Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 219.90.163.251 (talk) at 12:43, 3 February 2009 (→‎Wikipedia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)
    Ask a question
    Shortcuts


    January 31

    Can you search for...

    Commented out template descriptions? I mean that a lot of templates that are substituted have <!-- Template:Foo --> at the end. So if you could search for that, you could find out how many times that template has been used.--70.19.64.133 (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Search only finds visible test. You would have to download the 4+ GB database and search the raw data. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Userbox selection

    Resolved
     – ukexpat (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. Since I want to serve in the USAF, is there a userbox that says "This user hopes to serve in the USAF/military when he is old enough"? Thanks. :)--DocDeel516 discuss 00:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DONE--Koolkittie (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Picture problems

    Resolved
     – ukexpat (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. There is a picture on my user page; it is of a B-1B Lancer dropping cluster bombs. However, I want it centered and bigger. How do I do so? Thanks. --DocDeel516 discuss 00:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DONE--Koolkittie (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Making a good passage with EFS for English study station

    Hi, I need your brilliant ideas. I am making an English Zone called English Fun Station. There is a study station, so I want to put a meaningful passage above the front board. Please give me your ideas. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.248.152.58 (talk • contribs)

    School project? Sorry but we don't do your homework for you. – ukexpat (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Code for Infobox Ship

    Why the Infobox Ship doesn't have its own code on its page like Infobox Aircraft? Aquitania (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As the name signals, Template:Infobox Ship Begin is merely the first template to use in order to create an infobox. Its code by itself would just look confusingly like an error if it was rendered on the template page so it's in <includeonly> tags. Click the "show" links to see how the template is used. Template:Infobox Aircraft is a "complete" infobox template which produces an infobox by itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But note that {{Infobox Aircraft}} is deprecated in favour of {{Infobox Aircraft Type}} which works in a similar manner to the compound ship iboxes. – ukexpat (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ann coulter

    I have seen recent interviews with her and I want to know if she was born a woman?? She really appears to have an adams apple?I am really curious as to me and my friends,they swear she was born a boy,and is transgendered,don't really mind just want to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.56.101 (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    there seems to be a Ann Coulter conspiracy theory going around, Who knows if its true?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolkittie (talk • contribs) 03:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if anyone knows they are not saying so it is no more than a BLP-violating unsubstantiated rumour. – ukexpat (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "evidence" in the above link is so thin that it's not even worth the bandwidth cost. Then to further insult our intelligence, the author of that page includes a quote from Carl Sagan! I doubt that Carl would have been so sloppy with evidence, or would have wanted his name associated with such incautious speculation. (Sagan might have said: shut up until you have some real evidence, the kind that can stand up to peer review.) And what is the point of attacking Ann Coulter's sexuality? She has fully substantiated her beliefs in creationism, global warming denial, and any number of other positions at odds with the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence. The anti-Coulterites need to read their Sun Tzu, and look for where their enemy has made herself vulnerable. Or better yet, learn to enjoy her, like when she opines that Jews need to be "perfected," or when she predicts that Heaven will be just like the Republican National Convention. (Alan Colmes, perhaps jokingly, insists that Coulter's act is a comedy hoax.) --Teratornis (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you missed the part of the weblog you accuse of claiming "evidence" where it said:
    The Gender Guesser software isn't definitive regarding Ann Coulter; it's a statistical predictor, not an individual one. It cannot predict an individual any more than a smoker's chances of getting lung cancer predict a specific smoker getting lung cancer.
    Rather, the prediction is "in a room with 100 people that are all writing in this style, the majority of them will be male". (The Bayesian algorithm will give you an actual estimated chance, e.g. "75% chance of being male", based on its training data)
    For more information on how the algorithm works, read the paper (pdf) "Gender, Genre, and Writing Style in Formal Written Texts" by Argamon (Dept of Comp Sci, Illinois Institute of Technology), Koppel (Dept of Math and Comp Sci, Bar-Ilan University), Fine (Dept of English, Bar-Ilan University), and Shimoni (Dept of Math and Comp Sci, Bar-Ilan University).
    Read more than the first sentence in the post. You are accusing the author of claiming something he is not. -Burtonmackenzie (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK folks enough, I am no fan of Coulter but these allegations about her gender/sexuality status or ex-status etc are irrelevant to this project if they do not have reliable sources, so let's just drop the discussion. I am sure there is a thread or two on Fark where the discussion can be continued if necessary. – ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Composing articles in the correct font.

