Wikipedia:Help desk

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

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

Ask a question

January 11

DYK

I'd like to find out if Desert tortoise was a 'Did you know' article. Portal:Amphibians_and_Reptiles/Did_you_know/June_2008 implies it was, while, Category:Wikipedia_Did_you_know_articles doesn't list it. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would assume it was. Usually, like at Talk:Blackhawk Hotel it has a DYK template, which I'm guessing adds it to the above mentioned category. CTJF83 chat 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Retract that, Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/June would be more accurate than the portal, and it isn't listed. CTJF83 chat 02:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed. If it had been on DYK, it would be included at Wikipedia:Recent additions and it's not (the easiest way to search is to click "what links here" from the article, selecting "Wikipedia" as the namespace to check for links). Bencherlite^Talk 02:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. :) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) OH!! Here's the thing...it appeared on the Portals DYK, not the main page DYK. Portal:Amphibians and Reptiles CTJF83 chat 02:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Details of RevDel

I couldn't remember how various elements of RevDel worked, so I created and deleted User:Nyttend/directory/test three times, then proceeded to RevDel some of its elements: the username of one creation, the edit summary for another deletion, and the deletion log for one of the two RevDels. I had multiple surprises: (1) Until I un-RevDeled the deletion log entry, I couldn't view it — why was I able to restore it but not to view it in the mean time? (2) Although I performed two RevDels, there is only one entry in the log — does removing an edit summary not generally produce a log entry? Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm no admin...but I see one of the user name/ip removed and one of the edit summary removed. [1] CTJF83 chat 02:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not what I was asking about — that's the deletion log alone. See the entire log: there's only one entry other than the deletions themselves, not two. Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So, to clarify for someone else reading this that may have an answer...what is missing from the above link. CTJF83 chat 03:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being confusing. There's only one RevDel entry in the log, but I performed two separate RevDel actions. Why does the action of removing the username get its own log entry, but the action of removing the deletion summary doesn't? Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Entries merged together like on my talk? If that isn't the answer, then I give up on responding, lol and will let someone who knows what they are talking about answer. CTJF83 chat 03:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

my user name was being used as a "sock puppet" i would like to use it and i see the user that had it was faking me as both links refer to me?

Unresolved

 – WP:USURP issue John of Reading (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

my name is Mark Ryder aka MarkRuffRyder

i am a very well known underground music producer and i own many underground record labels with 20+ years releasing massive anthems for the uk underground dance scene.

i reciently came across an article i wanted to add clarifiction to but soon found my name was blocked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Markruffryder

the links seem to sugest what ever this guy was doing with my name was mainly to impersonate me as there are not too many of me around and my history in the uk underground is known maybe there is an 'about me' on wiki i will have to search anyway i can prove who i am and have years of very clear knowledge regarding the uk underground music industry as this is all i have ever done "make and move the uk undergound music scene" and its all i am still doing

my contributions would be positive and give real in site but i can not register a name that represents me and this one is blocked so is there a way to release it to me.

check out my new releases on my youtube

http://www.youtube.com/markryder

also google me or myspace/twitter/facebook

would love to clarify some big mis understandings in the uk underground dance scene which seem to be written by music buyers rather than the movers of it..

any help would be appreciated

regards Mark Ruff Ryder

Strictly underground bizznezz

true to the scene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.105.163 (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about username usurpation to comment on your request. But I must mention that you will run into problems in editing here, whatever name you register as, if you try to add your personal knowledge to Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia articles must only report what has already been published in reliable sources such as books and news media; Wikipedia does not publish original thought. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong info presented in article

What do you do if editors presents the wrong facts? They admit it is not right, but refuse to correct or change it, simply because the article has receive top honors on the the site. There have been numerous people complaining about these articles for the very same reason. What can be done? Please review the Talk on "Kentucky's Confederate Government" and Louisville, Kentucky". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypreston2010 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Confederate government of Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Louisville, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you be more specific about what is "wrong" needs to be changed? I took a look at the first talk page, and see a discussion regarding use of Shadow versus Provisional government, but that seems to be a question of due weight. Also, please sign your edits using ~~~~, it helps keep things in order. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Mathematic results

i want to edit some mathematic results seargch exemple 1)intégrale par fonction de parcellage 2)intégrale par changement de fonction 3) intégrale par des suites convergentes 4)forme exponenciel de la fonction afine 5)ensembles de mandel brot ammeliorée 6)fonction simulant la tangent,sinus,cos 7)suite a parametrage infini (compression,stokage, codage) de donnés 8) email —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.97.156.228 (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

These look like article titles for the French Wikipedia. For help using the French-language Wikipedia I suggest you ask there. (I have removed your email address to protect your privacy) -- John of Reading (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing system is extremely poorly thought-out

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Beyond the scope of the help desk, and appears to be going round in circles. Either discuss the incident at WP:ANI or another appropriate venue, with diffs, or make any policy proposals on the talk page for the relevant policies or guidelines. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Some serious thinking needs to be done about the current editing approval system, in particular with regards to reverts on the grounds of insufficient reference requirements. Currently every single change that is made to improve a page requires completely unnecessarily rigorous referencing before that change is allowed, regardless of whether or not the page is already full of unreferenced material. The system we have now frequently involves non-expert editors telling expert assistants that their changes are not allowed because they aren't referenced properly: however it would be clear to any expert that the material is perfectly sufficiently referenced. Surely a better system would be to encourage non-expert editors to allow the experts to make their changes, but to politely request that they remember to add a correct citation after the event. Of course, should another expert editor have issue with the new contents, then it can be challenged, discussed, and a citation requested. But the system we have at the moment is completely counter-productive, and in direct contravention of the "assume good faith" policy. Editors should be instructed to leave the experts to make changes and improve the site as they see fit, and only to reject an edit if they are 100% sure it is vandalism. Py0alb (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedians cannot be considered "experts", because there is no way to prove their expertise; nor is any wikipedian considered "better" or more "more expert" than any other. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to collect and present information which has already been published in reliable sources, thus our information must be verifiable in reliable sources. If you are an expert in the field and that makes it easier for you to contribute to articles in that field, then your help is very welcome; but any information you add must be verifiable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As a side-note, the editing system is extremely thoroughly thought-out, and agreed upon with broad consensus by the community. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We do assume good faith but poorly referenced 'expert' edits may be original research, which we do not allow. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course there are experts. Who do you think writes most of wikipedia? They are the ones who discuss the changes on the talk page. They are the ones who say "This edit is incorrect BECAUSE..." rather than just "I don't understand this subject so I'm going to assume that any edit is automatically vandalism"

It is also a salient point that it more often than not requires a degree of expertise in the subject to understand whether or not it is sufficiently referenced. For example, if I looked through a maths derivation and was unable to determine how the author moved from one line to the next, does that mean that the page in insufficiently referenced and should be removed?

Surely any new material should be held up to the same standards as the currently existing material? I don't see any move to remove every page that contains unreferenced material (this would lead to the deletion of about 90% of wikipedia).

Saying "the editing system is extremely thoroughly thought-out" is meaningless. Clearly there are still several issues with it that need addressing, otherwise I wouldn't be here proposing improvements. It's virtually impossible to make a change to a page without having to explain in mindnumbing detail to about 30 separate editors who know nothing about the topic and automatically assume that you are a vandal why and how the referencing is already sufficient. Frequently they won't even discuss the issue, they simply revert your change and issue vandalism warnings. Are you honestly telling me that you think this is a good policy? If you don't believe me I have numerous examples, although at this stage I would prefer not to call any editors out in public.

Py0alb (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(written before seeing your last edit) I for one wish the community made more of an effort to welcome experts and to show that we valued their expertise, while still holding them to the same standards of verifiability and no original research as anyone else. But if you're wondering why the community as a whole is quite skeptical of claims of expertise, see Essjay controversy. You might also be interested in Citizendium, a project similar to Wikipedia that grants editorial oversight to contributors with verified expertise. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No-one should be issuing vandalism warnings for edits made in good faith... Did they explicitly call your edits vandalism, or were they just trying to explain Wikipedia policies? I have seen cases where a new contributor has waded straight into a highly controversial article, made good-faith and constructive changes, and been immediately reverted by long-serving editors who have dealt with hundreds of vandals, spammers, pov-pushers, cranks, and other problematic editors in the past, and whose experiences have left them a little too quick on the revert button. But it's impossible to comment on your case when we can't see your editing history (you've made no other edits under this account). Have you looked into dispute resolution? Or thought to drop a note with a relevant Wikiproject, which might be listed at the top of an article's talkpage? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please assume the assumption of good faith, py0alb. We are not saying unreferenced expert edits are vandalism, only that they are unreferenced, and people (especially immediatists) tend to remove controversal information that is uncited, or that look like original research. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe py0alb is saying that they were explicitly given vandalism warnings for a good-faith edit; but since such edits were not on that account, it's just speculation on my part whether the warnings were for vandalism or lack of sourcing, and whether or not such warnings were justified. Py0alb, have you edited with another account which we should be aware of? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just on my home computer's IP address before I opened this account a few days ago. But I don't wish to complain specifically about one case, I'm complaining because the general attitude of almost every editor I've come across leads me to believe that this arrogant attitude is a systemic failure that needs addressing by policy makers. For the purposes of clarity, I will outline the particular case that brought this to my attention. I have been trying to tidy up a substandard page over the last few months, and first attempted to rearrange one section in a slightly more coherent manner without introducing more information. After having it reverted several times by people who did not have the expertise to understand that I wasn't introducing new material at all, I eventually got it accepted. Then recently I noticed that I had made a small mistake in my original edit and had muddled up two terms - I move three words round to correct this mistake, and now three completely different editors who all admit to knowing nothing about the subject matter have blocked me from altering my own paragraph. So its sitting there with an obvious error but I'm not allowed to change it. I contacted all the editors individually, explained the situation and tried to be as friendly and patient as possible but they would not respond or undo their reverts. In fact, I encountered seven different editors, not one who even claimed to understand the subject in question, not one willing to even discuss the matter, and not one acting on assumption of good faith. I highly doubt that these were seven "rogue editors" I encountered; I think this is a wikipedia wide attitude problem that needs addressing as a matter of some urgency.

