Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The assistance section of the village pump is used to make requests for assistance with Wikipedia.

If you wish to report vandalism, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for investigation or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead.

If you have a specific question to ask, you may go to Wikipedia:Ask a question instead.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Unusual crisis - losing focus of contributing to Wikipedia

I am facing an unusual type of crisis on Wikipedia. In short, I am losing my focus as a Wikipedian.

I joined Wikipedia in February 2006. For several months, I had read articles about websites and Sinagpore TV shows, and I found lots of information about them on Wikipedia. However, I soon spotted loopholes - missing or incorrect information or missing articles. When I realized anyone could edit, I decided to join the project and contribute my knowledge. I was warmly welcomed.

Therefore, from the very start, I focused on contributing information to articles about websites and Singapore TV shows. I created the GTalkr article, and contributed information to the NeoPets and Gmail articles. In the beginning, I struggled to understand the wiki markup and policies, so I started with small additions. In addition, I often participated in discussions about Wikipedia on various talk pages, as a way of becoming familiar with the wiki markup and policies.

Over time, I became bolder, and wrote the Google Groups and Homerun articles. (To date, 99% of the content in these two articles is still by me, so I would welcome feedback.) My discussions also lead to the birth of Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, a place for newcomers to get feedback on their articles that will help make them better writers. (This arose out of personal need - I found it very difficult to get feedback on my articles!)

Eventually, the pressure of school decreased my time on Wikipedia. Still, I managed to contribute information to articles on my niche topics, and participate in discussions to improve articles and Wikipedia as a whole.

Finally, my exams ended, and school holidays started. I have lots of time to contribute to Wikipedia. However, now I seem to be losing my focus as a Wikipedian. I am finding it difficult to contribute information to articles on my niche topics. This is partially due to various issues on Wikipedia that are affecting me. I think, however, that it is more due to the lack of organization and direction in my contributions.

In the past, I would chance upon errors and omissions in articles, and contribute some information or correct the errorneous information. However, I think I must organize my contributions into sub-goals. For example, I could have a sub-goal of improving all Google-related articles. Every week, I would pick a Google-related article and make significant improvements to it, and, if the article is good enough, nominate it for GA or FA. If a Google-related article should exist, but doesn't, I should create and expand the article (e.g. Google Groups, which was written by me). I could do this until I improve all Google-related articles by a notch.

I recently had an idea for a sub-goal. This subgoal concerns articles related to Yahoo! I noticed that the exclamation mark in Yahoo! is often omitted, even in Wikipedia articles about Yahoo! I therefore decided to add omitted exclamation marks to Yahoo! in Yahoo!-related articles. I think WikiProjects could be used for sub-goals, so I created Wikipedia:WikiProject_Yahoo! to encourage other users to follow suit and add omitted exclamation marks. User:Mets501 used AutoWikiBrowser to automate the adding of omitted exclamation marks to over 300 articles.

If WikiProjects are useful for helping me find sub-goals, I would be interested in finding such WikiProjects for my niche topics (websites and Singapore TV shows). Although I usually work independently in school, I understand that Wikipedia is an online community. Therefore, another goal of mine will be to build up a good working relationship with several fellow Wikipedians that will help us collaborate to improve articles in my niche topics. Would WikiProjects help me do so as well? Regardless of the answer to the previous question, how do you suggest I find editors to build a good working relationship with, so we can collaborate and contribute to articles together?

As I started losing my focus, I started "wasting time" on more discussions on Wikipedia. For example, at the Village Pump, I suggested a Wikipedia-Google partnership. The suggestion was not well received. I also participated in several surveys, such as one to prevent anonymous editing, and one regarding my reasons for contributing to the project.

I think the wiki concept is great, and I wish to make significant contributions to this mammoth project. However, I am running out of ideas for doing so, and I would appreciate some pointing in the right direction. Some may suggest that I start combating vandalism. In fact, if I spot any vandalism to articles about my niche topics, I will most certainly revert it. However, reverting vandalism is not my cup of tea, and not my purpose in contributing to Wikipedia. Many people are much better vandal-fighters than I am.

I could spend my June school holidays working on my user page, letting everyone know I'm a 14-year-old boy from Singapore who contributes information to articles about websites and Singapore TV shows, and finding userboxes, and I am currently working on my userpage, but the question remains: After I complete my userpage, how can I make further contributions, now that people know who they are working with?

Several other issues are distracting my ability to contribute information to Wikipedia, and are increasing my WikiStress levels. Resolving these would certainly help me regain my focus, although I think it is still imperative to have sub-goals. Despite these issues, I would probably continue to contribute with focus if I could work in sub-goals.

My IP, User:202.156.6.54, is shared by practically all of Singapore (over 4 million people). There are several egregious anonymous vandals using this IP address to vandalize Wikipedia. As a result, the IP is often blocked, and I am affected as well. I find myself unable to edit Wikipedia a quarter of the time, and this is very frustrating! I have tried to raise this issue elsewhere, but this problem has not been resolved yet. I had to resort to edits which were deemed violations of WP:POINT. Please sign at Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal.

Some policies appear to have been deliberately designed to make contributing very difficult for me. I will single out the verifiability/original research policies. A considerable percentage of my contributions have been tagged as original research. Unfortunately, given my niche topics, it is very difficult to find and cite reliable sources for my facts.

