on absolutely defined locations. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. What do you mean by: "No, that would break terribly quickly when users switch skins for instance."? Would you please elaborate what you mean? Thanks. Fanoftheworld (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Skin gives general information about skins, but I don't know what specific breakage TheDJ has in mind. In general, tricky page layouts that look good in one skin might not look good in another. Between all the possible combinations of skins and browsers, it's amazing anything works. --Teratornis (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Coord contains a bunch of subtemplates and microformats and other things I don't understand that allow people viewing WP to alter how the coordinates display for them and that pass specific information to Geohack and the mapping services linked from there. Bypassing them with kludgy direct links to Geohack would make the coordinates less useful to our audience, as I understand it. Deor (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do I find out the date an article was published as the featured article of the day? Is there an easier way than crawling through a huge change history for a frequently edited article?
If you go to the article talk page, it is usually listed in the "Article History" template. For the Barack Obama article, this template has been squished over to the side. If you click "show" next to the "Article Milestones" heading, it lists all of the various milestones. The Obama article specifically is unique in that it ran as a TFA on two different dates, AFAIK, the only article ever to do so. It ran on August 18, 2004 the first time, and on November 4, 2008 as part of a double-TFA (also a first ever) with John McCain in honor of the U.S. presidential election held that day. --Jayron3216:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh! I see. Would've never thought to look at the talk page. :-) (And never noticed that particular feature there, either, surprisingly.) Thanks, guys, for the assistance and useful information. I'd not realized that (re: TFA twice) and had forgotten about the double-TFA -- which was a classy move on WP's part that I appreciated. Dsf (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Placename confusion
Here's a mare's nest I have no idea how to untangle. There are three towns in Wales with similar names: Penygroes, in Gwynedd; another Penygroes, in Pembrokeshire; and Pen-y-groes, in Carmarthenshire (see List of United Kingdom locations: Pe-Pen#Pent-Penz). The only one we appear to currently have an article for is the Gwynedd one, but it's at the (incorrect) title Pen-y-Groes, with redirects to it existing at Penygroes and Pen-y-groes; so that whichever place one may be looking for, one winds up at the article about the Gwynedd place. I was all set to move the article to "Penygroes" over the redirect, but I realized that wouldn't really solve the problem. Short of writing articles about the other two places (about which I know nothing), moving the article to a correct name, retargeting the resulting redirect to Pen-y-groes, creating a dab page for the three places, and spending much time checking incoming links to make sure each goes to the right article, is there any way to fix this? Deor (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the three of them, is there any one which would be notable than the others? If so, that would have the main article. Otherwise the current one (with corrected spelling) will be the main one - if articles for the others are created, they would need to be called Penygroes (Pembrokeshire) and Pen-y-groes respectively. Unless the Gwynedd one is also known as Pen-y-groes, then the redirect at Pen-y-groes]] should be deleted. Otherwise, from what I can see, everything should be kept as it is. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After posting the above, I noticed that someone had already created a stub at Pen-y-groes, Carmarthenshire, and I ended up fixing the problem in a way that seemed logical to me (the last words of many a Wikipedian)—moving the Gwynedd place's page to Penygroes, Gwynedd, creating a dab page at Penygroes, retargeting some redirects, and cleaning up incoming links. I'm expecting the cascade of vituperation, from UK editors who know that the one in Gwynedd is ("of course") the primary topic, to descend on my head at any moment. Deor (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to make an icon show up for Good Articles?
It's long been debated and consensus almost always comes up that only FA's should get a magic icon on the article page. GA's are noted as such on the article talk page, which should be enough. --Jayron3220:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The ressponse on the Perennial page is referring to your own user settings. If you click on your preferences and go to the ""gadgets" tab, you'll see a section entitled "User interface gadgets." Click the option to "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article." It's a neat feature, I use it. There won't be an icon, but it has a little dropdown that gives the assessment. There is unlikely to be a GA-icon like for FA for the reason stated - it's a review by one person, and as such not inherently audited. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs)20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs available from the History page seem to be absolutely essential for detecting vandalism and bad edits, yet the software often fails to make sense of fairly simple changes. It seems to easily "get lost" and flag large chunks of text as entirely different even when they are identical. One then has to go through the whole thing laboriously by hand, or (more usually) give up and thereby potentially miss bad edits. This is a typical example of what I mean. In my time here I have encountered dozens (probably hundreds) of similar examples.