By "expert" I'm not necessarily talking about someone who makes gradiose claims about their subject knowledge, but simply distinguishing between those who know enough about the subject in question to be able to ask pertinent questions, and those editors or reviewers who freely admit to know nothing at all about the subject but still feel perfectly justified in reverting people's edits. I would never attempt to revert someone's minor changes on a page I know nothing about, it would feel like the height of arrogance of me to assume that I know enough to be able to tell whether it was sufficiently referenced or not. I simply feel that a reminder sent out to all editors to remind them that perhaps they don't know as much as they think they know, and should perhaps show a little humility when deciding whether or not to revert someone's changes. Py0alb (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If you ever find yourself claiming that the community has an attitude problem, that's usually the sign that you're the problem, not everyone else. If an edit is controversial and unreferenced or poorly referenced, reverting it and requesting discussion is exactly the right thing for any editor to do. If seven editors have all disagreed with you, it's time to drop the stick, and stop editwarring rather than claiming you're the only one who understands the subject. Note that block evasion is not allowed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an extremely poor and unhelpful reply, not to mention a complete logical fallacy. You haven't addressed my points at all, but just automatically assumed that I'm in the wrong without knowing the first thing about the case in question. My edits were neither controversial nor poorly referenced. It was me that continually requested a discussion, it was the other editors who engaged in a silent edit war. Frankly you should be thoroughly ashamed of jumping to conclusions and making ignorant and disparaging remarks based solely on your own prejudices. A disgraceful comment Py0alb (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

<edit conflicts x2> Have you tried citing multiple independent reliable sources first? Usually more than one is required to achieve a neutral point of view. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be beneficial to help discusss this if you told us what article you are talking about. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And now you're accusing me of sock puppetry because I disagreed with you Giftiger? What is this, the gestapo? Seriously, you should be banned from wikipedia for such flagrant and unnecessary personal attacks. Py0alb (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Giftiger is warning you against socking, not accusing you of it. Does your case involve the biography of a living person? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kayau and GB fan - I am not concerned about the particular case, which is why I'm not saying what page it was. I am simply trying to open up a discussion as to striking a better balance between antivandalism /"anti-unreferenced material" measures on the one hand, and the "assumption of good faith" / "assumption that the editor might know more about the subject in question than I do" on the other hand. At present, I feel that editors are too draconian/arrogant, and the balance needs to be shifted to a more open system based on discussing changes in a friendly manner on the subject discussion page rather than automatic warnings and reverts. I think an editor should have a chance to defend his changes on the discussion page before it is reverted. More democracy, less totalitarisnism. Surely we can all agree on this?

and yes, he has accused me of sock puppetry, presumably because he didn't like his post being described as disgraceful. My home page now has a warning on it saying that my name has been linked to a sock puppetry case and that there is mounting "evidence" against me. Py0alb (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There may have been a simple mis-understanding here. Py0alb wrote above, ""three completely different editors... have blocked me from altering my own paragraph". I interpreted that to mean that three editors had independently reverted Py0alb's changes, such that Py0alb was unable to make lasting edits on the paragraph. Giftiger wunsch seems to have interpreted the word "blocked" to mean Py0alb was blocked in the way that Wikipedia uses that term – technically restricted from editing from his/her IP address or account. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I can agree that in certain situations changes should be discussed before being reverted but in other cases changes should be reverted before being discussed. So without specific examples it is hard to say what I would do in a specific case. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You say that you favour democracy. You told us that seven editors believed that your edits were not adequately referenced. Who is out of step?

As for the sock-puppetry, you said "three completely different editors ... have blocked me from altering my own paragraph". Are you currently blocked, or are you subject to a topic-ban? If you are blocked and you are editing here, then you are indeed guilty of sock-puppetry. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not blocked you idiot, read the post above you. I am voluntarily abiding by the three revert rule. How about you go read up on "assumption of good faith"?

Democracy is NOT weight of numbers. Democracy means government by discussion. If editors revert other people's changes without being willing to discuss them then that is NOT democracy. The seven editors, none of whom even took the time to read through the article in enough detail to notice that the terms they were complaining about were already both used and fully referenced in other paragraphs, were entirely in the wrong. Eventually after one of them responded to my multiple requests for a discussion, they admitted I was right all along and my changes were allowed through.

Honestly, I'm simply attempting to have a reasonable debate about the things that should be considered when editing, and everyone is assuming I'm either a sock puppet or a troll or something. I'm genuinely trying to help. Py0alb (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling people idiots does not help the situation. You had said earlier in this discussion that 3 people had blocked you, so other editors took that to mean that you were blocked on a different account. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Owing to the new way the software handles edit conflicts, David probably had no way of seeing my post before making his own. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Py0alb, you write above, "I am not concerned about the particular case, which is why I'm not saying what page it was." But your contention that there is a systemic problem on Wikipedia seems to be based on that particular case. I can think of a few reasons why you might have received the (lack of) responses you did, some of them not in any way your fault. But there's no way I can help or even understand the problem without knowing the case; nor will anyone take your call for change seriously if you can't substantiate it with concrete examples. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is more than one form of democracy. If you use the term "democracy" and intend it to mean "consensus democracy", you cannot call someone an idiot for assuming you are referring to another form of democracy. It is apparent that you are intelligent enough to understand this. So, continuing to be abrasive and hardheaded indicates that you are not posting at the "help desk" for help. You are only posting to vent because you didn't get your way. -- kainaw™ 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Since there's a lot of talk of democracy here, let me point out that wikipedia is not a democracy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaving that aside, Py0alb, I agree with Adrian Hunter. This is a help desk, we can discuss specific cases but it's not an appropriate venue for discussing major changes in Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh apologies if this was the wrong forum to raise this discussion. Can you tell me where the best place would be to raise my concerns? It's not a major concern, I just feel that based on my experience of dealing with a variety of unresponsive editors, the guidelines for reviewing edits should be tweaked. Thanks. Py0alb (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

An RFC at WT:RS or WT:V may be more appropriate, since it appears to pertain to the reliable sources / verifiability policies. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you giftiger, I will look into that. I still await my apology though. Py0alb (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I just looked through those pages and you have missed my point. I have no issues with my or anyone else's understanding of what is or isn't an appropriate source. My issue is with editors who hit revert without reading through (and understanding) the article in enough detail to be able to make an informed decision about what is new information and what is simply a rearranging of already correctly referenced material.