For example, I contributed information to the NeoPets article and nominated it for FA. It failed - the primary objection being the lack of reliable sources for the Criticisms section, and therefore the over-use of weasel words. As an experienced NeoPets user, I agree with most of the information in the Criticisms section, and I wish to point out that it is difficult to find reliable sources criticising a website. Much of the criticisms are user opinion, and it is unlikely that these criticisms would be published in a reliable source such as a newspaper. It is possible to find such information in unreliable sources such as anti-NeoPets websites.

Similarly, almost all of the Homerun article which I wrote is original research! While writing the article (especially the spoiler), I watched the movie to verify the information I wrote in the article. Unless one has actually watched Homerun, it is practically impossible to verify the information in the article! When I contribute articles about Singapore TV shows, I will have it even worse! It is unlikely that the TV shows will be aired a second time, so it is almost impossible to verify the information, except by reading the storylines at the MediaCorp website.

Although I am more experienced with Wikipedia than I used to be, I still occasionally slip up with wiki markup, particularly with the helpme and peerreview tags. User:Commander Keane recently banned me from using helpme. I was also involved in a dispute regarding the Internet Explorer article. I contributed some information to the Criticism section. Several editors pointed out that my information had serious POV issues, and reverted my edit. I read their feedback and worked on cleaning up the information to become less POV. I then re-added the cleaned up information to the article, and posted on the talk page. My edit was immediately reverted without any explanation or consideration that I had cleaned up the information. On the talk page, User:Warrens called me "a biased critic whose only purpose here is to disrupt", which could be a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF (I'm not sure as I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia policy) and did not offer any explanation or consideratoin. He then banned me from editing the article. Even if I lose the dispute, I hope to learn from it. [1]

I hope someone will help me find/regain my focus as a Wikipedian and also offer advice regarding the various problems I have encountered while editing Wikipedia. I am unsure whether the Village Pump is the best place to post this; if there's a better place, please redirect me to it. Is there a page where Wikipedians can ask questions to help them develop as contributors to Wikipedia?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar in any way with you as an editor, I'm sorry to say, but here a few random thoughts that you may find useful nonetheless:

• Stay cool. Take a Wikibreak if your Wikistress gets too high.

• June holidays are the worst time to take a Wikibreak - when I have the most time to edit Wikipedia! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, no one is going to waive WP:NOR for you. Try to live with it. This policy exists for a number of very good reasons, and should be rigorously enforced. In a nutshell, what good content we lose because of it is a lot less important than the tidal wave of crap, cruft and crankery that would otherwise flood Wikipedia.

• I understand the rule is there to prevent conspiracy theories. I'm just frustrated with how it hinders my editing. Perhaps the policy should be modified to give the editor more leeway in verifying the facts, especially if he can prove he is reasonably knowledgable about the subject. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• For getting more feedback, you could try WP:ER; to resolve your issues with other contributors, you could try one of the methods listed at WP:DR.

• Thanks. Will check out WP:ER. Please check out WP:RFF. I created it to help new articles get feedback. As for WP:DR, I posted my dispute there but did not receive any response Wikipedia_talk:Resolving_disputes#A_dispute_I_hope_to_learn_from.

• You're 14. You've got all your life in front of you. Eventually, you'll get to know more stuff that will give you ideas for Wikipedia content. Call it a fringe benefit of life.

• Perhaps I should utilise my teenhood to surf more websites and watch more TV shows so I can write more articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck, Sandstein 16:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know any other languages—if you do, you could help with interwiki translations. No one will criticize your lack of activity as long as you give it a reason (i.e. wikibreak). For what it's worth, you are way ahead of the standard, writing articles and interacting at your age (most wikipedians are, which is why you may not realize it). It's OK if you step back from what you are doing in order to reevaluate yourself, because you are at the point in your life where you are defining, categorizing, and trying understand the motives of the people who surround you, and it can be stressful to do a million things at once, especially write an encylopedia :).-- The ikiroid  18:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"You are way ahead of the standard" - does that mean I'm mature? Cool - my friends on Google Groups say so too. Yes, I'm at that stage, and it's stressful, but I'll get over it, and I hope to find help in re-evaluating myself. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Community Portal for a list of Wikipedia tasks that need to be done. Editing Wikipedia is not just about writing articles. It also includes editing other people's articles, resolving disputes, reverting vandalism, wikifying articles, working on Wikiprojects to coordinate work across multiple articles, etc.

I mentioned earlier that I do revert vandalism to articles on my niche topics (websites and Singapore TV shows), if someone doesn't get 'em first. It seems many Wikipedians are engaged in fighting vandalism, and few actually contribute information and expand articles. I hope to find ways to continue improving the content of articles about my niche topics. I think I need to co-ordinate and organize my edits, perhaps in terms of sub-goals (outlined above). I understand that WikiProjects could be used for this purpose, so could anyone recommend WikiProjects for my niche topics? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out what it takes to become an admin. It may be too early for you to apply but learning what it takes to be a good admin is a useful thing and may give you a broader perspective on Wikipedia.

Becoming an admin? I guess I can only dream. They probably wouldn't want a 14-year-old who violates WP:POINT and lacks understanding of wiki markup for an admin. Anyway, it's not my style - as mentioned earlier, I came here to contribute information, not to fight vandalism. Still, I'll read it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider joining a group of fellow editors at WP:Esperanza,Harmonious editing club or {{WP:Concordia]]

A good place to make new friends? OK, I'll check it out. I know Wikipedia isn't Friendster or Myspace. The reason for having Wikifriends is to work towards a common goal. My goal is to improve articles on my niche topics, mostly by contributing information. If other editors also wish to improve the standard of articles on the same niche topics as mine, then it makes sense to become Wikifriends so we could collaborate and contribute together. That's why Wikipedia is a community project. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. Don't take Wikipedia too seriously. At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of magnetic charges sitting on a bunch of disks in Florida. There's more to life than that.