I wonder if someone who understands the bug/enhancement reporting system would be so kind as to flag this up to the developers so that it may be addressed. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.243.119 (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could try User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff. Bugzilla has some enhancement requests for diffs. See for example bugzilla:5072. Your post does not appear constructive enough to be useful to developers. I'm sure they are aware that some diffs could be better, but many things could be better and I guess developers have a lot to do. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Your post does not appear constructive enough to be useful to developers." Huh?? What more do you expect? Do you want me to spend hours and hours trying every different permutation of possible changes to see which work and which don't? I've given a representative example of exactly what is going wrong, which should be perfectly sufficient for the developers. I tried adding a bug once, but it didn't work/I couldn't figure out how to do it, which is why I asked if someone else would be so kind as to do it on my behalf. But it seems at bugzilla:5072 that it's already known, so thanks for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.243.119 (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MediaWiki software probably uses a line-oriented diff. This is subject to errors when users edit wikitext without manually wrapping their lines. In the example you gave above, the changes involve insertions of line breaks and headings into what were previously paragraphs on one line apiece. If the paragraphs had been on multiple lines of wikitext, the diff software would probably have resynchronized sooner. As you can see from the diff, the software resynchronizes when it gets to the next identical pair of lines. In any case, the editor whose diffs you show in your example made the situation worse by editing several sections in one go. Diffs work better and are easier to understand when editors save a few changes at a time. That also minimizes the risk of edit conflicts so it's better practice anyway. As to how much work you should do to help the developers, that depends on how much you want the developers to help you. Developers are human, and many are volunteers, so naturally they will work first on the requests that are clearest and easiest to understand. See How to Ask Questions the Smart Way. Asking good questions is, in fact, often hard work. --Teratornis (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't expect you to spend hours and hours (although some people do) when you didn't want to post to bugzilla yourself. I was just explaining why I wouldn't copy your message to the developers. I could have ignored the post or said "no" without explanation. I simply guess the developers already know the basic limitations in the diff code and wouldn't get new information from your post. Examples of diffs with problems similar to the one you gave are easy to find and I often see them too. Maybe you are not a programmer. Programmers often know their programs have poor perfomance in some situations but going from there to improving the code and testing the new code to release quality can be complicated and time consuming. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Counting all the pages in a category including those in subcategories
{{PAGESINCATEGORY:State governors of the United States}} says: 33. m:Help:Magic_words#Statistics does not say whether that includes pages in subcategories, but the result looks like the sum of the pages in the category (11) and the number of immediate subcategories (58). Some of the subcategories have many pages in them, so that obviously isn't the recursive sum you want. Maybe m:CatScan can help. --Teratornis (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PHP Unix timestamp
I am not a PHP coder, but am trying to understand a bot being developed (User:Full-date unlinking bot). I have done some online searcing, and found that a Unix timestamp in PHP is an integer. The amount of storage available for an integer is platform-dependent, but is often 32 bits (1 bit sign + 31 bit magnitude). Does anyone know the storage of a PHP integer on Wikipedia's servers? --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've been experimenting with creative ways of deterring vandals. The problem is, I can't get "last change" to link to the last revision of the user talk page of whomever attempts to click it. And yes, I have tried substituting "Special:MyTalk" in for the name of the target page where it says "title=(Targetpage)" in the url. Any suggestions? Intelligentsium22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I need is a way to link to the most recent revision of the talk page of any user who clicks the link. So far, I've found replacing the target page with Special:MyTalk does not seem to work. Any ideas? Intelligentsium01:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try [[User talk:{{REVISIONUSER}}]]; when viewed directly, REVISIONUSER will show the last editor, but when 'transcluded it will show the viewing user. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk03:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where to report this, so, here I am. The list you have of the order of the Harry Potter books list "Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone" is incorrect. The book is titled "Harry Potter and the SORCERER'S Stone". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvicebears2004 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book was renamed for the United States. The name used is the original name where it was originally published. -- kainaw™00:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits came across as grandstanding.Please do not accuse people of attempting to discredit you. It is a simple case of trying to improve the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia and limit soapboxing. Any thoughts on the article from anyone (including admins if needed) are of course appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I did an extensive re-edit on the "Puddle of Mudd" article with massive updates with many newly added external links and proper article headlines, punctuation and so on.
Someone deleted what took me over 4 hours. There was absolutly no reason whatsover on why that was done. They put the article back to it's disorginized impropper state.
It's usually better to make a few small changes to an article at a time, and wait for a few days to see how other editors react. Making lots of changes all at once without discussing them first is aggressive editing. There's nothing wrong with being aggressive (i.e. bold) but it invites others to be aggressive right back. Wikipedia has 47,898,985 registered user accounts and a similar number of unregistered contributors, so it is very easy to offend someone by changing just about anything around here. The more drastically you want to change something, the more it pays to discuss your plans first on the talk page. Remember, when you extensively change another editor's work, you are potentially dissing them. It's nice to have some idea how people are going to respond to that before you plunge ahead. --Teratornis (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
confused about how to transfere page i have created
hi, i dont know how to transfere the page i have created, on "tom budge"
i am not sure where it is in my wikipedia local/username, i just go
to "my contributions" and there is a list of changes i have made
to the page and i access it from there, but i wants to transferes its
to THE WIKIPEDIA, so that when somone types "tom budge" on the regular interenet
then my page about him in wikipedia will appear.....someone help, thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerGleeson (talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have already done it. Type "Tom Budge" in the search box and your article should come up. If you are talking about a google search, external search engines will take a while to find the page and index it. There's nothing we can do about this but wait. It may take a few hours or days, but it will eventually happen. ≈ Chamaltalk¤04:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you have other non-Wikipedia-related questions, please see the Reference desk. The volunteers there will be happy to assist you with any question not having to do with editing Wikipedia. Xenon54 (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Social Security Benefit Questions
I understand there is a social Security Benefit Program that exists that is not publicized or made know to the public. But it involves a 2-page form that can be completed, then taken to the SSA office and it has the ability to increase your Social Security Benefits.
Now I have called the SSA office and no one there seems to know about it, which is typical for a government agency and I was told this would happen.
Does anyone know of this program? I understand only a few hundred people accessed it last year.
Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. hmwitht16:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tnxman307! Unless you can provide a name of either the program or the form, then I would assume so too. Unless of course, you mean the Dupability Clause 2(i) - which requires form GULL-i-BLE. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was (for some reason) related to the toolserver being down earlier today. Firefox kept telling me "Connecting to toolsever.org..." when loading my watchlist. It seems to be fixed now. Xenon54 (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is there any way to get in touch with the author (I believe there is only one author in this matter) of a new posted article? Many thanks, Tim WallachTwallach2 (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on the history tab at the top of the article's page, you'll see everyone who contributed to the page. If you then click on the relevant talk link, you can add to (or create) the editor's talk page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
can the constant, disruptive, erratical editions of someone that doesn't speak the language, after he/she was properly warned, be regarded as vandalism?--camrnag17:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. To which article were you referring? If someone doesn't have a good command of English, it's important to assume good faith and try to help them out. TNXMan17:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, he contributes to the italian (his native wp) but he also does so to the english and the spanish wp, in a more disruptive way. (btw, those 3 are in the top 10).--camrnag23:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot just upload any picture you find, however. Pictures you did not take yourself are likely under copyright, and with a few exceptions, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia as their use in most cases would violate our Image Use Policy. If you did take the picture yourself, you are free to upload it; however as noted the best place to do so is at Commons to allow it to be used at all related Wikimedia sites. --Jayron3202:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editing introductory paragraph for topic
How do I edit the introductory paragraph and the photo caption? Slow Lorises have NEVER been native to Greece...They are exclusively from Asia. Also, the antique drawing is of a Bengal slow loris (Nycticebus bengalensis). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorislady (talk • contribs) 20:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to note that the Greece 'fact' was added here, a few days ago. I will remove that unreferenced addition, check the users other edits, and perhaps question them about it. Chzz ► 01:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help with reverting vandalism
Hi there. I'm not sure what to do. The same IP keeps redirecting the page Manufactured band to Jonas Brothers. This is clear vandalism and I've reverted three times but I'm not sure what the process are to report this minor act (yet persistent) vandalism. Thanks. »—Mikay—talk—contribs→20:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Report them at WP:AIV. Edit the "user reported" section and use the IP template and add maybe one or two instances of their vandalism, and an admin will get along to it directly. Cureden20:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:AZ-districts-109-02.jpg has an error in it: 3 of the districts in the small map are numbered incorrectly. I realize this image is pulled directly from a public-domain government website, and obviously that site is the source of the error. Short of calling up someone at the Department of the Interior, does anyone have a suggestion for how to fix the image currently on Wikipedia? Oughgh (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a different reliable source with the correctly numbered districts, the best thing to do would be to contact the editor who uploaded the map, and show him the sources and ask him to fix it. The person who actually created it likely has the original maps saved on his own computer, and it would be a trivial correction to make. --Jayron3202:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Including material cited to a subscriber-only resource doesn't violate policy: paid-for (and indeed offline) sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as it would be possible to verify them. If you want to check what the source says, you could ask whether someone at the WP Resource Exchange can help. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Gonzonoir says, this is perfectly valid for a reference. The reference is verifiable by someone with a subscription. It is in the same way that a reference citing a newspaper or a book is valid, even though not every reader would necessarily have access to the newspaper or book. If it exists, is reliable, and can be verified, it is suitable as a reference. May I point out that quite often I have found that news references that I find are only available on a subscription or pay-per-view basis. Although not every one has a subscription, there will be some editors/readers who would have. If you have doubts that the reference actually contradicts (or at least does not fully back up) what is in the article, this should be discussed on the article's talk page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Logo
I wanted to add an image to the Stussy article's infobox. I have not been able to find an appropriately licensed image in commons or flickr and have not had anything from Stussy to snap a pic of in over a decade. The website just recently went down (I think they are launching something new) but it has their logo. I also found a better siced one here. A fair use rational could easily be created (I think) for use of the logo but I wasn't sure the best way or from where to pull a clean copy. The bitmap gets weird when pulling fromt he official site and I assume pulling fromt he blog site is not OK. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use is rationale for us not being able to find permission when it is more than aesthetic. Regardless of that, editors can show some balls and send a quick email. Thanks for the reminder. I'll shoot a quick message to see what they are doing logo wise (this is especially important if they are doing rebranding) and reserve FUR if they don't want to go for it.Cptnono (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Difference between Studio and Distributor
I have been recently creating new articles on musical films but i am a bit confused with the template. Please can someone explain the difference between "studio" and "distributor". Thanks.--Coin945 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The studio is often also the distributor. I would assume that the distribution parameter would be left out of the infobox unless it is a separate entity. I suppose it could be duplicated in the field but that seems redundant.Cptnono (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As Cptnono says, normally they are the same. Generally, the studio would be better referred to as the Production company - the company that made the film. The distributor is an independent company, a subsidiary company or occasionally an individual, which acts as the final agent between a film production company or some intermediary agent, and a film exhibitor, to the end of securing placement of the producer's film on the exhibitor's screen (to quote from Film distributor). For the major studios, the distributor is the subsidiary company of the studio. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding copyright information to an image
I created an image, which I have added to an article. It has been deleted as it doesn't have the correct "copyright" information.
Which image is it? If you refer to a scan of the cover of a magazine (as in File:0906cover.jpg), you are not the copyright owner of the magazine - you may have scanned it, but you are not the creator of it.