My proposal is that editors should err more on the side of caution before reverting changes than they currently typically do. As a guideline: if a reviewer suspects that an edit is not sufficiently referenced, they should accept it but then give the author a chance (say 24 hours) to defend it on the talk page before reverting it, rather than the current system of reverting the change and then refusing to discuss the reasoning behind this. Can we have a discussion about this general concept, rather than jumping to conclusions about any particular case? Does anyone disagree with this proposal in principle? If so, why? Py0alb (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree, because this proposal conflicts with WP:BRD. No need to give unsourced assertions the benefit of the doubt, even for 24 hours. Also, I don't see a "system of reverting the change and then refusing to discuss the reasoning behind this" - in my experience, almost all editors are willing to discuss problem edits and justify their reversions at great length. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. However, what I am talking about does not conflict with BRD. The idea of BRD is that you make a bold change, then someone who is interested in the subject reverts it, and then the two of you discuss the matter and come to a compromise. That's a great idea, and works well if you have a page with several interested parties. Unfortunately, this isn't what happens in practice on the smaller pages which attracts little general interest. What happens instead is that you make a small change, someone with no interest whatsoever in the subject reverts it without even bothering to read through the whole article, and then refuses to discuss the matter. For the sake of argument, assume I'm not making this up for a laugh (assumption of good faith): do you agree with this system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Py0alb (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "system". It may be the way that some editors behave, but they are in the minority in my experience. As I said, almost all editors that I have come across are very happy to explain and discuss their edits. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unlucky in having encountered several unhelpful and unresponsive editors in a row, although I doubt it. But I think a gentle reminder to all editors with reviewer priviledges that it is good practice to a) read through an article very carefully before deciding to make a revert, and b) if in doubt discuss the changes with the editor on the talk page before reverting. Again these are not cases of obvious vandalism or completely new unsourced material I am thinking of, but rather editors erroneously categorising genuinely good and well cited changes as either unreferenced material simply because they did not have either the expertise or patience to make an informed judgement. Py0alb (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is practical to remind all of the editors with reviewer privs in this manner. What is practical and usual is for someone who has encountered a problem to post diffs showing the problem. Why not do that? It would be much easier to work with real situations than debate the abstract. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary to be an expert in the subject before reading an article. Unless you are prepared to change your tune and show us the example, if there were seven editors who felt that your edits were inadequately referenced it isn't unreasonable for us to assume good faith on their part and therefore to wonder whether in fact you didn't provide sources as clearly as you should have done, and it seems strange that you continued to try to include such an unreferenced edit up to the stage where you feared sanction under WP:3RR. If it isn't obvious to the average reader, then it needs to be referenced. WP:V says "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." By the time it had been challenged once, it wasn't clever of you to keep trying to add the material without a WP:RS - David Biddulph (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I am declining to do that is because I don't wish to embarrass, accuse or otherwise aggravate the reviewers in question (a couple of whom alredy received rebukes over the matter) because I believe the fault lies with the lack of correct guidance over WP policy, not with the people themselves. Py0alb (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to enter into this specific debate/dispute/whatever but I would like to say something for everyone to consider. One of the major weaknesses of "expert editors" is that quite a lot of "facts and figures" are "common knowlege" within their field of expertise so they can sometimes fail to appreciate the need for citation. Allow me to illustrate: Expert editor: "But everyone and his dog knows that a zigmoglobulator is always made of 24 carat unobtainium, demanding a citation is ridiculous!" Nonexpert editor: "Sorry Mr Expert, everybody and his dog does not know that - only everybodies and their dogs who work in the zigmoglob industry know that." Wikipedia is written for nonexpert readers; I vaguely remember reading advice somewhere that articles should be written at a level that's accessible to an average high school graduate. Roger (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again :-) In response to David's comment: " By the time it had been challenged once, it wasn't clever of you to keep trying to add the material without a WP:RS" After the first rejection, I made a comment on the talk page explaining that every term I was using was already used and correctly referenced lower down in the text. I then re-edited the material, with the request that before deciding whether to reject it or not, would the reviewer please read the notes in the talk page and respond to show they had seen them. But alas, to no regard, the change was simply rejected with no reason given. Surely reading the edit summary and talk page is the absolute minimum due diligence before rejecting another editor's change? As I said before, eventually a more diligent editor intervened on my behalf and reproached the original reviewers for their lack of attention and promised me the situation would not happen again. However, exactly the same thing DID happen again, and will no doubt continue to happen to all new editors on a regular basis until better reviewing guidance is put in place. You may all decide to bury your head in the sand and say that this is only a minority of editors who make kneejerk rejections as a kind of default setting or that I'm making this up as some kind of unfunny joke, but that kind of attitude will only damage wikipedia in the long run. Py0alb (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly this is getting to the stage where it's diffs or it didn't happen. The majority of editors will discuss disputes like the one you're describing, and we have procedures to enforce discussion in such situations. 7 editors failing to discuss without good cause seems very unlikely, and if you won't identify the incident to which you're referring, I'm inclined to think you're either exaggerating or your edits weren't as good-faith as you lead us to believe, especially since you've said you were also warned for vandalism. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm here trying to have a friendly discussion, and most people are obliging, but you seem insistent on resorting to ad hominems and thinly veiled accusations of dishonesty. This ON TOP of a completely fabricated and unfounded sock puppet accusation. Seriously, what did I do to offend you so badly Giftiger? Py0alb (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

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.

how to use wikipedia the first time as a source of information on a subject

When I have googled a question and selected wikipedia as a source of the answer, I have always been pleased. Can I ask wikipedia directly for information or definitions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.193.54 (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You can indeed. Wikipedia has its own search function - it's at Special:Search, or in the top righthand corner of every page at en.wikipedia.org (if you are using our default skin, Vector). You can read all about it at WP:SEARCH. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If your search on Wikipedia does not deliver the information you want, you can also post a question at one of the Reference desks, which work in a similar way to this Help desk but deal with questions of information. The Reference desks are subdivided into broad topics such as Humanities, Science, Entertainment, etc. Roger (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively you can search Wikipedia with a custom Google search, which will just search Wikipedia.
This often works better than Wikipedia's own internal search function
http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Google+Search&domains=wikipedia.org&sitesearch=wikipedia.org
Arjayay (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your browser may have a search feature where you can select Wikipedia at the browser's search box. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

License questions

Am trying to wade through the backlog at Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale. Finding a lot of images which are not licensed correctly. Best policy is which-tag the file for wrong license or change the license to the one that fits the file? Also have some with more than one license; is best policy to remove the license that doesn't apply? Thanks, We hope (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Use your judgement. If it is obvious what the correct tag should be, then fix the tag. If it is confusing what the correct tag should be, then notify the uploader and ask them to fix it. --Jayron32 19:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much! We hope (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Who do I contact to possibly Edit Factual Information

During a recent discussion, we had a wager going on about something insignificant, however the wager got very large. Kevin Federline, Brittney Spears ex hubby, is from Fresno, and graduated Tenaya Middle School and also 9th grade at Bullard. For some reason, WIKIpedia had him listed as a famous alumni of Clovis West. H.S.

How do i go about contacting someone to change this? It is a factual based ERROR that somehow was put on WIKPEDIA.

Brian [email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.28.0.14 (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source here and someone will change it. Or go to the articles talk page and use Template:Edit semi-protected and request the change. CTJF83 chat 19:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

email address removed to protect your privacy [CharlieEchoTango] 19:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Searching (why do so many people post here without saying which article they are posting about?) shows that the information is in Clovis West High School#Notable alumni which is not protected. It is sourced to http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1489219/20040702/spears_britney.jhtml which says he was a 15-year old student but not whether he graduated (it appears he didn't). As alumnus says, it can both mean a graduate and a former student. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Special:CentralAuth

What is this? --Perseus, Son of Zeus 20:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it's just a local tracker of your account's status on different language Wikipedias. TNXMan 20:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

– And other Wikimedia wikis. As Special:CentralAuth says: "This interface can be used for administration of global accounts." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

On meta it is used by stewards to control your global account. Elsewhere (or on meta if you aren't a steward) it shows the global account status for a certain username. Prodego ^talk 22:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Draft of article on my user page has disappeared

Yesterday I spent a couple of hours creating a new article and placed it on my user page for further editing today. I both saved and previewed it. Today there is no evidence of it on my user page. Where did it go? What happened? Johnso1943 (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It was still here User:Johnso1943/Minnesota Military Museum when I looked a few seconds ago. If you click on My contributions at the top of the page it tells you which articles you have edited. MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see that I did not lose it. I don't know what happened, but when I initially went to My contributions, there was nothing visible except the search box, and my attempt at a search went nowhere. In any case, thanks very much for the help! Things seem to be working for me now. Johnso1943 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

noah p zarck

I just read a book by noah p zarck called two wardens found and want to read more about him but am having a hard time finding info please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.41.17 (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Humanities reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Snark

When an editor uses the edit summary..."useless snark"...what does that mean?Buster Seven Talk 23:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Snark is just general vocabulary for being a smart mouth. They thought you were trying to be funny, factious, or disruptive. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen that edit summary before and it doesn't sound like something common with a generally understood meaning. I guess you think of the specific case [2]. You could simply ask the editor. It may have referred to the editor's own post. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Right you are. The best possibility is that he was being self-critical of his own post, as you say. Thanks for returning me to an assumption of good faith. :~)Buster Seven Talk 02:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Organizations Releasing Images for Editor's Use

I'm about to email an organization (company) and ask for release of images pertinent to material on Wikipedia. My question: how do I do this?

I find it likely that they will agree to release select images in a compatible license for general use on Wikipedia, but I also want to give them the alternative option to release them for specific uses in relevant articles. How would I do this? If they do release it with a new license, how does an organization, not a person, grant permission for the image to be used under the terms of the license? I only know of how I make an account and release material that is my personal intellectual property - note that this doesn't fulfill my request.

Asking them to create an account on Wikimedia commons, Flickr, Wikipedia and do the uploading and specifications themselves has problems with

• Wikipedia conflict of interest policies - they could effectively be editing their own material
• Overly burdensome to create an account just for this and unprofessional since the company already has a set of social media site approved by their management to represent the company and can't create accounts all over the internet without slow and painful approval

They already have their own social media sites where the pictures already exist. What procedure should I suggest for them to release the images in a semi-public license? (I personally find anything not public domain only "semi" public) Furthermore, what type of license should I suggest? Should I suggest Creative Commons, GPL, just declaration of public domain, or something else. Where are the policies, procedures, and suggestions for making these requests for material to put in Wikipedia?

Thanks. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As a partial answer: If I understand correctly, you are talking about asking them for permission for use only on Wikipedia or only on some articles. Neither is acceptable to Wikipedia: Wikipedia accepts nothing less than permission for reuse by anyone anywhere for anything. —teb728 t c 00:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Donating copyrighted materials. Also WP:Requesting copyright permission. --ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

January 12

Usage of slang terms in editing articles

Just to check whether the usage of slang term in editing wiki article is allowed or not? I tried searching in wikipedia, there is an article for the term but was redirected to the proper term for it. In specific example, Tying the knot, it was redirected to marriage.