--Richard 19:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have no life. I spend practically all my time online - on online communities, playing some online game, surfing for information, blogging, or editing Wikipedia (natch). OK, I lied. I do have some life. I usually do well in my exams, with about half of my report card showing As and the other half usually Bs. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

While I realize you're frustrated by being repeatedly blocked, things such as this and this are out of line. Furthermore, nobody ever blocked you except User:NSLE, once, for those two edits (and you were unblocked 28 minutes later for—ironically—collateral damage). User:Commander Keane never blocked you. If you're having trouble editing Wikipedia, unfortunately, the only thing you can effectively do is wait for Mediazilla:550.

As for WP:NOR, I suggest that when noting criticism of, e.g., NeoPets, you link to websites criticizing it; for Homerun, cite the movie itself, giving the time in the movie where something occurs. Nothing verifiable needs to be unsourced. (If a TV episode isn't going to be rerun, though, and can't be otherwise obtained, it's not verifiable and shouldn't be in Wikipedia.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll wait for MediaZilla:550 then, and strongly suport the proposal, and grit my teeth when I'm blocked. This does not affect me alone - it affects almost all Internet users in Singapore, and others, such as User:Stefan, have complained. Commander Keane didn't block me - he left a note on my talk page telling me to never use helpme again, after I used it and messed up Talk:MSN Groups. I will consider your suggestions regarding citations. How do I cite the minute in the movie? Remember I'm not good with wiki markup. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

All DVD players and VCRs will tell you exactly how far you are into the movie, I believe, at least if you know how to look. To cite, just write <ref>''Movie Name'' at [time]</ref> or something of the sort, and make sure <references /> is somewhere appropriate on the page (see m:Cite.php). It's not pretty, but someone will clean it up eventually. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This comment is an excellent example of why we should limit participation in this project by minors. Chronological adulthood is not easy to verify, true; it is no guarantee of mental maturity, also true. But experience has shown that young people need more direction than older ones. Some users are always going to require that more work be put in to their support than we will harvest from their efforts. John Reid 18:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. From a technological angle though, a frusteratingly high amount of adults need much guidance in navigating the internet, let alone editing wikipedia. I suppose we see a high number of minors swarming wikipedia and net groups because their generation has grown up with this technology as part of their cultural zeitgeist. It is much easier to follow and learn things when the peers that surround you are moving by the same ebb and flow of ideas and technology.-- The ikiroid  02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no respect for people or websites which practise age discrimination. I usually take about 6 months to get fully familiar with a website. For example, I joined Google Groups last August, and by this February I owned a successful group and was an established member of several other successful groups. I joined Wikipedia this February, and my familiarity with wiki markup is increasing. I am now thinking about making long-term contributions to Wikipedia. This is why I wish to get involved in WikiProjects and such. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that younger users are going to require more effort than they're worth is baseless and prejudicial. Some of our best contributors, admins, and even arbcom members are young users, many of whom required very little handholding. No user gives a return on investment right away, but in the long run they have the ability to offer knowledge that those who helped them do not possess. Deco 06:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for your support. I hope to become a prominent member of the community. Not everyone can write articles like Google Groups and Homerun like I did from scratch. Now I want to write and improve more articles, and I want to find appropriate WikiProjects to organize my edits. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have recently joined the Good Articles WikiProject. I nominated four articles - Criticism of Microsoft, Chelsea F.C., Gmail and RuneScape - for Good Article. Three of them passed, while RuneScape is still awaiting review. I have also sent two articles - Yahoo! and Neopets - for Peer Review. Please review them. It looks like my current direction will be to increase the number of deserving Good Articles on Wikipedia.

However, I would still appreciate any suggestions for appropriate WikiProjects I can join to improve articles on my niche topics: besides websites and Singapore TV shows, I am also interested in chess.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Should an edit that reverts vandalism be marked as minor?

My main purpose on Wikipedia is contributing information to articles on websites and Singapore TV shows. However, I occasionally revert vandalism to articles on my niche topics. When I revert vandalism, should I mark the revert as minor? Or does this depend on the level of vandalism - e.g. mark minor if vandalism was minor, don't if vandalism affected large section or whole article? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The automatic revert which is available to admins marks the reverts as minor. When I revert a large amount of vandalism, or if I have to pick and choose because a good edit occurred after the vandalism, or if there are several vandals in a row, I put an explanation in the edit summary and don't mark it as minor. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally, I would mark a revert as minor if it's, well, a minor change. Rewording a one-word sneaky vandalism is minor; reverting a replacement of the entire page by a thousand penis images is not. Deco 17:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And I would generally disagree with that. I believe the one word, "sneaky" vandalism should not be marked as minor, as it may well be beneficial for others who may disagree that it was vandalism to review the change. When an article is replaced by a million penis images, well, there's no need for anyone to review that change as it's quite obvious what I'm doing--I'd mark it as minor, or, in the case of a rash of similar attacks from one user, I'd use "&bot=1" to completely hide my reversions from Recent Changes (only admins can do this though, I believe). Essentialy the determinant between what should and should not be marked as minor is "Is there a need for someone else to see what I'm doing here?" AmiDaniel (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you really feel that it's more useful to mark edits that don't need to be reviewed as minor rather than editors that are minor, I suggest we rename "minor edit" to something that actually reflects this. Deco 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I normally use Vandal Proof which marks reverting vandalism as minor. If doing it manually then for very obvious changes I would mark if minor (e.g. blanking, inserting rubbish). I tend to mark it as major if reverting more than historic version or I suspect their is a chance the edit could have been done in good faith. Broadly if I believe nobody is every going to dispute the reversion then I go for minor; otherwise go for major. --MarkS (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I generally mark my own reverts of vandalism as 'minor'. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• They're usually marked as minor by tools so they can be filtered from "Recent changes". Whenever I revert vandalism without a tool, I don't mark my edits. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