    I want to paste a text into a window to create an article. When I do this the text does not display well. Do I have to retype the whole text into a window, or can I past my text with perhaps a font that works in Wikipedia? Hefrost (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)H. Frost[reply]

    I think the problem is that you were indenting the beginnings of paragraphs, Unfortunately, Wikipedia interprets this rather oddly, and makes the text display in a strange way. I've made this edit [1] which makes your text shew up properly. I'll also give you a "welcome box" on your talk page, with lots of useful links to help you contribute. DuncanHill (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found that trying to paste from a word processor give me strange results as well. I usually copy from the word processor, paste into notepad (or equivalent text editor), remove the indents/tabs - then copy/paste to wiki box. — Ched (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sentence placement

    Hello. On the article on Near-Earth object, I added the last sentence to the first paragraph, stating the information the study concluded. Is such material presentable/credible? And if so, should the material be relocated? Thanks. :) --DocDeel516 discuss 04:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As your question relates to content of the article, you should discuss it on the article's talk page where you are much more likely to get the attention of folks with an interest/expertise in the subject matter. – ukexpat (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Flabby categorization

    Resolved
     – ukexpat (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Taken as one example Just Like a Woman (song) is shown in the following categories, "Bob Dylan songs," "Van Morrison songs," "Jeff Buckley songs" and "Nina Simone songs." Whereas the category should be "songs recorded by ....." with an additional category of "Songs written by Bob Dylan" for this song. There could (or is) also the possibility of "songs arranged by", "songs produced by" and other similar categories. I have also posted this to Category talk:Music for comments. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You might be interested in this similar CfD discussion. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories on Wikipedia (with the present technology) are unlikely ever to be as flexible as a semantic wiki, which would allow people to perform all sorts of arbitrary queries based on multiple attributes of articles. Someone might, for example, want a list of all top 40 songs between 1975 and 1978 which were covers. It would be difficult to design a category scheme that could handle such queries. A category scheme is at best a compromise to group articles in the subset of ways most people might presumably want. Also see Cyc, an attempt to build a computer program that reads text documents and organizes their contents into an ontology that allows for fantastically complex information mining. --Teratornis (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks guys for the answers, even though I have to admit Teratornis went right over my head! Although a nice bot program which would go through WP creating a 3rd category out of 2 existing categories would be nice. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your response made me realize that I fixated so much on semantic wikis that I forgot all about CatScan which can do some category intersections. See WP:EIW#Cat for everything the Wikipedia community has documented about categories on MediaWiki. Also see WP:EIW#Query - in the greater scheme of things, it's probably easier for you (as an individual) to learn how to do the queries you want, rather than try to turn the battleship of Wikipedia's categorization scheme to get the queries that way. (The former involves only technology, which is inherently reasonable, whereas changing the category scheme requires convincing potentially large numbers of people to do your bidding - God help us.) This is, by the way, my backhanded way of saying describe your goal, not only your step when asking a question. Most people who ask a question are really only asking about the particular step they have gotten stuck on, on the particular path they have chosen to reach their real (unstated) goal. Also, nothing I write is over the head of anyone who clicks my links and spends the time it takes to read them. Only a linkless discourse can be over anyone's head. Exceptions of course if you are on your deathbed with just seconds to live, in which case you wouldn't have time to read far enough into the documents I linked to get the background. --Teratornis (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'all might be interested in the Wikipedia:Category intersection proposal. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    functions

    do you help people in community to prevent malnutrition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.70.242 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not in any sort of direct, organized way. Wikipedia is more about feeding minds than bellies. Wikipedia may indirectly improve living conditions for some people by making the sum of human knowledge (at least the parts we don't delete) freely available to everyone on Earth (everyone who has an Internet connection now, and maybe someday really everyone). Such progress as humans have made thus far has been the result of increased knowledge, and more importantly the increased sharing of knowledge. To the extent that knowledge enables some people to prevent malnutrition, and Wikipedia helps them obtain this knowledge, then one might say we help prevent malnutrition. However, if I was actually hungry, I would be rather hard-pressed to turn the information on Wikipedia into something I could eat. Another possibility is that you aren't asking about Wikipedia at all, but instead you read one of our 6,862,169 articles, and you have confused Wikipedia with the article's subject. For example, perhaps you were reading an article about some relief agency. If so, you will need to contact the organization you were reading about. --Teratornis (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    PAGE RELATING TO AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

    The AUOL (American University Of London) was established in 1984 and this year 2009 it is celebrating its 25th anniversary. The confusion arose when in 1999 a gentleman by the name of Hussein Al-Zubaidi set up a company called the Advanced School Of Graduate Studies Ltd T-A (Trading As) The American University IN London.

    It is this company "university" that was fined on the 13th January 2006 at the Highbury Corner Magistrates Court - London, under the Business Names Act and the Trade Descriptions Act.

    Students Must be aware of the above information so as not to confuse the AUOL established in 1984 with this discredited company.

    As far as we are aware at AUOL, this university has never dealth with, either directly or via affiliates with the state of Pakistan.

    Whilst this university may not be offically accredited (neither are Harvard or Yale!) we are not a degree mill and our students must work hard in order to obtain their degrees. We our proud of the high standard of our academic content.