So can I write, for example, They tied the knot at certain location, or should I just re-write to They married at certain location? Do drop me a notification at my talkpage as I may not check back here so frequently. Thanks. Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It gets some search hits in Wikipedia articles but "tied the knot" doesn't sound good to me for an encyclopedia. And slang terms may be relatively unknown in some places. Although it's just an essay, see Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Tone. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Will take note. Xaiver0510 (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM). --Teratornis (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsure whether article suits wikipedia

Hi,

I would like to submit an article about an accounting company in Australia called Hall Chadwick. They have been ranked the fastest growing accounting firm in 2010 by "Business Review Weekly" (BRW) magazine. The company also has a number of high profile partners and staff who have been actively involved in the Austalian and Chinese media in the last year as Hall Chadwick partnered with the largest CPA firm in China: Shine Wing. These facts can be verified by BRW and numerous media articles online.

Does this type of information meet the criteria for article submission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.227.50 (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good choice for an article to me, based on what you've stated; just make sure you understand our policies on neutrality and the use of reliable sources to verify information. I'd suggest having a look over those policies and then either creating an account, which will make it easier to create a draft in userspace until the article is ready for mainspace, or submit the article to our articles for creation process. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Another policy to read up on, if you have any association with Hall Chadwick yourself, is our conflict of interest policy. In a nutshell it advises great caution while editing on subjects to which you have a close connection. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Note also that the firm itself must be notable; high-profile "partners" don't help, since notability is not "contagious" and cannot be derived from working with a notable entity. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I misread the comment from the IP slightly and thought they'd said the firm itself had appeared in the media. I suspect they may have meant the partnership was featured in the media, but time sources will tell I suppose. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

translation from English to Burmese language

Hello,

Suppose we like to translate some English articles to Burmese language, what is the procedure and requirement?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.125.137.142 (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You would place the new articles at our sister Wikipedia in burmese, located at http://my.wikipedia.org. If it is a faithful translation of an article from the English wikipedia, you would want to make sure to note in the edit summary, when you create the article, what the source text was, and likely also on the article talk page as well. Finally, you would want to make sure to put an interlanguage link in each article, so they can become linked together between wikipedias. See Wikipedia:Translation and Help:Interlanguage links for more info. --Jayron32 05:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Table formatting

I just created this article USA Masters Hall of Fame. I am now officially baffled. It should be a simple two column list. But its gone berserk and I don't know where my error is. With this long of a list, I'd like to divide it into multiple columns of the table, but I haven't even tried to do that yet. Even the basics are misplaced. Please explain where I went wrong. Trackinfo (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed in [3]. I copied your wikisource to an external text editor which revealed a bad non-displayed initial character in a lot of the table lines. A search-and-replace (with nothing) in the text eitor removed the characters, and the only remaining table problem was a missing newline. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The characters were apparently "U+2028 LINE SEPARATOR". Maybe you copied the table code from incompatible external software. Whether the characters display as a dot, a newline, nothing, or something else may depend on the used software. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Google translation

Hello,

I figure out that we can translate Englsih articles from Wiki to Burmese using Google translation toolkit. How both are related?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aung45 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's generally a bad idea to use internet translators to help you write Wikipedia articles in other languages. Internet translation is notoriously bad; its often good enough to give someone the general gist, but it often produces something that no native speaker would ever say. Translation is hard to do, so if you aren't comfortable communicating in both languages, or don't think you can produce accurate translations on your own, don't use Google Translate as a shortcut, it just doesn't do a good enough job. --Jayron32 06:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you the same user as asked about Burmese translation just above? Whether you are or not, please read the links in the answer just above. --ColinFine (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

News articles that list WikiLeaks as being a Wikimedia Foundation project

Is there a place for 'reporting' news articles that seem to believe that　WikiLeaks is a WMF project? this one, according to google translate, seems to do this. (I'm asking here because the meta help desk is very inactive.) Kayau Voting IS evil 06:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess it depends who you want to report them to - do you mean you want to advise the article's authors that they've made a mistake, or are you talking about creating some kind of listing of such erroneous articles? If the former, I'd guess a Korean-speaker at WP:Wikiproject Korea could help you draft a letter to the editors (perhaps referring them to WP:NOTLEAKS). Or did I misunderstand the question? Gonzonoir (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The latter. I was thinking there must be somewhere that lists them... Kayau Voting IS evil 13:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Draft articles & unconstructive edits

Hi, I'm new here and a bit confused.

I work at a non-profit group called The European Library. They already have a page here on Wikipedia but it's very out of date. I want to help amend that (and left a message on the talk page to say so).

I'm aware of COI guidelines and want to do this correctly, with the community. Because there are so many changes, I decided I'd create a subset of my talk page, where I could draft some changes before presenting them to the community (see #2 under tips: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Starting_an_article).

This was deleted overnight by an administrator because he said it duplicated the live page. I tried to leave a message on his talk page to clarify what I did wrong, but I got a message saying an "automated filter" had judged my reply to be unconstructive. So, now I have no article and I can't contact the person who deleted it to find out where I went wrong.

Please, any help appreciated. I do want to make this page better but it's very frustrating.

Friedel (EL) (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the deleting administrator made a mistake. This does not look like a A10 violation; if anything, it's WP:FAKEARTICLE, which should go through MfD. Try contacting the administrator again. If his talk page doesn't work, try email or wP:IRC. Kayau Voting IS evil 07:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you suggest how I would find his email?

Is it not possible to just (somehow) be given permission to post on his talk page? I tried to post exactly the same message to him on his talk page that I put here (I wasn't rude or swearing - honest!!) but this "automated filter" said I was unconstructive and blocked me from contacting him.

I don't really know anything about IRC and I am very limited on what software I can install at work. Would he necessarily be in the chat room anyway?

Did I do the wrong thing by putting a draft on my talk page? I thought I was following tip #2 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Starting_an_article

If nothing else, I'd just like the text of my page back because I've now lost a lot of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedel (EL) (talk • contribs) 07:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

...Wait, sorry, I was wrong. You made a mistake in the title; you should have copied the article to User:Friedel (EL)/European Library. By the way, automatic filters being automatic filters, they make mistakes, so try typing in another message if abusefilter accidentally blocks your edits again. Kayau Voting IS evil 07:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've read your comment. There's nothing wrong with it; AbuseFilter must have made a mistake. Kayau Voting IS evil 07:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so if i understand correctly, then whenever I want to draft some changes on a subset of my talk page I should give the draft the same title as the actual page? Is that where I went wrong? (Just trying to figure out what the problem was).

As for the Abuse Filter, I did try to repost my message a few times, varying the message to try and figure out why it was "unconstructive" but the problem persisted.

Thanks for your help. I will try to recreate the article. Any tips on retrieving my previous work greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedel (EL) (talk • contribs) 07:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

About the title: nope, but you should have added the 'User:' prefix so that the page ends up in your userspace. Kayau Voting IS evil 07:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've put it there, but shouldn't it actually be a subpage of the article's talk page? Or at least linked to the talk page? Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never used a temp subpage before, so instead of telling Friedel about it, I told him how to do what he tried to do originally. If this is against common practice you could move to the talk. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm any clearer on what I should be doing or should have done, but I notice that someone has put my previous work and a helpful notice on the new draft page so thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedel (EL) (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller did that. You can view page histories by clicking on thet history tab above or adding '?action=history' at the end of the URL. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

free wifi

hi i am a novice with a new laptop i am going on holiday to thailand the hotel has free wifi do i incur any charges with my broadband provider? 178.96.253.216 (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, since you'll not be using the service provided by your broadband provider; if the hotel has free wifi, you're using the hotel's internet connection. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

article for review

This is a very difficult site to navigate. I have (I think but maybe not) put up an article for review titled 'Simon Jenner' I put it in the 'submit new article for review at AfC' It simply vanishes into the ether. How do I upload an article so that it actually goes somewhere and I can track it? Many thanks.

(I feel I will never be able to trace the answer to this question - I found it asked on a help page, clicked on the blue answer words and couldn't find the answer! As I say - a very difficult site to navigate.

Davpol8112 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your submission was difficult to track down because (1) you were not logged on when you made it, so it was not linked to your user name (2) you made a spelling error in the page title. However, I searched and found it here. Your proposed article was declined because it did not include any sources to show where the information is coming from. You may be able to fix this by editing that page, and then re-submitting by following the instructions in the red box. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

When you are logged in there is a link saying "My contributions" in the top-right. Click it to see links to the pages you have edited while logged in, for example this help desk. Special:Mycontributions (not an easily accessible link from other pages) also works when you are logged out and will in that case show the edits made by your current IP address (which may have changed since earlier edits). See more at Help:User contributions. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Help needed with MfD process

Hello! I am trying to nominate the page User:Abstract8585 for MfD, but I keep screwing it up. Can someone please help me get this MfD put forward correctly? Thanks! Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Skip it. I just deleted the page under WP:CSD#G11. It was doing nothing but advertising a website, so it is eligible for speedy deletion. Many pages do not qualify for speedy deletion, but if you find one that does, you can tag it with {{db-XXX}} where XXX is the code for the CSD reason listed at WP:CSD. --Jayron32 13:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've received a strange e-mail from "WikiAdmin"