something to ask

I am at the college crossroads and I want to know what is the best path to take if I want to devote all of my spare time to creating and maintaining featured articles.

and by that I mean if my only goal in life is to see an article I contributed heavily to on the front page, regardless of what it's about, how should I go

Unfortunately I can't do it now because I own no books and during school I have no time to check out books to read, though the main limiting factor right now is that I don't know jack about any specific topic

I mean I am like 15% of the way to being a Civil Engineer but screw that

Dude, don't abandon your degree. :-P Check out Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, which lists the primary criteria we use when considering an FA. As you noted, one of the most difficult to fulfill is 2c, factually accurate, including citations and references. Many citable resources can be found online or via digital subscriptions - many school libraries have subscriptions that cover all students, check with your library. Finally, keep in mind that no featured article was written by a single person - do the part that you do best.

If you're worried that you don't know enough about any "encyclopedic" topic, note that many of our featured article regard figures from popular culture, politics, video games, or other venues that you might have interest in only as a hobby. See if you can expand on your hobby interests. Researching and expanding a small existing article in your area of interest is a good way to get started. Hope this helps. Deco 11:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Besides, you don't have to know anything about the subject when you begin writing about it. You just need to be willing to research it and be able to separate good sources from bad ones. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno about the rest of you, but this kind of stuff gives me goosebumps, and not in a good way. Honestly, I could not possibly recommend that anyone make getting an article they have contributed heavily to on the front page the only goal in their life. That way lies the kind of horror that makes Comic Book Guy look well-adjusted and socially capable. Wikipedia's cool, absolutely, and it may be a good thing in your life, but it's not your life. -- Captain Disdain 18:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over External Links

I am current involved in a rather slow moving debate over the use of blogs in external links of a particular article. Out of a matter of respect, I won't name the article, until assistance is needed. At any rate: I argued that a particular link (links, actually) shouldn't be on the "External links" section, as it was a blog hosted on some website. It failed WP:WEB, and thus I figured it should be removed. My opponents replied back, stating that by following Wikipedia:External links, their blog deserved to be on the article, as it was "closely related to" the article content.

Now, am I alone in assuming that an unpopular blog (that is, based on the fact that there have been no comments to the blog posts ever since it started) shouldn't be linked to in Wikipedia? Also, the fact that the article contributors were the one and the same two people whose blog the article is linked to. Both WP:WEB and Wikipedia:External links state that WP isn't a repository of links, so I'm caught. Any suggestions? Kareeser|^Talk! 19:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend that in the future, you do link to the specific dispute, and furthermore inform all other disputants that you've brought the issue here. Summaries by an interested party are no substitute for firsthand examination of the dispute's facts, and bringing the matter to the community without telling others who are involved could be viewed as dishonest. And finally, there's no mileage in breaking up a discussion. In the future, I suggest you say something more to the effect of "Anyone who's interested, there's a dispute about external links at Talk:Digital signage. Comments are welcome.". You'll find that this is routine at the various Village Pumps, particularly at WP:VPP and WP:VPM.

I've commented at the talk page in question. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad. It's my first time using the Village Pump, and I was (at the very least) a tad annoyed over the issue in the first place. I suggested bringing in an arbiter (which was the point of this thread, actually), but didn't, because I thought it might seem like I was, to borrow a colloquialism, telling on the bully. It's childish :) It won't happen again. Kareeser|^Talk! 07:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, blogs or not suitable external links. If I were to start a blog on film making, for example, it would be "closely related" to the topic, but Wikipedia is not a repository of links and unless the blog provides sourced information not available elsewhere (not opinions), it should be removed per WP:EL. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Generally I think an external link should be authoritative, in the sense that it is not merely relevant but "official" or at least notable/widely-known. For example, if a game company created a website for some new game they're releasing, that site would be eminently suited for a link from the game's article, regardless of quality or how long it's been up. Deco 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Article titles for acronyms - should all words in the acronym be capitalized?