    Professor M. Nimier <e-mail redacted> Andrenimri (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the paragraph about the legal action as it did pertain to the American University in London. Woody (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header

    The "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header" option doesn't seem to work with my account. First I tried checking the box on the gadgets tab of my preferences. Didn't work. I cleared my cache. Didn't work. I turned the computer on/off, cleared all cookies and internet files etc. Didn't work. So then I copied and pasted something into my monobook.js that I saw on a link in the gadgets tab. Didn't work. can anyone help? Thank you very much Locke'sGhost 12:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume you know what should happen? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I in turn assume that an assessment of an article's quality should be displayed as part of the page header. Locke'sGhost 13:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes. Like the examples on the right on the [User:Pyrospirit/metadata|documentation]].
    It works for me, so it can't be totally broken. What browser are you using? Is your browser set to allow javascript? Are you using any kind of extension or plugin that might be blocking javascript from specific domains? Are you getting any javascript errors (tools/error console in FF)? Algebraist 14:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No of transclusions

    Is there an easy way to find out the number of transclusions a template has? I don't need a list of them, just the number. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if there's an easier way than going to the template, clicking on What links here, hiding redirects, hiding links and starting to count...! GbT/c 13:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the number is large, you may be able to reduce your counting effort by increasing the &limit=nnnn parameter at the right end of the Special:Whatlinkshere URL. Do you need an exact number or only an approximate number? If the former, why? --Teratornis (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 5000 may not be enough, unfortunately.[reply]
    Per a BRFA, I need a reasonable degree of accuracy to determine when "milestones" (such as 5k, 10k etc) have been passed. Perhaps to the nearest 25 articles required - the more accurate the better. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with the WP:BRFA process, so I can't understand from your terse description exactly what template's transclusions you are trying to count. (Describe the goal, not the step.) However, in general, we know Wikipedia has lots of users, so it is rare to be the only Wikipedia user trying to solve a particular problem. Thus when approaching any task, it pays to first determine the current best practice. Maybe someone else who is doing similar things knows an efficient way to reach your goal; if so, then you want to find that person. If not, then maybe you can be the first to discover and document a best practice. Often on Wikipedia, people who work on the same class class of problems congregate around specific project pages. In your case that might be Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval, but I can't be sure since you didn't describe what you are trying to do clearly enough for someone who has never done anything similar to understand what you are trying to do. --Teratornis (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    sterile reverts

    what are "sterile reverts"? I know what a revert is, and I know what sterile is, but I don't know how the two put together are meant in a wiki-sense. — Ched (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've never heard the term. Where have you encountered it? Algebraist 14:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    AN and AN/I boards. I read the Help:Reverting section, but still am not sure what it means. — Ched (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There doesn't appear to be a definition anywhere. However, from looking at the way people have used the term it either means "a revert without an Edit Summary" or "a revert used in edit warring"... the latter use would, of course be sort of redundant. Why say "please stop the sterile reverts in your edit war" when you could just drop the word sterile and still convey the same meaning? —Noah 16:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a peculiar usage. I can't tell whether it is a legitimate neologism, or merely synonym disease. ("Synonym disease" is my term for the bad habit of computer people to spontaneously create multiple jargon terms to mean the same thing, usually because they are too lazy to look up the canonical jargon.) {{Google wikipedia}} finds just ten instances on Wikipedia, none of them containing a definition:
    We wouldn't have this problem if people would always remember to link their jargon terms for the benefit of people who don't understand their cant. (As I did just there with the obscure word "cant".) People who edit on Wikipedia should remember that they are not having a private conversation. They are potentially communicating with an almost unlimited number of people, now and into the future. It hardly requires any effort for the writer to link a jargon term to its definition, because the writer presumably knows what he or she means. It's much harder for the reader to decode what the writer is attempting to say, because the reader does not start off knowing what the writer meant, particularly when the reader was not part of the original discussion. On Wikipedia, we are not just solving the immediate problem in front of us; we are also building up a giant structure of knowledge. It is very important to fit everything we add into that structure. We do that by learning to use the standard jargon, and always linking any words we use that require any sort of technical background to understand. Linking our jargon is also a great way to check whether we are using the standard jargon. If no page exists to document a widely-used technical term, then be bold and write one, or add an entry to Wikipedia:Glossary. --Teratornis (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At first I thought maybe it was a typo or something - but when I searched the archives, I found it used several times (almost always by admins). Now it looks like I've got a "Stump the Experts" entry on my hands ;) .. oh well, it's not something that's important. I guess I'll just have to keep reading DYK (Did You Know) pages ... lulz. Thanks folks - I do appreciate your efforts on this. — Ched (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You could try asking someone who uses the term where they picked it up. And for good measure ask why the (expletive) they don't link their jargon. It might be common on some other wiki. Wikipedia has borrowed some jargon from other wikis, I believe. Just for fun, let's beseech the mighty {{Google}} to cast a wider net:
    That finds 271 results; some are irrelevant punctuation variants, others are merely mirrors of Wikipedia pages, but a few might actually be other non-Wikipedia sites on which some people use the term. --Teratornis (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why isn't the link in the title of Template:2008-09 Big Ten men's basketball standings showing on any of the pages it is transcluded to?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I went to 3 or 4 articles & saw the link in each of them... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 14:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When a template is edited it can take a while before the changes automatically propagate to pages transcluding the template. Purging the pages propagates it right away but it's usually better to just wait for the automatic update. WhatLinksHere can take weeks to update. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see it at 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team for example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's there now but I think it can take days when the job queue is long. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there an inter-disciplinarian list of titles, and if so , then also hypothetical combinations of such?