Resolved

It is addressed to me by my username and appears to have come from "wiki@wikimedia.org". The content of the email consists of a number of paragraphs in what looks to my untrained eye like a South or Southeast Asian script (could be anywhere from India to Thailand). Also included are hyperlinks that contain "wikipedia.org", my username and long strings like "%A5%B6%8D%A0%E6". Where can I send this e-mail for investigation as I would like to know if my privacy or security has been violated? Roger (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Roger, if you'd like to send it to me, I'll be happy to take a look at it. I'm an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation (Head of Reader Relations). My email address is philippewikimedia.org. - Philippe 14:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Philippe - you've got mail. Roger (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you've recently visted another language's Wikipedia for the first time while logged in, this may be an automatic welcome message generated and sent to the address you have registered with your unified login. I had that happen with the Malayalam and Navajo Wikipedias and took a while to figure them out :) If there's a language code before the instances of "wikipedia.org" (e.g. if it's "ml.wikipedia.org"), that may be what's going on, and running the text through Google Translate may clarify. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Roger, I've responded to you privately by email. :) - Philippe 14:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

YResolved, thanks. Roger (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've received a similar e-mail from bn.wikipedia.org, sent at 12.58 today
Perhaps you could share your response, so we all know what is going on, rather than doing it privately?
Arjayay (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It was as Gonzonoir suspected, just a welcome message from the Bengali WP. I looked at a photo there a day or two ago. Personally I think it's a confusing practice, one shouldn't "automagically" become a "member" of a <lang>.wikipedia.org just by looking at something on it. Roger (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - Although I don't recall looking at the Bengali WP, I often click the wrong button. Arjayay (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Arjayay shows your bnwiki account was autocreated two days ago where you must have visited a page while logged in. There can be a delay between account creation and welcome mails. I think mails are also often associated with welcome messages on your talk page. I don't know Bengali and cannot see when you received your talk page welcome by looking at the page history [4]. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing a featured article

With each passing day this place becomes a bit less overwhelming. Today I edited a featured article for the first time. However, I quickly reverted my edit for fear I may have broken a protocol, written or implied. Other than what I suppose would be added emphasis on the assurance of accuracy, are there any specific rules or guidelines for editing a featured article that differ from editing a common article? Joefromrandb (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, be bold and edit, but make sure you explain your edit in the edit summary or on the talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I did exactly that. The so far only response to my talk page comment is in agreement, so I guess everything is fine. I was likely much more concerned than I needed be over this. In any case, thank you for your time and help. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Refs embedded in section headings?

Is it correct to it this way? [5] I think the result is ugly. Roger (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not correct. I know I have seen it referred to in a guideline somewhere, but I cannot find it at the moment. – ukexpat (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSHEAD says "no links", and the rationale would apply to both wikilinks and external URLs. DMacks (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how to de-bork my formatting?

Resolved

Updating a table at this user subpage of mine, I've managed to break the formatting such that all the new rows are formatted as though they were headers. I'm sure it's very simple, but I can't figure out why the new cells are being interpreted this way and the old ones are not - can anyone tell me how to fix it? (I want rows 144 through 159 to be formatted in the same way (not-bold, left-aligned) as 1 - 143.) Gonzonoir (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Try changing the character at the start of each of your new lines from ! to | - David Biddulph (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Hi, I edited line 144 with this edit and it appears to have worked. From 1 - 143, each line appeared to start with a pipe "|", but from 144 onwards you appeared to use "!". That seems to have fixed line 144 - you may want to apply it to the remaining lines. Darigan (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers folks. My eyesight's clearly going. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: non-free promotional images

Publicity photos missing rationale

Have been trying to clear as many files as possible in this large category. While doing that, I noticed an image I'd uploaded not that long ago in the list. Knew I wrote the rationale before finishing the upload. Checked on my others in this category last night and found them all in the list--with rationales written at the time the upload was done; apparently are a lot more like mine uploaded by others.

Is/was there something wrong with the way these files were categorized? My concern is that some of these files with properly submitted rationales might somehow get deleted because they are now classed as having no rationale. Am trying to get the numbers there down, but wouldn't like to see anyone lose a image because of this. We hope (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that a fair use rationale was added after the tag, but the tag wasn't removed leaving the image in that category. The admin reviewing the image, after seeing it in that category, would see the FUR, remove the tag and move on without deleting. Even if the image is wrongly deleted, it can be easily restored. – ukexpat (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much! We hope (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations in an infobox

When using inline citations, do I put a footnote next to the fact in the body of the article, or do I put it next to the same fact listed in an infobox? Or, do I place the citation next to both body text and infobox? —Untitledmind⁷² (let's talk + contribs) 17:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the preference is to add them to the text rather than in the ibox, otherwise the ibox gets cluttered up with the superscript ref numbers. The rationale would be that the ibox shouldn't contain anything not in the main body of the article so a citation in the main body should be sufficient. However, you will see refs in iboxes all over the place. – ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have also noticed that some infoboxes break when they contain reference tags, especially if the reference tags use citation templates. Wikipedia's template code is not perfectly robust. You cannot always use a complex template as input to another complex template. In those cases I have found a workaround is to use a named reference tag, with the citation template in body text, and then the citation template does not need to also go in the infobox. Things could get tricky if there is some infobox field that you cannot conveniently duplicate in the body text. --Teratornis (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding link to name entered.

Hello,

I just added a name to this list, but don't know how to create a link to the history. The name is Antonio Hart 1968, (alto, Soprano)

Categories: Jazz saxophonists | Lists of jazz musicians | Lists of musicians by instrument

A. Hart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartmusic (talk • contribs) 18:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your addition was reverted, probably because you didn't link to the article properly. I added it back. For future reference, you link to an article by enclosing the title in double square brackets, so [[Antonio Hart]] renders as Antonio Hart. – ukexpat (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Applying to enroll

Hello,

How can I apply to enroll for Wikipedia? How long time does it take to answer the application? 85.112.128.153 (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no "enrollment", but you can create an account, which has many benefits. – ukexpat (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

To expand on that, you can, if you choose, start to edit right now, by clicking the "edit" tab on any article you see. As Ukexpat noted, by registerring an account, you also gain extra privileges, but that is not required for the basic stuff around here. --Jayron32 02:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also note that Wikipedia has articles about many schools and other institutions and programs to which you can enroll, but Wikipedia has no connection with the vast majority of them. If you were reading an article about a school, and you want to enroll there, you will have to contact the school rather than Wikipedia. We have articles about schools but we don't handle their enrollments. --Teratornis (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Which tool to use?

Moved from WP:AN

 – GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a tool that indicates which wiki users are currently inactive by date? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

For admins there's Wikipedia:List of administrators. Hut 8.5 20:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How about for regular users? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There's This. If you'd need/want different criteria, our Master Data Miner User:MZMcBride could probably dig for any combination of criteria. EDIT: That report doesn't include autoconfirmed users, which will make up the bulk of the userbase. It should be fairly simple to tweak that script though. Suggestions are taken here: Wikipedia talk:Database reports. Arakunem^Talk 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean it doesn't include non-autoconfirmed users, Arakunem? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that list only has users with extra permissions beyond confirmed/auto-confirmed. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, that's a bit of a limitation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

List of brazing alloys

Just split this from Brazing - the problem is that on a 1280pixel wide screen the rightmost column is squashed - causing text bunch up, and a unnacceptable long and unreadable table - is there a work around for this?Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• (Note , see this version [6] - I've added a temp fix using many   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.230.154 (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC) )

Can't help you, but might I suggest that you repeat the top header every so often in the table because otherwise the reader has to scroll up to find out what column he or she is looking at. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears the "Toxic !" column is redundant to "alloys that contain Cd". You could scrap that column, put an asterisk in the Cd column-header, and discuss it somewhere other than in the rows of the table itself. Instead of "melting point", you could save a few pixels by just saying "mp". Also, why are there two values in that column? If it's a numerical range, then use en-dash (–) per wikipedia standard number-formatting. Looking more deeply though, aren't *all* the element-columns redundant vs the composition (chemical formula) listed in the first column? DMacks (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Final question - I assume that person who created it assumed that people may want to sort by element... (I didn't create it, and am not going to attempt to fix since I will almost certainly be reverted). Thanks for the other useful suggestions.83.100.230.154 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point about sort-by-element! DMacks (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

References

How do you add references? I've tried to add them but when I do them, it still says there aren't any and I'm not sure if I'm doing it right I've got five days left pleaaaase help lol PESP95 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What page are you working on? You probably need to add a { { Reflist } } tag. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The page is Roy Paget. The problem is that none of the sources cited are reliable, as in neutral, third-party publications. I've marked it with a Proposed Deletion for that reason. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like biospam to me, tagged for G11 speedy. – ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

January 13

Canadian researcher William Sommers

This is my first time using the help desk so I'm not sure if I'm in the right place. This was the most readily available forum that I could find though. If there is somewhere more appropriate please tell me.