I'll admit it, the Wikipedia:MOS is just too big to wade through to find the answer. The specific case in point is should the article Flashing rear end device be moved to Flashing Rear End Device since it is usually referred to by its acronym of FRED? Oops, in previewing this post I see that Flashing Rear End Device already exists as a redirect to Flashing rear end device. So should I change the link in FRED to the one with Caps even though that would add a redirect to the path? The benefit would be clarity, so does that override the desire to bypass a redirect? Spalding 15:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Flashing rear end device is not a proper noun and is not capitalized. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But check this out: http://www.google.com/search?q=flashing+rear+end+device&hl=en&hs=gkl&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=10&sa=N

A web search turns the phrase up as capitalized everywhere except for Wikipedia and clones. Spalding 21:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the answer to this would vary from acronym to acronym. POTUS extends to "President of the United States," but FUBAR extends to "fucked up beyond all repair," as there's no proper nouns involved. I imagine many people might capitalize the extended form for additional clarity, especially when explaining the acronym, but I don't believe that's the correct use for common nouns. Luna Santin 11:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many hits uncapitalized. See [2][3][4][5][6][7], etc. There appear to be fewer, but most websites aren't proofread; we don't have to follow their erratic and nonstandard usages. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Logos and fair use reduction

I was thinking about whether using gfdl/pd photos of corporate logos on signs and ibllboards would be good to reduce the amoun tof fair use needed in articles. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't make a free derivative work of an unfree image. Photographing a creative work doesn't negate the creativity that went into the original, and so doesn't negate its copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, even if you freely license your logo photo, any rights that the company has to the logo itself may still prevent the photo from being used under free license terms. Deco 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this apply to things I own? Like if I buy a bottle of coke and make a picture of it, can I not make it a PD image because of the creativity that went into the packagin is protected by copyright? --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 21:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I believe you would possess limited rights to the photo and its organization, due to the creative input of lighting, angle, and composition, but not to the art on the label. In many such circumstances the label art may be considered fair use. The shape of the packaging may or may not be subject to copyright - there's been at least one recent ruling in which the shape of a vodka bottle was ruled to be ineligible for copyright protection (ref). A good page to ask more about this is Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Whether or not you own the object copyrighted material is printed on doesn't matter - I can buy a book or magazine full of copyrighted material. Deco 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Ninth Circuit has indeed ruled that "Because [the] shots are shots of the bottle as a whole--a useful article not subject to copyright protection--and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a 'preexisting work' within the meaning of the Copyright Act." This would suggest that the importance of the copyrightable material in the photo would be of significance; the court felt that since the utilitarian bottle as a whole was what was being photographed, and the potentially copyrightable label was only a part of that, it wasn't sufficient to justify calling the photo a derivative work. The same logic would potentially apply to some photographs of copyrighted things, but not those that are intended to be used primarily to display the copyrighted matter. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

so like help

i need to get some article to GA status so I feel like I've actually done something on this site

unfortunately I have no advanced knowledge about anything

what is something I could research and improve that doesn't require that much background knowledge

also another problem is my school library is total crap

if you don't believe me check it out

libwww.cabrillo.edu

how am I supposed to edit anything with a selection like that

Youd be surprised how much you can obtain with a lil googling. Many articles have items which can be at least partially sourced through the internet.--larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I note 393 results for "encyclopedia" in that catalogue. Strikes me there ought to be some reference material in that... Shimgray | talk | 09:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted edits

Hi. Is it possible to view/list a user's deleted edits? If so, how? --Zoz (t) 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not possible unless you're an administrator. You can ask over at WP:AN if you have a reason. It used to be possible to view deleted edits' authors and summaries, but then some clever person started putting libel and whatnot in edit summaries, so now they're completely unviewable for the time being. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thanks for the answer. --Zoz (t) 13:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding userbox?

How do I add/propose a new userbox, and how do I know if it's accepted/added? --69.204.179.124 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just create it. Create a page the name of which begins with "Template:", like "Template:foo", then include it with {{foo}}. Be warned that many people like to delete userboxes and read the Templates section of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Deco 18:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? The WP Userbox page says One thing that is reasonably clear is that, at the present time, you should not make your userboxes into new templates.. --69.204.179.124 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never read that page, and it's not policy, but I suppose it's best to do what it says. I think it's silly though. Deco 21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So, back to my original question. How do I add/propose it, and know if it's accepted? --69.204.179.124 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is sort of chaotic. You can just create it, and you'll know it's been rejected if it gets deleted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:Userbox, Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/New_Userboxes seems to be where new userboxes are proposed. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 22:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually added one to New_Userboxes, but how do I know if it's accepted? --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does it need to be a template, if people care that much why dont the put the code on their page, or make the tamplate in their namespace. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, why do any userboxes need to be a template? --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 18:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's Phil's point. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

need help with references markup

User:Wikimachine has put in a lot of work into Jang Yeong-sil, but the article needs some outside attention. most noticeably, the references are not formatted correctly. he's a relatively new user, & eager to nominate the article for Portal:Korea. i'm not familiar enough with the markup style to fix it. can someone fix this & give some comments at Talk:Jang Yeong-sil? or is there a better place for this request? thanks. Appleby 21:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Answered on article talk. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet

moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppet Creation Incident — User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Systematic removal of references to 'mildly popular' website

There is an anonymous user(s) (User:68.180.3.103) who is systematically removing references to content residing on the external website for WrestleCrap. Some of the things removed have been accompanied by an edit summary suggesting (rightly so) that the external site is only moderately popular and inclusion of items in lists maintained by purveyors of the site might well be non-notable information. What I'm wondering is what the current thinking is on this type of behavior (systematic removal of critique-type information from entertainment-related articles based on the critiquing entity being non-notable in the measure of the editor). Note that the web site is sufficiently notable to have an article here ... if the web site did not have an article here, there would be no question in my mind about the appropriateness of the removal of information as I've described. Thanks for spending a brain cell on this. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds perfectly proper to me. If the links are inappropriate we should be grateful that someone is diligent enough to remove them. Chicheley 22:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing of information deemed non-notable by an editor is a good faith action, whether in one article or many articles. If you believe they are in error, you should discuss this with them on their talk page and come to a consensus, but you would have no basis for unilaterally reverting these changes. Deco 02:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with user script

I am having a problem with a non-working user script for monobook.js. Please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts#"Changes since I last edited" script doesn't work. Your assistance is appreciated. —Centrx→talk 02:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Where to start

HELP!