    If hypothermia is a medical term for a temperature related threat to the body , and leg cramps during sleep, due to not being warm enough... would the name for this be HYPOTHERMIAL-NOCTURNAL CRAMPING ? Is there an existing dictionary for such a combination of words of a speculative or chimera like category? Thank you I am not sure how to create an account yet and not certain of the cost. <e-mail redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.175.93 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. And there is no charge for creating an account, but it does have many benefits. – ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Barack Obama page 1 million views?

    According to the page view counter, Barack Obama got 913.2k page views on the day of his inauguration. Is this a wikipedia record? Also, I believe this excludes page views from redirects. For example, Barak Obama, a misspelling that redirects to the page at issue had 16.5k page views that day. Does anyone know what the total inauguration day total is including all redirects? I am thinking he might have hit a million if you count all the redirects.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since Wikipedia does not track page views, probably you would have to ask the author of the external tool whether he (presumably it's a "he") keeps track of odd statistics like one day maxima. (And how does that tool get its data?) In any case, Barack Obama will be popular for only a few years before fading into relative obscurity, whereas articles like Penis and Vagina will always grab lots of eyeballs, which of course is no surprise to the sociobiologist who understands what is truly important to people, and why. --Teratornis (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by this, Sarah Palin has him beat pretty badly. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K. So we know it was'nt a record, but did he get 1 million?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by this, it would take a long time to find that out. Admiral Norton (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When you hide links on that page, you see all the redirects. There are over 100 redirects.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    freezing food

    please explain why some foods have to be thawed first while others can be cooked from frozen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.169.80 (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. Algebraist 16:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    cant get past first 20 listed of a search.

    hi I put in a search for whitemoor prison and get a page of 20 items come up however i am not able to click on the "next 20" as this box is not highlighted????

    how do i view past this first set of options??

    thanks ..simon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishermanfred123 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's because there are only 18 results for that search. Algebraist 17:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would call that a defect in the user interface. "Next 20" should not appear if there are not another 20, or the grayed-out option should have "alt" text explaining why it is grayed out. A well-designed user interface should itself answer any question it raises. If a user interface needs a human to explain it to another human, it's broken. Since user interface designers cannot themselves anticipate every question their work raises in the minds of users, there must be a mechanism for collecting all such questions from users and feeding them back to designers. This Help desk is potentially the first step, but the designers may not be reading it. Granted, the number of questions might be so large that only a computer that passes the Turing test could answer them, but at least the designers should be aware of how much confusion they generate. --Teratornis (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't remove spam on a page

    Look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Woodcock_(boxer). Someone has mysteriously attached an email to the bottom of it, and I cannot remove it. Will someone please do so. JohnClarknew (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It was vandalism to {{UK-boxing-bio-stub}}, and is now fixed. Bypass your browser cache if it's still appearing for you. Algebraist 17:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't login, lost password, no email received

    Resolved
     – ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The subject line pretty much summarizes it - I cannot login into my account because I have lost my password and no email is received (perhaps it's my email box making problems, it has done this before). So, what do I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.2.219 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you can't receive the new password email (remember to check your email client's spamfilters and suchlike), then you'll have to create a new account. Algebraist 17:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What about my existing contributions (a few) and my existing username? I would like to continue using them. Can't I change my email with another one, where I am sure I will receive the password email? There are ways to prove that this is me, and not someone trying to use someone else's account... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.2.219 (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but the only way you can change your e-mail is by going to Special:Preferences when you're logged in, and since you've made edits you can't usurp the old name. Xenon54 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, in theory, you could take the old username back by creating a global account on another Wikimedia wiki and then request usurpation at WP:CHU/SUL, but I'm not sure if it would work or be considered good faith in practice. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have already joined all my accounts into one. I guess I could keep trying different passwords I have used hoping to eventually get the right one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.2.219 (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC) It appears now the merging process has not exactly been successful - I have just managed to sign in into my regional Wikipedia account (bg.wikipedia.org) . Thanks for all your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.2.219 (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    help on my article.