Magazine covers are copyrighted to the organization publishing the magazine (and individual photos on a cover are copyrighted to either the photographer or the person who paid for the photograph). I am not an expert on copyright, but I thought I should mention this. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PhantomSteve's advice is correct, but I read your question a little differently. As I read it, you seem to be aware that you don't own the copyright, but perhaps think the requirement is to properly add the copyright information. Wikipedia does not permit the use of images under copyright, with some fairly narrow exceptions for fair use. If you own the copyright, and can provide a license which would permit it to be included, but that doesn't apply here.--SPhilbrickT12:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Starting a new wiki, want to copy some content.
I'm starting a new wiki so we can go in depth into certain subjects. I want to copy some articles from Wikipedia along with the templates the articles use. Is there a better way to do it rather than just find it, create the page on my wiki, copy the source across etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.139.172 (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it's not what I was looking for. I just wanted specific pages. I used Special:Export and got what I wanted. Have to upload images manually though and I cant figure out how to upload the .svg images. Wont seem to let me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.139.172 (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there I am relatively new to this whole internet thing and have been using your site for a while now but have only just become a member. Please could you tell me what things can and can not be put on wikipedia, I mean are there rules that stop me from putting myself onto the website? I have just always fancied seeing my name on wikipedia!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dino billington (talk • contribs) 09:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You cant write about yourself sorry, unless you're someone famous/really important that people would be looking for you here. Otherwise everyone would write about themselves! You can write about yourself on your User Page though. Click your name at the top right of the page to get to it. 114.76.139.172 (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Dino billington... your name is on Wikipedia now! Seriously, unless you are a notable person, then you would not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you are notable, then you would need to request an article to be written about yourself, as you would have a conflict of interest.
Yesterday I edited the section on 'Need' in Wikipedia.
For some time the following messaage had been in place: 'This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Please help recruit one or improve this article yourself.'
Since I have written extensively on the subject I decided to past in some new content. However, it appears at the very beginning of the Need page, before the Contents box, which looks odd, and it has not been related to the existing content, which needs editing. I'm not sure whose repsonsibility it is to restructure the page. Gougle (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your good faith edit. If the material is relevant to the article, it needs to be put within the article, not added as a chunk of text above the current article. I do not know enough about the subject to know for sure, but your text struck me as being original research. If it is not, I apologise, but the text needs to be inserted into the relevant sections of the current article. If you want to add the text, it is your responsibility to restructure the page as you put it. I have placed a welcome message on your talk page with useful links to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for creating/editing articles. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me after reading those! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
trying to add links to page,
Hi,
I'm trying to add links to this page marked as an orphan,
however I don't seem to be able to get wiki to recognize the links I have
added as it still claims no articles point to it. The links I added
however are complete url's because trying to insert the disambig name
makes a mess or the rendered article. What should a link to this article
look like to preserve the rendered text? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 11:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your mistake is in adding the complete URL in the links to the articles, instead, just type the article name between: "[[" and "]]". This will produce a link to the article, so for instance: [[Virtual State (physics)]] will produce: Virtual State (physics). Finally we want to get rid of the "(physics)" part of the link, so we do this: [[Virtual State (physics)|Virtual State]] which looks like this: Virtual State. The first part is what the link links to, and the second part is how it displays. For more information see: Help:Linking. Or just ask here again and someone can explain it in more detail, hope this helps, if not just say, thanks SpitfireTally-ho!11:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for my question: In the cellar scene in Inglourious Basterds we see the German soldiers playing Wer bin ich? (Who am I?). In English comments on that scene, the game is usually called 20 Questions. But in Wer bin ich?, one usually asks questions till the first "No" and then turns over to the next one - as long as all players (or all but the loser) have guessed their names. There is no restriction in the total number of questions. Thus, this game is not 20 questions, even though using a similar principle. But there is no game closer to 20 questions in German-speaking Europe (afaik, at least).
Based on your description I would say the articles are currently a little to far apart for interlanguage links, but you could fix that by adding a mention of the German game (and other international versions if you know them) to Twenty questions. My language Danish has "Tyve spørgsmål til professoren" (English: Twenty questions to the professor) which is like Twenty questions, but there is no Danish Wikipedia article about it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about senior editors and trials. It is about the project that is Wikipedia. I can show you several essays and guidelines that assert this so if you really care that much let me know and thou shall receive. If you want to make a point that is OK too since we all need to vent sometimes.Cptnono (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking in some pages, the language template 'language_ISO (ctrl-click)">language_ISO (ctrl-click)">language_ISO (ctrl-click)">language_ISO (ctrl-click)">language_ISO (ctrl-click)">Template:Lang-language ISO' will result to a link of the language plus the name in italics.
However, i cannot make the same even if I used all the possible ISO codes for Ilocano. As there are a lot of articles abaout the Philippines that are connected with the Ilocanos, i hope someone can help me with this.