I am a total noob at this. is there a bsic guide some where...? I can't even figure out how dto put a picture on a page for god sakes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SovietComrade (talk • contribs) 02:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that you begin with Wikipedia:Introduction. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Casino advertising on Wikipedia

There's been a recent spate of articles about specific hotel/casino operations in Nevada. Now there's even an infobox for "Laughlin (NV) casinos". Some are blatant advertising: Ramada Express Hotel and Casino was actually copied out of the hotel's advertising, so I marked that as a copyvio. Others, such as River Palms Casino, are not quite as blatant. What's policy on this? Can all of these be deleted? --John Nagle 05:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, say what? I just checked a Laughlin hotel article and didn't see a specific casino tempalte - just the same old {{Infobox Casino}} that's always been in use. Yes, I'll agree with you on the Ramada one - I added the speedy as it was created just a few hours ago - but I think that the Colorado Belle is pretty notable (which you prodded). But, hey, this is just feeling, I'm not referring to any guidelines or the such. Hbdragon88 08:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he means this one template:Laughlin casinos Philc _T^E_C^I 22:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh...byt that's not a infobox - it's a navigation template. I don't think it's really that bad; it's a useful template. Hbdragon88 06:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say all the major hotel-casinos in Vegas are article worthy. Several of them are very famous indeed. Chicheley 22:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:box upload help

Alright, here's the status: A new user, User:Punksk8erty, for his/her first edits, uploads a videogame case image over the image of a box (Image:Box.jpg) that is used for a userbox. I hit revert next to the actual box image and destroy everything, so I revert myself. She/he uploads the image again (even though the same image was up there).

Now not only do I need to revert the changes of this editor, but I need to move the image that has been uploaded to a new image (something that is not really possible, and of course I don't want to start an edit war).

Oh, and I'd need to edit the persons only contribution: adding that game case to its article.

Of course, 1. the Revert isn't working for me/I don't understand it, 2. I'm assuming bad faith and ticked off, so I'd only make the situation worse, and 3. I don't understand this users edits.

Help!!! Logical2u (Wikibreak) 12:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert didn't work for me either, but I was able to reupload the original "box" image. Image:Box.jpg. Hopefully they won't revert again. Nationalparks 13:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And their image is now at: Image:Hunterbox.jpg, and placed in their article. Nationalparks 13:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

PRIMA.TV

PRIMA.TV is a worldwide internet commercial TV channel focus on entertainment

So? Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 14:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

temporary ban for supposed vandalism

User_talk:AmiDaniel left a message that an unsigned in user from my computer address had done some vandalism. I can only assume that I was doing my regular editing and cleaning up and had failed to log in or possibly not filled in the summary bar? How can i find out more on his accusations as he hasn't answered my response on his page. He didnt say what the problem was. I can only think it is on the poetry lists I have been working on cleaning up the red dead links.?? WayneRay 17:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Many ISPs do not assign IP addresses permanently, but allocate them to currently logged in users (logged in to the ISP) using Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. If you had recently turned your computer off and back on again, almost certainly your ISP assigned an IP address to your computer that somebody else had recently used to vandalize Wikipedia. AOL takes this one step further and uses a large pool of IP addresses as proxy servers for use by its subscribers when connecting to the Internet. If you are an AOL user, please see Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users. If this happens again, please contact the administrator who issued the block (or any other admin) and let them know the IP address and it can be unblocked. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Double-NPOV

There used to be a template for "doubly-disputed" articles where there was a question as to whether the article should even be disputed or not. However, I did a thorough search and did not find it. Was it deleted? 69.140.157.138 10:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have been redirected, but still exists as a redirect. See Template:DoubleDisputed. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. 69.140.157.138 15:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

External editors on Mac OSX?

Is there any way to use an external editor on Mac/OSX? I've looked at Wikipedia:Text editor support, but as far as I can tell, none of the solutions described there work on OSX. I'm happy to use either Safari or Firefox. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Lacking a better alternative: mark area needing revision, copy to clipboard, open text editor, paste to text editor, edit, mark edited article, copy to clipboard, paste into article. -- Hoary 09:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I was directed here by anther user, as I need some help curtailing the constand vandalism of FIFA World Rankings, exasperated by the on-going world cup, and more worrying, as it is up for FA. So if some people could add it to their watchlists to help or something, another problem is often the page is vandalised repeatedly and only gets rolled-back one version, so vandalism remains, and then it gets mixed in with legitimate edits and is a lot of effort to remove. So if you could just look out for these things, thanks in advance for the help. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This page looks to be vandalised a lot. When there are multiples vandals then rolling back one version often fails to clear all the vandalism. This is something we all need to watch our for especially when using semi-automated tools such as popups and vandalproof. --MarkS (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oversight

Anyone knows what happened to the oversight log? It seems that the function is still active (Special:Listusers/oversight), but Special:Log/oversight gives nothing. Just wondering. --Zoz (t) 22:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