    I want help on my article getting it edited and ready for being created into an article. Bhakim (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)bhakim[reply]

    If you mean the draft on your user page, it still reads like an advertisement for the company rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. Take a look at WP:Spam. There is nothing in the draft that addresses the notability of the company as described in WP:Corp with references to support it per WP:RS. If it is moved to the mainspace in its current form, I am 99% sure it will be deleted as being spam dressed up as an article. – ukexpat (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Before spending any more time trying to put this article here, you should ask yourself honestly whether the company has significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. If it does not, it cannot have an article on Wikipedia. I tried to Google it, and the only things I could find were places where the company’s products are offered for sale. You can’t use those as sources. —teb728 t c 01:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC) If you want more specific help than the links ukexpat gave you, you need to provide links to your sources. Identifying your sources are essential to your article anyway. —teb728 t c 05:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Section not in TOC

    Is it possible to add a section heading that doesn't appear in TOC? I'm asking it because I have an "Advertisement" heading on my talk page advertising a task force I've started, but I want the TOC to stick to the discussion threads. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If all else fails, you could always make it look like a header, but not actually be one by copying the HTML directly. Actually, that sounds like quite a good idea... - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not making it a real heading also sounds good to me. It would mean not getting a section edit link but that sounds OK in your situation. Another possibility is to make it a lower level heading and exclude lower level headings from the TOC with {{TOClimit}} (applies to all headings on the page). PrimeHunter (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already tried <h2></h2>, but it didn't work and making a lower level heading would change the appearance. However, I might try my luck playing with <span class=" "></span>... Admiral Norton (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    terencce macswiney

    Chezy5 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)I am his relative and want to let it be known on the 'need to know family ' page. How to do it....am not too good on a PC![reply]

    It's not clear what you are asking. Something to do with Terence MacSwiney? Please explain a little more clearly. – ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In case you don't know what this website is and was looking for something else, here is a standard message:
    Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 2.7 million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    most goals scored by a player in a single fa cup match.

    the fact you have stated is in correct you say it is wilfred minter who scored 7 goals for st albans city,in fact it is ted macdougal who scored 9 goals when bournemouth won 11 nil in 1971 i remember because i was at this match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.24.23 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can you find a reliable website or newspaper that back that up? We need some published material so people who weren't at the match like you can confirm you're right. - Mgm|(talk) 22:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    how to use wikipedia on a cell phone

    i want only basics, where search is right up the top, no pics etc. is this possible. i've looked around & can't find out how to do it. thanx. 211.28.130.86 (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    http://mobile.wikipedia.org/ is available, but still can be quite a bit on a phone. --Onorem♠Dil 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Mobile access for more. --Onorem♠Dil 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And WP:EIW#Mobile. --Teratornis (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    February 1

    IP vandalism warnings

    When reverting vandalism, and then posting a warning on the IP talk page - how long back should we go before there is a clean slate, and warnings start at warning 1 again. Thanks — Ched (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It depends. If IP addresses are reassigned as soon as one connects to the Internet (as is the case with many large ISPs), then there could be a different person behind the IP each time you warn. I would say start at level 1 or 2 -- I rarely use level 1, as I believe it should only be used for test edits and other "not-really-vandalism" edits -- for each time unless it is clear that the same person is vandalising; for example, a stretch of vandalism edits in a few minutes, or vandalism to the same articles over and over again. Xenon54 (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How to fix when tables/images and tex overlap

    Is it like a bug or something? I don't know, but it looks ugly.--71.190.80.213 (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To which article are you referring? ArcAngel (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be better if you told us where the specific problem is so we could diagnose and target help better, but there are various templates that may be of use: {{Clearleft}}, {{Clearright}} and {{-}}. See also {{FixBunching}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Infobox AFLretired

    I would ask at Template talk:Infobox AFLretired, but it is redlinked. Is there a way to make it behave like Template:Infobox NFLretired so that Jack Kemp can have two stat pages like Keith Bostic (American football)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    How to redirect for a duplicative article

    I came across an article Abou_Yazid that is a very small article about Abu_Yazid. I tried to redirect it but it did not seem to work, perhaps because some lists link there. P7njsl (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks fine to me. You didn't blank the page's content when you made it a redirect (which you should do), but the redirect was working anyway. Algebraist 04:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting images

    Please point me to a page on how to revert images. I tried starting at Help:Reverting, Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Page_history#Image history, but could not find anything specific to reverting of images. Jay (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you mean by "revert images?" Images can be reverted to their previous uploaded versions on their description page. You can "revert" an image in an article by removing it. flaminglawyer 05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant reverting an image to a previously uploaded version. Is there any page that talks about this? Jay (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    withdraw from gabapentin

    If someone has abused Gabapentin and wants to quit, what can they do to prevent severe symptoms and how long will symptoms last[?]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.35.159 (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer. Contact your General Practitioner and/orphysician. Chamal talk 07:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Images removed from Scutigera coleoptrata