The village pump is usually the best place to make proposals. It's divided into several subsections, including policy, proposals, and technical. TNXMan13:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running the beta version of Wikipedia (or the monobook skin, I can't tell), and I can't find anywhere to WP:Move an article. I checked the WP:Move page and it does not include instructions for moving an article under the Beta. Any help? Mac Davis (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c*2) It's Reference desk policy not to do editors' homework for them. If you show evidence that you have attempted to do your homework, and are stuck at a specific point, then and only then will the reference desk volunteers try to help you. Xenon54 (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just thought that wikipedia was a place to learn things? If not, I think there should be an entire new wikipedia for homework help. *Note that I did not say DOING our homework, but HELPING when stuck.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. If you actually read the above four replies, you would have learned that the Reference desk volunteers are happy to help - but only if you have made it clear that you have attempted the homework and gotten stuck. Xenon54 (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if my reply gave a wrong impression. But if you had read the link provided, you would understand what we do what we don't. ≈ Chamaltalk¤14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said, the reference desk can help with not do your homework. However, most teachers I know tend to tell their students to either not use Wikipedia (as there can be errors in the articles), or to use it alongside other reference materials (such as books). If you have tried to do the homework, and are stuck on a particular point, the Ref Desk folks can guide you to the right section of Wikipedia for you to read! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can also search Wikipedia or the Web for words or phrases in your homework. As more and more of the world's relevant information finds its way online, your ability to look up answers to questions on your own will increasingly determine your effectiveness at whatever you end up doing after you leave school. In addition to the software search tools, there are many online communities with people who will answer questions for free, and your ability to get answers from them is directly a function of your ability to ask questions the smart way. It's a shame that schools don't seem to be teaching students how to use the Internet yet - that would be one of the most valuable skills a school could teach. But I suppose teachers would have to know how to look stuff up online before they could teach the students. --Teratornis (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting a name - is that considered major or minor edit?
I noticed when looking up someone's bio that his son's name had a III after it. From personal conversation with that particular person I know that the III is not a part of his name since his middle name is different from that of his famous father who is a Jr. So that leads to 2 questions: 1) is changing the name considered a major or minor edit and 2)how exactly would I go about making a change since the intricacies of Wiki edits still eludes me! Thanks Hydrangean (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Hydrangean[reply]
(e/c)It depends on context whether the edit is major or minor - if there are sources for the current form, changing the name might actually be quite a significant edit. If you let us know which article you're considering, we might be able to give better advice. This leads me to the answer to the second part of your question: the article you are editing probably has an "Edit" link at the very top of the screen - if you click on that, you'll see an editable version of the article. (If you can't find one, it's possible the article is protected: let us know which article, if that's the case, so we can advise you on what to try next. Before you edit, though, it's a good idea to find a source that demonstrates that the name is as you say it is: personal conversations are very hard to verify, which is a cornerstone of Wikipedia policy. I'll drop some links on your talkpage explaining all these things a little better. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Such an edit is unlikely to be minor, and this is something that should be added with a reference (does the article in question have a reference for this, btw?). Minor edits are not judged by the amount of data added/removed/changed. It is judged by the impact it will have on the article. Any change in facts or information given in the article is not minor, unless it is fixing an obvious error etc (see WP:MINOR). ≈ Chamaltalk¤14:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is the bio for Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of the New York Times. His son's name is Arthur Gregg Sulzberger. As his son explained to me, he is NOT the III since his middle name is different from his father's and grandfather's. As far as verifiable sources go, all the son's published articles just list his name as A.G. Sulzberger and there are many of them! Hydrangean (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Hydrangean[reply]
Actually, if there is no reference for the III at the end either than THAT is original research as well, and should likely be removed. Since it appears that the son self-identifies without the III, you should be well justified in removing it. If, perchance, someone objects, be prepared with actual examples of his own usage of his own name., such as published articles and the like. --Jayron3215:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why was Family data removed from right column summary block for all people on Wikipedia?
Family data removed from right column summary block
Did you do a global change that removed the spouse/family data from all pages? It does not appear anywhere even on pages it used to.....
If yes, can you explain why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.157.219 (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There has been no global change and spouse appears on a huge number of articles so we really need an example if you want to know why it disappeared there. Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of biographies. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iota Lambda Pi Fraternity Incorporated
Greetings Wikipedia staff,
My name is Sallie Johnson and I am a member of Iota Lambda Pi fraternity. I recently looked up my organization through your site and noticed that our page has been deleted. As President and Grand Chapter member, what do I need to do to get our information back on your site? Our fraternity was the very first of it's kind and it is only right that we be apart of this much informational site. So please help me.. Thank you for your time and patience. <blanked>
I also checked the name of the article and the deletion reason was that there was no content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there has to be content apart from, say, links elsewhere. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'd use (actually, I used) 4im. He evidently knows the rules. But, in light of the suggestion of the far more experienced editor above, I'd use {{uw-error2}} at the very least. He's got some welcomes already. Tim Song (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting a split article further
I originally split List of Amiga games into three subarticles, because it was growing too long. But now it looks like it needs even further splitting, because one of the subarticles is already over 30 kilobytes and another is nearly that long. Otherwise I'd know how to split the article further, but it has been interwikied to the French Wikipedia, with the exact same splitting criteria. How would I go along splitting the article further? Can I somehow avoid making any changes to the French Wikipedia? JIP | Talk19:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
: I'm not sure if there is a simple way of changing the split to a 4-way split (without copying-and-pasting a lot) - but however it is done, you don't need to worry about the French Wikipedia. Although they are part of the overall Wikipedia project, they make their own decisions about how to layout such articles. If we change the article on the English Wikipedia, then that does not directly affect the French one - if you remove the interwiki links. When you have completed the re-structuring, then perhaps you could re-interwiki link? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore that... I must pay more attention to what people ask! My advice would be to remove the [[Fr:xxxx]] links, restructure the article's subarticles, and then redo the Fr links with the correct divisions. Hopefully, I've read what you wrote properly this time, and answered it properly! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself only, I don't think alphabetical index pages should follow the same size rules as articles, since articles are meant for reading from start to finish, whereas an index page is for random access. Few people would want to read an entire index page; they most likely just want to look up one or a few specific entries. I wouldn't even have recommended the first split. When I refer to an index page, I often search it with Ctrl+F, which becomes more effective as the index page includes more of the alphabet. That is, it would be easier to search the list of Amiga games if they were all on one page. The Editor's index to Wikipedia, for example, currently stands at 272 kilobytes, and there is no thought of splitting it yet. Splitting it would make is less useful as a reference for looking things up, because the keyword I might remember to look something up might start with a different letter than where the something appears in the index. In other words, alphabetical drill-down is not the only way of searching an index page, and is often not the most effective method. --Teratornis (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript - perhaps you should make the changes to the article, and then ask someone on one of the WikiProjects to help move it to fr.wikipedia.org? I don't know if there's a specific project that would deal with that side of things? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of Interest: Writing for an employer, from a neutral point of view
I am looking to write a string of articles related to my employer's recent endeavors, including a TV show.