They removed it to everyone but those with oversight privlage itself. Even that I'm not sure of. In any case, very few if any can see what the oversight users delete now. Kevin_b_er 02:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes, I found this and this. At any rate, I would have appreciated a notice of this change somewhere. --Zoz (t) 14:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I whipped up WP:OVER & Wikipedia:Oversight to handle questions and answers regarding the Oversight permission. It's currently a blatant ripoff of the page from Meta, but now that we've got a local copy to play with and reference, it'd be good to incorporate what information we have there. Just FYI. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. --Zoz (t) 11:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Goosebumps

I want to get a bit of concensus (non binding, just looking for views on the matter) about whether to have An article on almost every single one of the Goosebumps books, and a related stub catagory. I personally don't see why we need an article on every one, some of which just say that they are a book by R.L Stein. If I get a reasonable concencus on the matter I may nominate them all for deletion. Please ntoe that I am not against listing al the titles, I am just questioning whether an article on every single book is necessary. Viridae 00:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If I remember rightly (and I can't remember where I read this, nor am I looking for it at almost 2am), mainstream published books are deemed notable enough to be worth having articles, so in my opinion stubs of these books shouldn't be deleted. Having said which the list of the books looks like a bit of a waste of space - I'd recommend hiving it off as a category, Category:Goosebumps books, or something, and then just linking to it. --JennyRad 00:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I know mainstream books deserve article space - paticuarly those that caused as much fuss as goosebumps, however I am questioning whether we need an article for every single one, because on their own they are not notable. The articles are mostly "such and such is a goosebumps book" or a synopsis of the storyline. Viridae 00:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with them. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as they're actually articles, they're fine; I just deleted one that completely lacked context, and was merely a post of the copyrighted summary of the plot by R. L. Stine. Postdlf 05:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fan of being consistent. If a few of the books justify full articles then I would make them all articles. However, I suspect there isn't really enough material to justify articles for even a few of the books. I would probably go for a list with a brief summary under each book. --MarkS (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm with MarkS on this. Goosebumps books are notable, but "X is a book in the Goosebumps series by RL Stine." isn't even a sufficient stub entry. I would redirect all titles to a list of the books with short non-copyrighted summaries and break out a book if something more can be said of it. Some were also made in an episode for the tv series. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Drive space is cheap and Wikimedia buys in bulk. I wouldn't worry about using up all the harddrive space, especially not with text. Don't forget that when you delete an article, the text still hangs around on the drive to be dug up later! ~Kylu (u|t) 05:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I need stuff to do!

Point me to some stuff I can edit because I'm bored bored bored! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krein (talk • contribs)

• How can you be bored in Wikipedia? There is always something to do. Lots of ideas can be found half way down the Community portal under "To do lists". Pick something, try it for a bit and if you don't want to be involved with that try something else in the list. --MarkS (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A controversy in the Conservatism article

The following section is proposed for the article Conservatism. A somewhat different version is in the article currently. User:beneaththelandslide insists that the entire section be deleted. More than a month has gone by, and the section has been completely rewritten many times. The section is currently being mediated by the Cabal, and a number of compromises have been proposed. The response from beneaththelandslide to all rewrites and compromises is the same. "I offer no compromise with idiocy." The Cabal mediator suggested posting the problem here might lead to some constructive suggestions. Rick Norwood 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Critism of Conservatism

Conservatism is the belief or claim that tradition is of primary importance. From time to time, people have expressed criticism of conservatism.

One criticism is that conservatives may tend to punish deviations from tradition too harshly. Plato, in his Apology, gives a sympathetic picture of Socrates, who was sentenced to death in 339 BC on the charge that he was "a doer of evil, who corrupts the youth; and who does not believe in the gods of the state, .."[6]

A second criticism is that conservatives sometimes use appeals to tradition as a cover for self-interest. The Roman historian Livy, in his History of Rome[7], describes one such instance, in the year 445 BC, when conservative Romans, to preserve their political power, appealed to tradition and found war preferable to change:

"…the tribune Canuleius introduced a bill for legalizing intermarriage between the nobility and the commons. The senatorial party objected strongly on the grounds not only that the patrician blood would thereby be contaminated but also that the hereditary rights and privileges of the gentes, or families, would be lost. ... It was with great satisfaction, therefore, that the Senate received a report, first that Ardea had thrown off her allegiance to Rome in resentment at the crooked practice which had deprived her of her territory ... . In the circumstances it was good news, for the nobility could look forward even to an unsuccessful war with greater complacency than to an ignominious peace."

Another example is the dispute over the corn laws in England in 1845. Benjamin Disraeli, himself a member of the Conservative Party, claimed that those members of his party who opposed the corn laws were the very people who stood to gain the most financially from their repeal. He wrote in 1845, "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." [8]

A third criticism of conservatism is that it stands in the way of progress. Unlike charges of excess and hypocrisy, this criticism speaks directly to the conservative philosophy itself.