    Someone removed all but one of the images from this page. What's ther policy on this? Should the number of images per articles be reduced and people who want to see other images be directed to commons? I had so far understood the link to commons in such a way that the images there could and should be integrated into the article where reasonable. The article also no longer links properly from the "search" page (still works from the side bar).--76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The key words in that sentence of yours are "integrated where reasonable". A gallery just tags the images to the bottom. Integration is when the images illustrate and clarify a particular section of text. Adding images to a gallery basically duplicates the function of the Commons. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The gallery was done in a previous edit. The pictures had been in the text and then someone ripped them out and put them at the bottom in a gallery. I thought there might be some rule why they did that. It's a bug, so directly linking images to descriptive test is a bit more difficult than with other subjects, but I thought that some of the pix were quite informative and am sorry to have lost them. The link to the commons is more something for experts than the casual visitor. If someone might be so kind as to put some back? (Particularly the one with it hunting the spider would be nice.) --76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    hello

    how do i paste a link? BOUT n actor i think you should know

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0108362/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joemorton (talk • contribs) 09:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is nowhere to "paste a link" and there is no article on Kevin Breznahan, so you can either be bold and create one (please read WP:YFA, WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:V before you do), or you can make a request at WP:AFC that the article be created. – ukexpat (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) I'm not really sure what you mean by pasting a link. I think maybe you are asking that an article be written about this actor? This is a free encyclopedia written by volunteers, so articles are added to the catalogue by the mechanism of those who are interested in a subject, donating their time and ability by writing about that subject. This means that if you are willing and capable, you can start the article yourself. See Wikipedia:Your first article. To requests than an article be written on this actor, please go to Wikipedia:Requested articles#Biographies.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Annoying browser problem

    Hi

    I seem to have developed a problem with my browser. If I edit a section within a page, it is adding a blank line above the section header everytime I save the page.

    I am going mad trying to work out what is happening, I have disabled most of my browser add-ons now, and am using firefox 3.0.5
    Any help would be greatly appreciated as I have pulled almost all of my hair out now lol --Chaosdruid (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone had chance to look into this one ??--Chaosdruid (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please Ban

    Please ban Monkeyman1239 (writing uncivil comments on Saints Row 2‎). Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endothermic (talk • contribs) 12:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's been warned with a level 3 warning. If he vandalises again, you or whoever reverts him can give him a level 4 warning (add the code {{uw-vandalism4}} to the bottom of his talkpage). Then you are allowed to immediately report him to WP:AIV. Xenon54 (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Slanderous attacks on Boy Scout founder, based entirely on one writer's imagination

    Can someone be considered a good source on something, if they dedicated a significant portion of their book listing the most idiotic reasons imaginable than the founder of that organization was secretly homosexual? Or are there rules against such slander? In the article on Baden_powell they mention the repressed homosexual rumor. If you can not prove something, should the claim be there at all? Many have taken such things out over time, only to have them put back in. There is now a side article about the controversy, it mostly showing the claims, and dismissing them. For example, writer Tim Jeal‎ claims Baden Powell was a repressed homosexual, because his wife had short hair and wore a Boy Scout uniform. Many women involved in scouts wear Boy Scout uniforms, and doesn't mean their husbands are homosexual. Do to head aches, he started sleeping on open air balcony at age 60, instead of with his wife, therefor must be a homosexual. The list goes onward. Even if he got his other facts about Scouting right, the fact that a significant portion of the book is based on his ridiculous imagination that its founder was a "repressed homosexual" who enjoyed looking at naked boys for sexual reasons, should it be in the article at all? Tim Jeal's page even has a link to it in the Scouting portal. Dream Focus (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Interested parties see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Tim_Jeal. The "significant portion" DF refers to is 3.7% of a large respected book. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content issue. If DF can't work it out with other editors (including myself), then it needs to go through dispute resolution. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respected by who? How can you respect a book that has nonsense like that in it? Now then, does this qualify as slander or not? I couldn't find any rules about biographies, and slander. Isn't there a policy somewhere? Dream Focus (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be something that should be discussed among the interested parties and arrive at a suitable agreement. I don't think the Help Desk can do anything to improve this matter. Whether we say it is acceptable or not according to some standard policy, there will still be people who will not agree. The only thing that will happen is that the discussion will be dragged on to the help desk instead of where it should be. I suggest you guys take this to dispute resolution as Gadget850 suggested, if it is really necessary. Chamal talk 15:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick legal point, you cannot slander (or libel) the dead. So it's a Wikipedia BLP policy issue, not a legal one. – ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons also has nothing to say about the dead. Algebraist 16:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was some discussion recently (that I can't find at the moment) that BLP may apply to the recent dead, but yes you're right, in this case it's a source/reference/OR issue.
    A similar situation exists in the Lance Armstrong article. Lance has been tested hundreds of times and he has never tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs. He has also prevailed in court against people who have accused him of taking performance-enhancing drugs. Despite the failure of his accusers to provide any conclusive evidence, the article discusses these allegations because the allegations themselves are notable, even if false. If Wikipedia were to remove all mention of claims for which there is no conclusive evidence, we would have to remove all our articles about religion, for starters. There is no more evidence for the miracles of Jesus than there is evidence for leprechauns, but many millions of people believe in the miracles of Jesus so they are notable even if it should turn out that they were entirely fictitious. See also Elvis Presley phenomenon#Elvis lives? - all the objective evidence says that Elvis Presley died in 1977, but so many people claim Elvis is still alive that the almost certainly incorrect belief is notable. Occasionally people who are religious get careless and make claims that are falsifiable; then we can write articles such as: Great Disappointment. --Teratornis (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    rooots

    i know some roots are for medicine are ther some poison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.119.144 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    But note that we cannot give medical advice. – ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    random articles, changes?