I will be using secondary resources, and have no issue with opening the article up to editing and review.
I imagine it should be no issue for me to write from a neutral point of view, intending to post only facts and no promotional items.
Is there any way to create these articles and still comply with Wikipedia's COI documents?
As long as the articles are written using a neutral point of view, using reliable sources, there should be no problems. Be warned however, that it can be hard to do so, if you have a potential Conflict of Interest. The guidelines on COI aren't to prevent people contributing, but to ensure that they are aware of the possible problems, and what Wikipedia looks for in its articles. Also, it wouldn't harm if you left a message on the articles' talk pages explaining your connection with the subject. Alternatively, you could always request an article to be written, giving a neutral editor the information, along with reliable, independent sources of information. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you block people from editing your page?
I was just wondering if you can block people from editing your personal page. If so how?
Not true. My user page is indefinitely semi-protected because of incessant vandalism. But generally a page won't be protected just to be protected - there has to be a reason. Xenon54 (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did say "generally" - there are times (such as your page) when it can happen, but in this case, the vandalism to MattC13's page is very low key, and there have only been a total of 11 edits on his page, 7 by him, 1 by a 'bot, and 3 "vandalism" items. Obviously, MattC13 isn't happy about it, but he remedied it himself, and there looked to be insufficient grounds for any kind of protection on his page, hence my advice. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using an image from the Italian Wikipedia
I would like to use an image that was uploaded to the Italian Wikipedia for an article in the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this image was not uploaded to Wikimedia Commons so I cannot use it in an article as-is. I can't contact the uploader of the image because I don't know Italian. What should I do to be able to use this image?-Schnurrbart (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be in the public domain, so just download it and upload it here (It should probably be moved to Commons too, I wouldn't know how.)----occono (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do I add the name of artist Fulton Ross to the listed
Black Artist in Wikipedia? www.fultonross.com
The artist was born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1947 and
has worked as a career committed professional artist for
over forty years.------ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fultonross (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although she shouldn't have left her email on pages, I ended up emailing Neva Gilbert about her Wikipedia article. She wants to add info about her still being a working, if "on Hiatus" actor and member of SAG.
She has asked
"Dear Anthony, I have spoken to Joe Franklin about my Playboy
centerfold. I have done some off , off broadway theater in the last
few years. Not since the late 90's. But it's just lately i found out
some information being on wiki. As I said I am a working actor , As
the say "On Hiatus'. I still belong to SAG and AFTRA since 1952.
What else can I say(write)? Neva"
What should I say? I replied she should add info to her article that she thinks would be helpful/interesting. What else should I say?----occono (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to refer her to WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:COI. Any information she adds which is not available from reliable, published sources will be removed by other editors. She may certainly remove any information which is false and not sourced; but beyond that her best course would be to explain on the article's talk page what changes she would like to see made to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any overlapping. (I'm using Firefox).Try refreshing, once in a while, I see a page problem that goes away with a refresh.--SPhilbrickT23:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help getting page viewable...
I created a page but I cant seem to search it not logged in and find it. What am I doing wrong I followed the steps on how to create a page and have an account too.
It won't turn up in Wikipedia's search engine straight away. Do you mean this though? If so, that's an article you've posted on your personal user page.----occono (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If User:HorusProtector is the article you are talking about, it looks promotional, which is not tolerated on Wikipedia. In order for it to survive in article space it would have to be totally rewritten in neutral encyclopedic tone, showing the notability of the subject, verified by WP:reliable sources. —teb728tc 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I see it is also a blatent copyright violation of the CFRA About page. You need to rewrite it in your own words. —teb728tc23:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info...
How can I use the info from the CFRA about page as I am creating this for the owner (I am dating him) he wanted me to create a Wiki page for the Associations 15th year anniversary?? Do I have to cite the page on my wiki page?? He would like this done by the anniversary. I'm sorry I am very new at this. And I still dont quite understand how to make the page public as it is in my user page and I dont understand the instructions as when I click on the steps it says I dont have to post that way as I am a registered user? So how do I get my page public viewable??
You could avoid the copyright problem by writing in your own words. But the problem is not just about copyright: Two other things beside copyright violation will get a page deleted immediately: being promotional or not demonstrating notability. The about page is hopelessly promotional, and it does not demonstrate notability. Rather than basing your article on the about page, you should base it on what independent reliable sources say about CFRA. That is what it takes to demonstrate notability.