His name appears in a number of animal articles (shown in this search ) usually uncited. In the case of the oarfish article where there is link, the news article that is cited makes no reference to anyone by this name. Does anyone know who this is? Given that the name belonged to a famous court jester there is the possibility that this is some form of vandalism. Sxoa (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted! I did a quick check through the articles and it appears that all (or at least a good number) are done by 64.83.194.182. It also appears that most of the articles have seen extensive changes since then, so this vandalism would need to be reverted by hand (unless anyone has any better methods).Naraht (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Very peculiar. This may be the oldest addition, from 2007. I'm currently skimming the Tapir conservation newsletter to see if it can be sourced. If these additions are accurate, this individual appears to have made a number of discoveries across a fairly large swathe of the animal kingdom, and I would expect to see his name mentioned in journals, which I so far haven't. These edits may be correct, but pending confirmation with a source, I think it might be a good idea to change them back to the more vague "scientists" or similar. I've changed one, and will try to go through the others. Good call, Sxoa. --Kateshortforbob _talk 17:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, duh. Newsletter's from 2002, addition mentions event from 2003. Removing that one...--Kateshortforbob _talk 17:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the IP addresses involved include:

199.17.4.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 199.17.46.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 206.11.94.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 64.83.194.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I think all the mentions remaining the articles are gone, but I'll have another look. --Kateshortforbob _talk 17:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference list

Hay. this is aechayselove and i dont know if this web site is a good source because many people can get on and change whatever they feel like. i honestly think you should have the people add a reference list so we know that people arent making up stuff! i dont mean to be picky or anything i just thought i could share my opinion.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aechayselove (talk • contribs) 00:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

All articles should have reference lists, although there are admittedly some articles that do not have references at all, and others that are poorly referenced. You are encouraged to cross-check with other sources regardless if there is a list of references or not -- cf. Citing Wikipedia and Academic use. Xenon54 (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

See the various sections under Wikipedia:Replies to common objections#Wikipedia can never be high quality. Also see Wikipedia:Flagged revisions. Maintaining quality in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is indeed a problem. See Wikipedia:Disclaimer. You should never undertake any important decision using only Wikipedia as your guidance. Instead use Wikipedia as an introduction to a subject, and look at all the sources an article cites, as well as more sources that you find by searching the Web or visiting a library. Also check the history of an article to insure it has not been recently vandalized. --Teratornis (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please reconsider how you post this article ...

Adding this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner - may present the problem of other mentally unstable individuals or groups committing horrific crimes, based solely on the idea that they can live in infamy and receive fame by receiving their own personalized autobiography on this and other sites. I suggest that you consider instead attaching only a very brief and simple description of this individual to the article on the horrific event. To summarize, it is my opinion that you should not give this individual any fame by allowing him an autobiography here on wikipedia.

Sincerely, JP Baker 72.223.50.245 (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but this is a encyclopedia, and thus should include notable, even infamous, people. CTJF83 chat 01:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, but JP Baker may have a point, after all this may be a case of WP:BLP1E. Just something to consider. It may or may not apply in this case, given the amount of information availible on this person, but the concerns of the OP should not be dismissed out of hand. --Jayron32 02:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there is more than enough coverage. Obviously we wouldn't delete Timothy McVeigh, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, can't think of any more right now. They are all 3 infamous for one event, the only reason Loughner is being brought up is cause it is recent. CTJF83 chat 02:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Copycat crimes says:

• "It has been shown that most of the persons who do mimic crimes seen in the media (especially news and violent movies) have in most cases prior criminal records, prior severe mental health problems or histories of violence suggesting that the effect of the media is indirect (more affecting criminal behaviour) rather than direct (directly affecting the number of criminals)."

If that is true, then Wikipedia and other media might inadvertently influence the types of bad things that nutjobs do, but we are less likely to create new nutjobs. A better (if currently impractical) approach might be to filter what the nutjobs get to see, rather than censor the news for the vast majority of people who aren't going to copy these horrendous crimes. Hopefully the sciences of mind will progress enough to be able to actually repair the brain defects that lead to violent antisocial behavior, instead of simply diagnosing it. --Teratornis (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bookmarks - or other easy tracking idea?

Does anyone else find they can't keep track of things they have commented on but want to revisit the article(s). You can watch a topic but if no one comments it's of no use. Is there some sort of solution to this issue? I am finding going back over my contributions to find things more and more time consuming. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You can make user subpages to keep track of things you are editing. This is useful if you start an editing task you cannot finish in one session, for example because you are waiting for someone else to reply. Wikipedia's talk pages lack any way to notify you when someone replies to a comment you left. You can only watch the whole talk page. If you are watching many talk pages, it can be difficult to find replies to your messages in the flood of other traffic on those pages. mw:Extension:LiquidThreads might someday help with this. In the meantime your options are not too good. In addition to keeping a page of notes, you can also:

• Request that someone ping your user talk page when they reply to your comment on another talk page. That only helps if the other editors will take this extra step.
• Leave messages on the user talk pages of editors who have edited the articles you want to comment on, inviting them to look at your comments on the article talk pages. You can find these editors by looking at the histories of the articles. Maybe you are getting no responses because the interested editors aren't paying attention to the articles you are commenting on.
• Try to edit in ways that reduce your need for feedback from other editors. Learn Wikipedia's rules in detail so you know what to do more of the time. Get better at finding reliable sources so you can be more confident you know when an article needs a change.
• Ask questions about article content on the Reference desk where you might be more likely to get quick replies.

--Teratornis (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Email

Why isn't my email address letting me confirm it after a few times I tried to confirm it and it still doesn't work? WAYNESLAM 02:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be more specific about the problem. Do you receive a confirmation mail? If so then what happens when you click the link in it? If you get an error message then quote it. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to help him before, it seems when he sends the confirmation email, he doesn't get it, which means he can't email. Nascar1996 02:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you have discussed at User talk:Wayne Slam#Email. His posts there don't say whether he has received a confirmation mail but maybe he said it somewhere else. He said "Done" when you asked him to watch for replies here but he hasn't responded to my reply which was there at the time so I don't know whether "Done" means his problem is fixed or what. Without knowing more I will only point to Help:Email confirmation. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Could it possibly be that you are getting all emails but they're going into your spam folder? Have you checked?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a spam folder as far as I know. I sent multiple email confirmations and it still won't let me email. WAYNESLAM 20:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't said whether you receive the confirmation mails. After receiving it you must click a link in it to enable email. Maybe the confirmation mails are blocked by your ISP. Some editors have to use an alternative email account. Comparison of webmail providers may be useful. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

USS Stickell DD888 How do I contact someone to get statement corrected

'Bold text' In the information Concerning The Ship USS Stickell DD888 I says Operated in Korean Waters Late in the year of 1950, This is Not Correct- The Ship was in Korean Waters in Jan/ Feb 1950 I know this to be Fact,because I was on Board when We steamed up the East Coast between Korea and Japan in the Japan Sea- I cannot say for sure How far bt I can Say , we where underway for more than 24 hours when we 1st sighted land to our Port Side,That being on the west and the East Coast of So. Korea. It is My Opinion we where close to The Russian / N Korea / China Borders. Should You want to get further Information re this: (email addresses removed) Jim Baker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.2.208.4 (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To correct this information simply click "edit" at the top of the page and correct it, Be Bold!. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 04:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

But do so only if you can cite a reliable source. Personal knowledge and reminiscences are not reliable for Wikipedia purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

However, if information you believe to be wrong is not reliably sourced in the article, you can remove it, even though you may not be able to put anything else in its place without independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Under the heading Early life and career it says "Van Winkle never knew his real father..." and then in the very next sentence it says "Because of his parents' divorce, he grew up moving between suburban Dallas, where he lived with his mother and stepfather, and suburban Miami with his father."

How can he not know his father but be living with his mother and stepfather in Dallas and also with his father in Miami? He either knew his father or he didn't. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.87.156 (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a good question, but you need to ask this at the article talk page. Go back to where you read the article, click the "discussion tab" and raise this same issue there. --Jayron32 06:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You skipped an important part in your quote. It actually says:

"Van Winkle never knew his real father, and was given the name of the man his mother was married to at the time of his birth. Because of his parents' divorce, he grew up moving between suburban Dallas, where he lived with his mother and stepfather, and suburban Miami with his father."

Without researching it, I assume "real father" is the unknown biological father while "parents" is the mother and the man his mother was married to at the time of his birth. If the man adopted him (I don't know whether this is the case but it sounds likely in the context) then I think it makes sense to call him the father, but it could have been phrased more clearly. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hypothetical

Regarding Article Probation Notifications. Lets say an editor (#1) had sent out an inordinate amount of templated Article Probation Notifications. Within the last month. Lets say a dozen. Lets further say that an administrator (#2) has given that editor (#1) a similar notification, which the editor (#1) did not accept as valid. So, lets assume that the editor (#1) opens an ANI thread about the Admins (#2) actions. My question is this---would it be within the rules of Wikipedia to inform the dozen or so editors that an ANI thread has begun that is pertinent to their recent edits? Thank You.Buster Seven Talk 06:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• This can't go well. You obviously have a specific situation in mind, why are you going through such lengths to obfuscate it? --Jayron32 06:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm glad you are the one to answer. Who should I ask? The parties involved? And if I was specific, here, wouldn't I open myself up to attack and the like. I obfuscate to protect myself and them. If your advice is to leave it alone I will. Again, I saw a potential act but I didn't know who to ask if it was proper.Buster Seven Talk 07:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Giuseppe Palica

I have nominated the article above for deletion, but now I am unsure as to where to administer this deletion proposal. The procedures seem to be very different from nl-wikipedia, where I know my way.. RJB-nl (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The article appeared to have been OK, apart from one vandalism edit in 2008, which I have now reverted. I have therefore removed the PROD template. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! RJB-nl (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing things where a well referenced link is already provided.

Question:

If I was to say something like: "Stephen Fry, the presenter of QI..."

would I need to spend 10 minutes finding a reference that confirms the fact that Stephen Fry is indeed the presenter of QI, when all the reader would have to do to find a source for this would be to click on the link provided? It seems like unnecessary overkill to me. Py0alb (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Readers first, so yes, I'm afraid. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

2 further questions:

1) What if the relevant citation is already on the same page? For example, what if further up the page there was a comment "Stephen's Fry's tv career Would I need to cite it again?