    Maybe it is the different web browser I am using? But I do not see how it could be this. Today is the first time I noticed this, but when I click on random article multiple times and then click back, it then sends be back to the page where I first clicked random article. This is definitely new. I always use random. Almost daily. And previously each click on the back arrow sent me back one previous page. For example, 10 clicks on the random page button. Then click back one time. I would then be on the page I was on after having clicked random page 9 times. Maybe I have not clicked my back arrow while using random article in a while. Is this new? Or is there a glitch in the system?And is there a place on wikipedia where they post changes such as this one of maneuvering around wikipedia? Thanks 24.166.153.36 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok. It is the different web browser I am using. Safari does this. Safari is new to me and I don't know all that much about computers to begin with. Perhaps by default, so maybe there is a way to change it. But that is my problem. So. Anyway. I thought I'd at least put this up here so no one else has to rack their brain on it. Sorry for the inconvenience. 24.166.153.36 (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    deletion of entire section on SRIH.

    I found the section on SRIH, The Societas Rosicruciana in Hibernia removed entirely and as i am the author of this piece(Knightpriest), i am reporting this to you in the hope you can do something about it, i do not see on what basis it was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightpriest (talk • contribs) 17:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit summary by the editor who deleted it indicates that it was a copyright violation of http://www.srih.org/pb/wp_d88a9d3a/wp_d88a9d3a.html but that page appears to be blank now. In any event the paragraph is back in the article, although it does need some references from reliable sources. Also please remember to sign your messages here and on talk pages, but not your edits on articles. – ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    writing reports

    which of these would be the best source of synonyms for the word FASCINATE? books in print,roger's tesaurus,the world book encyclopedia or the world almanac and book of facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.147.18 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 17:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Login and site change

    hi i have recognized that when i login with my english username through the english wikipedia it works, but if i try to login thru the german wiki site it doesnt, in addition after i login on english and change any article to german by clicking the reference link, i get logged out and cant edit etc., how does that work?!

    Thanks in advance

    Brais Brais (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The German and English Wikipedias are separate websites with separate logins. You can, however, create a unified account which will work in all Wikipedias by going to Special:MergeAccount. Algebraist 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi,

    I am looking at Oscar J. Friend, and see that it cannot be found by searching Oscar Friend or Friend, Oscar. How can I remedy that?

    Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PopHistorian (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It can be found with those search terms, actually, but you can make it easier by creating redirects. I've made one from Oscar Friend. I'm not sure about Friend, Oscar (is that really a likely search term?), but I suppose it does little harm. Algebraist 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would create the redirect for Friend, Oscar (just to help the casual browser who might not know how people articles work), but be aware similar redirects are spotty. Gates, Bill redirects correctly, but not Brown, Gordon, Clegg, Nick, or Tyldesley, Clive. Xenon54 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps the Gates redirect is leftover from someone else who didn't know about article naming when the search engine wasn't so smart. As far as I've checked the idea of searching those combos works. Perhaps it didn't with that particular entry because it was not yet old enough. - Mgm|(talk) 23:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reference links...

    I'm overwhelmed trying to figure out how to highlight in blue certain references, such as "Office of Strategic Services" in my new entry on "William Arthur Smith" I'm also not sure what they are talking about when they suggest I put the article into prose format rather than list format, since my entry looks like prose to me. I will be adding sections etc.

    I think it would be good to have some simplified directions for people who just want the new entry to follow a format like, say "Andrew Wyeth".

    Pascin727 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I left you a tutorial on references. Parts of the article look like they used to be a list, but were simply collapsed into paragraphs. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Category "Sporting Knights": Knighthoods for reasons other than sport

    I see Norman Brookes is in the "Sporting Knights" category. His knightood was not for tennis, but "in recognition of service to public service" ([3]). If Brookes is in, we'd also have to add Hubert Opperman, who was best known as a cyclist, but whose knighthood was for "High Commissioner to Malta" ([4]). I'm sure there'd be many other knights who had some sort of sporting career but were honoured for other reasons.