Hello my name is Veronica Perez, aka Fa1thus, I am the community manager for SouthPeak Games and i need some help with the page /article that i created on wikipedia. Justicewiki keeps vandalising SouthPeak Games page and i would appreicate any help that you guys can help on this matter. Thank you in advance for all your help and i look forward on hearing from someone soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fa1thus (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information you are removing is cited, and written elsewhere before it ever appeared here. See [2]. If the information there is wrong, then it really needs to be taken up with the journalists who wrote those first articles. Additionally, if you have concerns,. the proper method is to discuss the matter in a civil manner at the article's talk page; if you can work with other editors rather than accuse them of bad faith, you will accomplish a lot more. Running around accusing people of slander with no proof does not necessarily win a lot of support for your position. --Jayron3200:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)x2 No legal threat is permitted. Please do not use words like "slander". The section you (and your apparent sockpuppet) tried so hard to remove appears to be sourced. As Jayron said, take the issue up with the original reporters, if you want. Or discuss this at the article talk page. Throwing accusations around without any evidence to back them up will not win you friends here. Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way to solve your problem, Fa1thus, is to provide reliable sources of information (i.e. independent of either party) that show the information in those articles to be untrue. If you can show that the claims are false, they will be removed from the article. However, as others have said, those claims are out there - you may not like them, but as Jayron32 said, you need to contact the journalists who wrote those articles - Wikipedia is just reflecting what appears to be reported fact. Wikipedia is not here to promote your company - it is an encyclopedia. That means that any published criticisms (unless they are proven to be false, which does not mean you saying "this is wrong" - it needs verifiable sources of information which show it is incorrect if that is the case) can be put in the Wikipedia article. Until you can provide reliable sources of information showing otherwise, it will remain in the article about SouthPeak Games - that's the way Wikipedia works. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 00:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a list of medical device companies
Hi, I see that you provides a list of pharmaceutical companies. Do you have a list of medical device companies. I did a quick search and could not find such a list.
Can someone else using Firefox take a look at the notes section of User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Mingaud? What I'm seeing in Firefox is a strange spacing issue which appears like this:
...used in carom billiards games
The error is not reproduced in Safari or Internet Explorer for me. I checked whether it could be some java thing in my monobook producing it by logging out, but the same error appears. Also, other articles that use {{Cnote2}} (such as Jane Austen) are rendering fine in Firefox for me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see similar but different spacing in that note, under XP/FF 3.0; the spaces appear between after and Mingaud. The expanded spacing occurs in a different place again under Vector. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does {{cnote2}} produce notes in 2 columns? It certainly does for Jane Austen. Is the strange spacing perhaps a column break, to form 2 columns? You might add a few more notes, or even some random text, in order to test it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My first time using it. I have no idea. Maybe that's it, though if that is it, it's strange that it works fine in other browsers. I upgraded to Firefox 3.5.2. (then got a blue screen of death, uggg) and I still see the error but now it's in a different spot.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh - IE8 renders Jane Austen's notes in 1 column, whereas FF (3.0) renders 2 columns. If I add a whole bunch of random text to the note in your Mingaud page, then, in FF, it renders 2 columns sensibly in preview. Also in FF, if I zoom in or out, the extra spacing moves in the note sentence, to keep the first word after the spacing aligned with the 2nd column of references.
The template documentation mentions that the colwidth= setting doesn't work in all browsers. IE might be one of those for which it doesn't work. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IE does not support the CSS column selector. The documentation does not mention that the column selector is broken in Safari— linking into successive columns does not work properly. I don't see the problem— try a purge. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk09:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, as always. I'm a long way from going live and I'll be adding more notes, so there's no pressing issue now. It'll work itself out I think.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's published. The reason you can't find it using search is that it hasn't yet been indexed (and there's nothing you can do I know of to speed up that process but donate a few million dollars to the Wikimedia Foundation to speed everything up). You will be able to reach the page using the go button, and in the normal course the page will be indexed and become searchable. By the way, you can link any existing page on Wikipedia by simply surrounding it in doubled brackets, like so: [[Courage Marine Group Limited]]. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going around in circles
I'm a new user who has written an article on a veterans' organization, put in the references and all the other necessities, and cant for the life of me figure out how to make it an active article! The various help topics seem contradictory at worst and confusing at best. Is there a simple explanation of what I do when I'm done editing...it seems I need to MOVE the article, but the MOVE tab doesn't appear anywhere!
Jlallyssp (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, you don't see the move tab because you're not autoconfirmed yet. You need 10 edits (which you already have) and your account should be 4 days old for that to happen. ≈ Chamaltalk¤09:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys
I'm trying to update some basketball rosters and I have a question.... Take this one for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCM_Elba_Timi%C5%9Foara - both links for the 2 players in the roster shouldn't be there (they link to different people). How can I remove them? Because of this "player2" template I can't seem to be able to do anything about it.
Same question for this roster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSU_Asesoft - how can I make the link for player Mike Jones to link to the actual basketball player, and not the whole list?
Thanks a lot.