2) Is it permissible to use other wikipedia pages as sources if they contain the most useful information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Py0alb (talk • contribs) 13:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, but that's easy. If the prior link is named i.e., has the form <ref name="name"> at its start, all you need to do to cite it again is to copy and paste that beginning part of the citation code and add a closing slash, like so: <ref name="name" />. If the prior reference is not named (it starts with just <ref>), replace it with a named version in the form I just provided, <ref name="name"> (last name of author will do for the name to choose) and then follow what I said about using it again later on by adding a closing slash. See WP:REFNAME for more.
2. If you're talking about using other Wikipedia articles as references to be cited, the answer is no. Please see WP:CIRCULAR and also note that wikis in general are not considered reliable sources. If you're talking about using preexisting cited content from an existing article, in another article, that's fine but please provide copyright attribution by noting in your edit summary where you took the preexisting text from and link to that source article. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Is a video off youtube allowed as a source? For example a coaching video or an interview with a well known figure. Py0alb (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Short answer, it depends what the video shows and what you're trying to use it to cite - WP:YOUTUBE has the full details (and general advice about identifying reliable sources). Gonzonoir (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You might also want to see WP:CITEVIDEO. ~ Elitropia (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Auto archiving talk page

I set up archiving, with the intention that it should archive when the number of threads exceeds 35, but the number is 69. I don't believe it has ever auto-archived, the existing archives were done manually. What am I doing wrong?--SPhilbrickT 14:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there was an archiving performed here by MiszaBotIII. It looks like you have it set to archive any entries older than thirty days, as long as there are at least five threads to archive and thirty left on the page. To adjust this, you would need to edit the "minthreadstoarchive" parameter. Is this what you needed? TNXMan 15:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe it is working as intended. I know several of those threads are older than 30 days. The first was misplaced, so it isn't that old; the next is from 2009, but has no date. The third has a date of October 7, 2009 which really prompted this question. Some subsequent ones are old, but aren't dated. Maybe it is working, but just had trouble dealing with the third entry. I guess I assumed the bot would work with the actual date posted, even if the user failed to sign properly, but maybe that isn't the case. I'll try manually archiving the first few. Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 18:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The post from 2009 has differently formatted date than the others. That may be the issue. TNXMan 19:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the national merchants association is a publicly traded company?

Does anyone know if The National Merchants Association is a publicly traded company? I cannot find investor info on their site www.nationalmerchants.org but I read in the LA Times and Burbank Leader that they were a public company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.137.176 (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.5 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.Template:Z25 - David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Note also that at the foot of each page on http://www.nationalmerchants.org it says: "National Merchants Association is a Registered ISO/MSP of Wells Fargo Bank" - David Biddulph (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

suggestion

Add information from tv news: CBC advises Target has bought Zellers in Canada and will renovate and change stores to Target in the next couple years. Yay! Zellers are not fun to shop in. Target has a good reputation.96.54.173.145 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for the information (i.e. something which people can go and check on any time, even 20 years from now) which you can probably find easily, please be bold and edit the relevant article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Requesting assistance

I've proposed a revision to Occidental_Petroleum#Controversies, located here on my user subspace. The Occidental Petroleum talk page isn't very active, so I'm coming here (again) asking for assistance. Due to a potential COI, I'd really appreciate feedback from the community.

If anyone would like to help by providing feedback, please leave here it on the proposal talk page! (My own comments are there as well.) Thanks, --CBuiltother (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sign on problem

When I try to sign on with my user name and password I get a page which says I'm signed on with my correct user name. However, when I go to another page it doesn't recognize that I'm signed on. Even after I refresh the page. I've rebooted and signed in again and the same thing happens. Is this something new? Or does it just apply to me? Any suggestions? --85.2.122.64 (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

When you say you go to another page, are you sure that it's not gone from the open (http://en.wikipedia.org) to the secure Wikipedia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page)? Some editors include links on an open page which point to a secure page, and thus cause confusion. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is your browser set to save session cookies? Even if you don't check the "Remember Me" box, I believe the site still uses a session cookie to maintain your state throughout. Cookie managers and ad-blockers can also affect this. Arakunem^Talk 16:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Check the date on your PC, this can happen if you have set the wrong date. Almogo (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. I cleared the cache and deleted all cookies and I can now sign on. I don't know which action cleared the problem, but both are easy to do. --85.2.122.64 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What determines a pages content?

I have another question:

The term "slider" is commonly used in both cricket and baseball. Yet if you search for slider in wikipedia it takes you to the baseball page rather than the cricket page which is at slider_(cricket) Are there a set of guidelines that determine which usage takes precedent?

Thanks again Py0alb (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For what it's worth, I've never met the term "slider" in cricket, despite listening to Test Match Special many times over the years. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The hatnote at the top of slider directs you to the disambiguation page (Slider (disambiguation)) where the cricket usage is listed. So you will get there in the end. There may be a case for redirecting slider to the disambiguation page and listing the baseball article there, but I have to say as a long-time cricket fan and recent baseball fan, that I think the baseball usage is probably more common than the cricket usage. – ukexpat (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the baseball term has been in use since the 70s, whereas the cricketing term was borrowed from baseball within the past 10 years. I agree that the pages should probably remain precisely as they are Py0alb (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The term 'Slider' is used for various Pond sliders, this is perhaps the worlds fourth most common pet. In 2005 the US exported 13Million Sliders a year to Hong Kong alone. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I may have eaten 13 million sliders in college... Arakunem^Talk 15:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove the picture of our beloved Prophet Mohammad (SA) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba and all the wikipedia pages

I strongly condemn and request wikipedia team to remove the picture of our beloved Prophet Mohammad (SA). This is a grave insult of the entire muslim community accross the globe. You should respect the freedom of expression but at the same time you should also respect the faith of a community of more than 1 billion people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal81bilal (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been requested and discussed many times. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad and Wikipedia is not censored. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Anybody who does not want to see these or any other images can block them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_set_your_browser_to_not_see_images. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Need help formatting "Article Title [over] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" at top of page of new article

I have a new article completed and I have the title in large bold print at the top, but when I preview it I don't get the Article Title [over] "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" at the top of the page, and the box with the sections summary appears before the article. How can I fix this?

Thanks.

Rittenhoused (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That will be added automatically when you save the article. You don't need to include that in the text you write. Arakunem^Talk 18:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Table of Contents, by default will place itself before the first header in the article, as the assumption is that the lead will not have a separate header. So if you remove the manually added title (since its an automatic add), then the TOC will place itself in the proper place. Arakunem^Talk 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Query re character in NCIS

I am a big fan of NCIS and watch it on many different chanels on SKY therefore the continuity is probably suspect.it apperared to me a few months ago that Sean Murray`s character-Agent McGee apperad to be ill or had lost a lot of weight-very thin faced and barely recognisable to my mind-does anyone know if he has been ill or just decided to lose weight?In episodes we are currently watching he seems ok again.YNOT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.132.55 (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hi! This page is just for help with using Wikipedia. Your question would be better asked at the Entertainment Reference Desk, where more specific questions like these are handled. Thanks! Arakunem^Talk 18:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a Wikia wiki related to NCIS: NCIS, an external wiki. – ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Finding what you need

Wikipedia is absolutely horrible. When I say that, I don't mean that the encyclopedic content's quality is terrible, just finding the right infobox, the right template, the right special page, the right policy, the right article--I was trying to find the article on the major T.D. Bank on the east coast recently--and couldn't figure out which one was which. Wikicode is confusing, unless you have been on-wiki for a month or two or more (I have been on here for six months, and yet I can't figure out how to make a picture as a thumbnail, unless I go to another article or commons. There are too many policies to follow--one about this, another conflicting policy about that, an un-understandable policy about something--even if it is a key policy. Even the template help page isn't too helpful. Any way for a WYSIWYG editor? (I saw the discussion on Jimbo's talk page, but it isn't loading.) But wait. I still like wikicode--they should have another thing like WikiEd. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 19:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed a complex place. Fortunately, that's the reason the Help Desk is here! I've heard proposals for a WYSIWYG editor several times, but even that sort of editor would not be able to help you parse policies and guidelines. TNXMan 19:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is [[WP:IAR|Ignore all rules, which states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 21:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for kicks, I went to Wikipedia main page, typed T.D. Bank into the search box--your exact request. Match #1 was TD Bank and #2 was TD Bank, N.A.. That second is presumably the one you want, but the problem is that Wikipedia has no way of knowing that (and there actually are other same/similar-named banks in the world apparently). Because I don't know which one I want, I picked match #1, which presents me with an index of all the TD banks, each listed with enough information to know where it is and/or what type of banking institution it is. Match #2 is indeed listed there. I'm curious what sort of system you envision (setting aside how to implement it for now) that would be more efficient or useful here. I tried T. D. Bank (notice space between "T." and "D."), which gave me all sorts of off-topic pages. But still, match #1 was TD, which is a disambiguation page. Searched for "bank" on that page, and the only match was exactly the one you wanted (its Canadian parent corp and its US affiliate). DMacks (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sortable tables with rowspan

I have been working on List of members of the United States Congress killed or wounded in office with some other editors and it has been expanding to a point where it really should be turned into a sortable table now. The only problem is we have rowspan and colspan in the table. I can work around the colspan, but when it comes to rowspan i can not work out a way to get everything to sort in a way that works and makes sense. I have created a sandbox for the article at [User:Found5dollar/[List of members of the United States Congress killed or wounded in office]]. Any help would be appreciated. --Found5dollar (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess you mean User:Found5dollar/Revision history of List of members of the United States Congress killed or wounded in office. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes. sorry.--Found5dollar (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Test help

Howdy, Does wikipedia have any resources for practicing analogies, esp. for the Miller analogies Test? Thanks Cleveland88 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The article Miller Analogies Test might have useful references or external links. Roger (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I NEED TO RESTOTE ,Y FAVORITES

THEY ARE ALL GONE MY E-MAIL IS <blanked> PLEASE TELL ME WHAT TO DO THANK YOU PAUL G. CHASE, JR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.26 (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.Template:Z38 TNXMan 19:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Image layout bug?