In France, in the 18th century, conservatives supported the Ancien Régime, revolutionaries opposed it. Writing in support of the revolution, the English poet William Wordsworth wrote, "Bliss in that dawn it was to be alive, but to be young was very heaven!" [9]

After the failure of the revolution, Vicomte Louis-Gabriel-Ambroise de Bonald, one of the two leading French conservatives in the age of Napoleon, set forth the principles of French conservatism in Théorie du pruvoir politique et religieux (1796): "absolute monarchy, hereditary aristocracy, patriarchal authority in the family, and the moral and religious sovereignty of the popes over all the kings of Christendom." Napoleon himself criticized French conservatives for trying to hold back progress. In his final days he said that the principles of the French Revolution would triumph in American, France, and England; and “from this tripod the light will burst upon the world.” [10]

(end of section)

Deleting nearly 50 articles

I started the deletion debate for List_of_United_States_musicians (AfD page); the conclusion that was drawn was that ALL of the "Lists of bands from ___ state" should be deleted and replaced with categories. Going through the AfD steps for all of them would be incredibly tedious: is there any way they can all be deleted as part of the decision made on the United States list AfD discussion? --Stellis 07:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Contact an administrator at WP:AN Viridae 07:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Signature

I'm going to ask here before I attempt to make changes and cause all sorts of glitches =)

I would like my signature amended to include a link to my contributions, not just my talk page, and would like to avoid it being to long by having the links subscript and superscipt, as below. Can someone guide me through it please - I'd like "words" - the existing link to my talk page - to be subscript and "deeds" - a link to my contributions - to be superscript.

Cheers for any help doktorb | words 11:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to go to "My preferences" and check "Raw signature (no auto link; don't use templates or external links in this)". Then you enter this into the box:

[[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] <sub>[[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]]</sup>

Then make sure to press "save".

This will generate the following: doktorb _words^deeds

Is this what you wanted? —Mets501 (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Checking recently creating usernames

How do I access the list of recently created usernames? - Richardcavell 03:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Special:Log/newusers -Kmf164 (talk contribs) 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

An anonymous user has been modifying the Shockwave (roller coaster) article by adding a 'fact' template to virtually every sentence in the article. I've been a minor contributor to this article, but am far from the primary author. I understand that portions of the article need better cites, but I have been reverting his changes because having a 'fact' on every sentence, including such basic, undisputed facts as the first sentence ("Shockwave was a large roller coaster manufactured by Arrow Dynamics at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois.") is clearly ridiculous. I have politely told him several times that what he is doing is non-constructive, and to please discuss his concerns on the Talk page. He responds with comments in edit summaries such as "yes it is constructive, now get your lazy butt to work!".

The primary source for info in the article seems to be a forum post, which is linked at the bottom of the article. Granted this probably isn't considered a "reliable" source, but the info seems to be correct, by and large. I don't see why we should delete large portions of the article, or litter them with 'fact' tags when very little of the article seems to actually be in dispute. I suspect someone is just trying to yank some chains here.

Anyway, just wanted to make sure I'm not totally in the wrong here. I hate getting caught in a revert war, but this person doesn't seem to want to discuss what his actual issue (if he really has one) is. --Rehcsif 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be careful here. Ideally every statement in Wikipedia should be backed up by a suitable reference. This editor is just added the 'fact' template to each statement that he things needs verifying. Yes he is probably being a little liberal in scattering around the 'fact' template especially when compared with the rest of Wikipedia (which is rather lacking in references) but I don't think it is vandalism. He might be trying to 'yank some chains' but I don't think what he is doing is wrong. Just leave a message on his talk saying it would be more helpful if he could help fill in the references. --MarkS (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The user is anonymous, and has posted from several IP's, so doesn't have a talk page. I have asked him via edit comments several times to list his issues on the article's talk page, but instead he just posts semi-personal attacks as noted above (and in the article history). Do you really think every single sentence in the article should be footnoted? If the facts are not in dispute (e.g. is there anyone out there who believes that Shockwave was NOT a coaster at SFGAm built by Arrow Dynamics?) why is he placing citation requests on statements like that? The article does have a reference listed at the end. I'd be happy to try to provide more refereces, but I'm not an expert on this subject. Please look at the version he is attempting to submit in the article history and tell me if you really believe that it is constructive to the Wikipedia process.

I also have a real problem with people who go around placing cleanup tags, etc. on articles, but are not willing to do any cleanup themselves-- particularly when it's done with the air of superiority that this fellow is doing.

Can I get some other opinions here? If others feel like MarkS that this user is really acting in good faith and that an aticle with 'fact' tags on every sentence makes for a better article, then I'll bow out (and be very disappointed with the whole WP process, frankly). --Rehcsif 18:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree his edit summaries are rude and this is not helping his cause. I'm just inclined to give him the benfit of the doubt. If these type of summaries continued then it would become vandalism. As to the need to references then I do think you need to be able to verify each statement. This doesn't necessarily mean each sentence needs a reference; if a paragraph covers a single topic and a good reference source covers the whole paragraph then just add the reference to the end of the paragraph (likewise if the whole article is covered by a single good reference). However, here we only have one reference, a forum which anybody could post almost anything to. Personally I don't know anything about who built this rollercoaster (and I suspect most people are with me on that). If I were researching this rollercoaster and came across the wikipedia article then I would want to check the references and at the momment they are just not good enough. I would want a better reference than a forum to confirm who built it. As I said originally I think he is being liberal, probably too liberal, with his references but I do believe the fundamental reason for the edits is justifiable. --MarkS (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

special symbols

Hello, I have set up a small independent wiki and would like to use the box with special characters that appears here in Wikipedia when editing a page. Could anybody tell me where the template for this can be found? I tried looking for it but couldn't find it... thanks.. --Sacca 16:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Request to usurp

Hi. I posted this request yesterday to Requests to usurp. Not that there is a big hurry, as the account is blocked, but I am suddenly uncertain whether Request to usurp is actually followed as there appears to be rather old requests there, without any feedback. Did I post in the appropriate place? Should I post this to another place? Thanks. Alex lbh 19:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)