Cristian Cristane (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be protected. 2 vandalisms in any period of time will not get an article protected. Protection only generally occurs when the level of vandalism becomes high enough to be unmanagable. 2 vandalisms in 2 days can easily be held off by reverting. --Jayron3213:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was having a look at and I noticed that Rugby471 uploaded a new version of the file without the whitespace around it. The whitespace makes the box centered though so it would probably be better to have thewhitespace. Besides has the whitespace around it so shouldn't they both be the same? Hintswen Talk | Contribs 12:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My new page does not show up on Wikipedia except in my contributions
I set up an account yesterday and had it autoconfirmed through my email
I wrote a new page called 'Outlet property Services'
But if i do a search on wikipedia, it does not appear.
I have saved it and made a few edits so far. I have put as many internal links to places and terms in text which are in Wikipedia
Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong or forgetting?
Non-free image used in two articles, but with a rationale for only one of them
I've just noticed that File:OKMag.jpg is being used in the articles OK! and Jade Goody. It has a valid fair use rationale for use in the former image, but no rationale at all for the second. Despite looking at all the related pages I can think of, I can't find how or where to properly note this. Everything I've found talks about speedy deletion for images that are missing a rationale, but that is not appropriate as it appears to be being used properly in OK! and so I'm not looking for it to be deleted. Equally I don't want to just remove it from the Jade Goody article as it is entirely possible that someone who knows why it is there can write a proper fair use rationale for it's inclusion in that article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usage in an article without a fair use rationale is not okay. One needs to be written for each article in which the picture appears. (I think the reason for this is because usage in two different articles could theoretically have two different "purposes of use".) Xenon54 / talk / 14:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not OK, which I why I've raised the issue here. What I'm looking for is how to properly note the problem so it can be rectified. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is silly and stupid, but if anyone has a minute.... I've added a "toolbox" to my User page with links to a bunch of useful noticeboards, templates, etc. In the wikilinks I've created I've spelled out the whole name of the Wiki page and piped it to an abbreviation, to make the box smaller, as so: [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism|AIV]], which looks like this: AIV. So now if I forget what the abbreviation means, I can just hover over the link and my browser status bar shows me the name. This has been successful for all the WP links except one: [[CAT:CSD|CSD]], which links to the category for candidates for speedy deletion. I tried several variations on [[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion|CSD]] but all gave failed to resolve to a successful links, they're either blank or redlinks. Can anyone help me out with this? Thanks in advance. --Captain Infinity (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it didn't work was because you were actually putting the page in the candidates for speedy deletion category when you added that link. That's how all cat links work. Putting the colon there makes it a link to the category's page. This works for files/images, as well (links to them instead of putting them on the page). hmwitht16:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can add a sharebox to the toolbox that will include Facebook. I suspect you are new here— if you give me permission, I can add it to your user account.
For those who understand how to edit your .JS, simply add this and purge:
Seeking a way to contact a person who added to a page
There was an addition to the USS R-14 page with information from the grandson of Lt Alexander Douglas, acting CO of the USS R-14, stating he lived in Colorado and had his grandfather logbooks. I am seeking a away to have this person contact me so I can talk with him about the grandson. I am researching for a book about the event and would like to make it complete as possible.Pigboats (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the USS R-14 page, simply click on the tab at the top that says "history". This will list every edit that has been made to the page. You can click on the timestamp by each entry to see what was added or removed by the edit. You'll also see who made the edit, along with a link to their talk page, where you can leave them a message. TNXMan17:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown File Type
This is a recent problem: either since I upgraded to IE8 or Wiki added the en. to search results.
For instance, if I do a search and want to view the Wiki page that results, I notice the prefix en.
When I click on the link, I often get an Unknown File Type pop-up window "File Download Security Warning" asking if I want to "search the internet to find a program to open it;" Save it;" or "cancel."
If I opt to "search..." eventually an IE page comes up with File Association FAQs.
Ted Kennedy - no problem
Joan Jett - no problem
archibald macleish - pop-up
Sinbad - pop-up
Is this the new Explorer, a Wiki problem (perhaps with older files) or am I doing something wrong? I will check back for answers by searching for the subject. Thanks in advance.
Cpmgrp (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs quite often, and usually randomly. However, it happens a lot more on IE, since Microsoft can't make a decent web browser to save their life. Firefox FTW! DendodgeT\C18:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for the rant, but what do I do to open these articles that I want to read? I'm pretty well locked into IE.
Cpmgrp (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you searching at Google and clicking the links on the Google search results page? Several users have reported problems with that. If it's your problem then manually copy the url to the browser address bar instead of clicking the link. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I clicked on your username instead of the link. I have tried copy/paste, but the same thing usually happens. I'll try the purge (if it will work on IE). If not, I may switch back to IE7 or another browswer. IE8 has some neat features, but is very slow and does not seem to allow as many tabs/windows to be open simultaneously as IE7.
Cpmgrp (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
posting pdf references that do not link to an external web site
I have a pdf that I want to list as a reference. I want to create a link but not to an external website, just to the pdf itself. How/where do I upload the pdf?Ngposter (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently found the previous account I had with Wikipedia, but had created a new account in the interim. Is there a way to merge the "my contributions" of both accounts? (StacyInBoston and StacyOnEarth). StacyOnEarth17:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact your lawyer.
Resolved
and I noticed that Rugby471 uploaded a new version of the file without the whitespace around it. The whitespace makes the box centered though so it would probably be better to have thewhitespace. Besides 
has the whitespace around it so shouldn't they both be the same? Hintswen Talk | Contribs 12:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