In the article Timeline of ornithology there are a number of images. I did some copy edits recently and one of the images failed to render, appearing instead as [[Image:...]] I tweaked and twiddled with it until it did render in preview but when I saved it, another image failed to render! Is the a bug here that I need to work around? Thanks in advance. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

They are all showing up for me. Maybe it was a temporary glitch with the image server? – ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A Ctrl+F browser search of [7] showed me two [[Image: in the rendered page. The first was mising the ending ]]. I added it and fixed a couple of other link errors in [8] and everything now renders for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Image description only partially visible

I just added three images to the article New Horizons#Jupiter gravity assist. I added an image description to each image that is to be displayed in the article underneath each picture. However, somehow, only part of each decription is readable in the article. The rest runs out of the textbox below the image. How can I fix that, such that always the whole description is visible? Thanks in advance.Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I just added the figure 3 after the image directions that read "lines=". Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please Fix

When showing the template group "Links to related articles" in President_of_Germany#External_links, an especially thicker gray line separates the "Heads of state and government of Europe" template and the "{{Orders of succession by country}}" template. All the other templates have the thickness of one line separating them. This needs to be fixed but I don't know how.Bernolákovčina (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed it by moving a </div> in [9]. By the way, if you really think such a detail "needs to be fixed" then be careful Wikipedia doesn't drive you mad ;-) PrimeHunter (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

January 14

Compact table of contents

Is there any way to get a TOC to automatically appear compact without pressing the "hide" button? Cheers, :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding the template {{TOChidden}} will do what you appear to want, but note the caveat after "Alternative" in the documentation. Deor (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing images

How come I suddenly can't see images in Wikipedia? 69.128.174.75 (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There are different possibilities involving browser settings or domain blocks. 1) Which browser do you have? 2) Can you see images at other websites? 3) Can you see a small MediaWiki or Wikimedia image in the lower right corner of this page? 4) Can you see an image when you click File:Example.jpg? 5) Can you see an image when you click http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Example.jpg? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviations

I received a response (actually an accusation of vandalism) by abreviating the word hour or hours in pharmacokinetic information provided. The question was raised as to why I made the change. I did not know where or how to respond, hence using this site within Wikipedia. Reasons: Accuracy, consistency and unambiguity are key factors to take into consideration for abbreviations. While 'hour' or 'hours' are good descriptors for time and are unambiguous, they are not consistent with other values provided within the information boxes for various drugs. For example, molecular mass is referred to as 'g/mol', density is 'g/cm3' (with superscript for cubed), 'mg/mL' for solubility and appropriate units for centigrade or farenheit. For consistency, if abbreviations are used for some measurements, then abbreviations should be used for all measurements, should standard abbreviations exist, for all measurements. Alternatively, if 'hour' or 'hours' are spelled out in full, then all other measurements should be spelled out in full (eg, degrees centigrade, milligrams per millilitre). My preference, for space considerations and clarity, is that standard abbreviations be used. Most international chemical and medical journals, for example, use standard abbreviations (including 'h' for 'hour' or 'hours'. I object to the term 'vandalism' being used when I made an honest and appropriate attempt to apply some good sense to abbreviations used. I hope that these comments are taken favourably. If I can be advised about the most appropriate link to make constructive comments in future, that would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williadb (talk • contribs) 03:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

hour is a short simple word known by all English speakers while h for hour is much less international standard than many other units. It's not an SI unit (unlike s for seconds), and many languages abbreviate to the first letter of hour in that language which is often not h (it's t in my Danish). The English Wikipedia has readers with many different native languages and backgrounds, and an isolated h can be confusing. See also WP:UNIT which spells out hour except sometimes when it's part of a combined unit like km/h. I agree your edits were not vandalism but I don't think you should have continued without discussing it after the first warning which didn't say vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The best place to respond initially is on your talk page, where you were left the message which you refer to above. Alternatively, you could start a discussion on the talk page of the article and get a consensus for your changes -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 03:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Images that use coins as dimension indicators

I recently came across a photographic image in Wikipedia (in the article "Durian" that used a coin of some kind, possibly a U.S. quarter, as a dimension indicator. I recall seeing a Wikipedia policy page in the past specifically asking photo contributors not to do this, but I can't find the appropriate page, tag, or other such information. Can anyone help? 3.14 (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a dimension indicator. Maybe it just happens to be there when the photo was taken. :) Kayau Voting IS evil 05:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

See {{NoCoins}} and the long discussion on its talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've also had run-ins with editors about the no coins rule. I think the rule should be extended to cover text descriptions as well as images. Something that strikes me as really odd about refrences specifically to the US "quarter" coin is that its diameter is in fact <within half a hairbreadth> of one inch, but editors still insist on saying "about the size of a quarter" when "about 1 inch" would be far better understood (and can easily be converted to mm). Roger (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

about the process of deleted data recovery

in what way the deleted data will be recovered form the pen drives(flash/memory cards)? what is the process and the procedure? what are the supporting softwares?

send your description to my mail and Id is

thanking you sir, from sunil kumar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.244.76 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You might find what you are looking for in the articles Data recovery or Undeletion. If you cannot find the answer there, you can try asking your question at the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for).For your convenience, you may click here to post your question. I hope this helps.Template:Z39 (Your email address has been removed to protect your privacy) -- John of Reading (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Mithapur

i was just going thru the article written on Mithapur. Its written that there is only one english medium school there and that is MHS

I think KPS(Only English Medium) should also be mentioned. where we start from nursery and we do our primary schooling till fourth Standard.(I did my schooling here till fouth) thn frm 5th Standard we go to MHS(Both English and Gujarathi Medium) till our 12th.(i did my schooling till 6th ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.12.114 (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Mithapur. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). -- John of Reading (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Robcarmi13/Robin Almeida - Editing

Hi,

I posted an article on the below link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robcarmi13/Robin_Almeida

but when i open the page, the title of the article shows as User:Robcarmi13/Robin Almeida whereas i need the title to be as Robin Almeida

Pls suggest how i do this as i cant find a solution.

Also one more thing is when i search on google with the name as Robin Almeida the search result doesnt show this as the first search result. Any clue why?

Pls let me know answers for the same on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcarmi13 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You have created a user space draft. To turn this into a Wikipedia article it must be moved; see this help page for details. You won't be able to move the page yourself yet, because you need to make another four edits before you qualify as an autoconfirmed editor. (I have removed your email address to protect your privacy) -- John of Reading (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

why editing system is so difficult and old ?

hi , I am wondering why the editing system is still text based and is not visual . it must be a visual editing system like MS word so it would be easy for public to edit well . with the current text based editing system it is not easy for all to edit pages perfectly as they do with visual systems such as MS word 2007 . I think it can be replaced easily with a visual and object based editing environment . I am wondering why it is yet using the old system ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit4world (talk • contribs) 11:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been requested many times. There was a discussion on this page only a week ago - archive. If you click My preferences, then Gadgets, then check wikEd, you you can try a slightly better editing interface. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No way! Just look at Wikia - the 'improved' look makes editing more visual, and frankly, it's an epic fail. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for theatres

Hello all, I came across the East London Theatre archive ([10]) a few months ago and began adding relevant areas of it as a resource/reference to some relevant articles on theatre. I also began to create some theatre stubs for theatres that the archive covers, but that do not yet have Wikipedia articles. One of those new articles, Albert Saloon, has been flagged as possibly not meeting notability guidelines (general notability guidelines), I was wondering if we have any notability guidelines that cover theatres, and if so, could anyone offer a link please. I'm happy to chug along creating new theatre articles, but, it might prove to be a wasted effort if they in fact do not meet the relevant notability criteria. Any tips (or a link to the notability guidelines) will be much appreciated. Thanks, Darigan (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any special guidelines for theatres, so it's just the standard guidelines which you've probably already seen. To establish notability you need to show that people have written about the theatres in reliable sources such as books and newspapers. The theatre archive seems to be a collection of self-published primary sources such as adverts and programmes, without much additional writing or interpretation. So, yes, I'd advise you to find additional sources before beginning new articles about any of these theatres. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case, a search reveals that there's plenty of reliable, independent, sources to write an article from to easily meet the general notability guideline. I'll go add a source now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks John of Reading & Fuhghettaboutit - I'll apply the general notability guidelines to each of the prospective theatre articles I've listed on my userpage. Thanks for adding that ref as well Fuhghettaboutit, it looks like it will act as a further reference for quite a few of the proposed articles. Ta muchly, Darigan (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)