    Either we allow anyone who was knighted for any reason and was well known as a sportsman; or we restrict it to people whose knighthoods were specifically for their sporting achievements. I'd favour the latter. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:CAT, WP:SUBCAT, WP:CLN, and other links under WP:EIW#Cat. In particular, an excerpt from WP:CAT#Categories do not form a tree:
    • Each Wikipedia article can appear in more than one category, and each category can appear in more than one parent category. Multiple categorization schemes co-exist simultaneously. In other words, categories do not form a strict hierarchy or tree structure, but a more general directed acyclic graph (or close to it; see below).
    If you want to categorize people by the reason for their knighthood, and the existing category scheme does not, you are (probably) free to set up an additional category tree to handle it. However, before changing anything on Wikipedia, it's good to first determine why things are they way they are now. Presumably whoever set up an existing order had some reasons in mind. Whoever wants to change the existing order must at least be aware of the original reasons - how else can you be sure your new thinking fully accounts for the old thinking? Changing things without first identifying the other players and the stake they may have in the existing order might trigger an edit war. You can edit almost anything you like on Wikipedia, but so can everybody else - thus it's not enough to have a good idea, you must have a good idea that everybody can instantly recognize as being good too, or someone may just revert you. Convincing us on the Help desk is hardly sufficient, you must also convince everyone who cares about who gets to appear in Category:Sporting knights. Note that there is also a List of sporting knights and dames in case you are looking for more things to argue about. --Teratornis (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking the last comment first, this has nothing to do with "looking for more things to argue about". For the record, as a very frequent respondent to questions on the Reference Desks, and have been for well over 4 years, I don't think much of your tone and I don't appreciate being lectured when I've done my best to do the right thing.
    I know exactly what you're saying about seeking consensus first, and I agree with that. I have lots of good ideas, but usually I don't implement them without involving others first (unless I'm being guided by WP:Bold). I try to target my discussions to the most relevant place, to get the best chance of attracting the attention of the relevant stakeholders. Hence, I was going to raise this matter at Category talk:Sporting knights, in order to commence a discussion with the very users you suggest I talk to. But the first thing I saw there (apart from the fact that it's a non-existent page at this stage) was:
    • "Talk pages in this namespace are generally not watched by many users. Please consider visiting the Help desk for a more prompt response or reviewing the Categorization FAQ for quick tips."
    The FAQs gave me no guidance, so I came here. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I commend you for following up. The Help desk gets many questions from people who never let us know whether the help actually helped. The instruction you mention appears to come from MediaWiki:Editnotice-15, which I think needs a bit of editing, to something like: "Please consider visiting the Help desk, and mention that you were viewing this page." Wikipedia is just a bunch of individuals who can't read minds - nobody here knows that you read some other page written by other people that told you to come here, unless you say so. And it is important to say so - see How to Ask Questions the Smart Way - your odds of getting a correct answer improve if you summarize the sources of information you consulted and what led you to pose the question on the Help desk. As for my "tone", I don't understand what you don't like about it - when I use the word "argue" I refer to the activity which is fundamental to all human progress. (How did humans outgrow bad ideas such as slavery and animal sacrifice? By having lots of arguments, fortunately won by the slightly smarter people.) Wikipedia is wonderful because we can argue about everything, and a good percentage of those arguments are potentially productive, at least if we know how to argue. If arguing about the category is a good idea, and I think it is (because if we haven't argued about it, maybe we haven't found the best way yet), then the corresponding list might have something worth arguing about as well. Wikipedia is not a support group, it's a gigantic intellectual contest to see who can write what makes the most sense. When you come to the Help desk, you are asking to be lectured - and if you misspell a page name and neglect to link it, you are forcing respondents to do a bit of extra work to figure out what you are talking about (there is no Category:Sporting Knights as the correct name is probably Category:Sporting knights and Wikipedia's persnickety letter-case rules grant no quarter to the slightest error). When asking for free help, it's generally a good idea to make the helper's job as easy as possible. The Help desk gets lots of questions with these types of errors, and the great majority of them are from users with relatively little experience on Wikipedia. But it doesn't really matter how much time a user has spent on one part of Wikipedia or another - Wikipedia is so complex that everybody is a raw beginner in the many aspects they haven't yet explored. When I go to some part of Wikipedia that is new to me, I don't expect people to stand in awe of my vast experience on some other part. I expect them to treat me like the newb I am there. (Actually they aren't responding to me but rather to just the words I type, some of which might be clever and some which fall a bit short.) All that really matters is whether I get the information I need. And since written text carries no inflection as speech does, it's entirely up to me to decide what "tone" it has when I read it. So I just give it a friendly tone. In any case, I might not be the most congenial person on the Help desk, but it looks like I'm the only one who responded to your question, out of the possibly hundreds of users who monitor this page. Imagine what the people who didn't respond were thinking. (I have no idea, but it's so much more fun to imagine the worst.) --Teratornis (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I concede that I should have mentioned what led me to come here. On reflection, it could have been read as me trying to convince people of my point of view, rather than seeking advice about the best way of raising this issue with those most likely to be other than indifferent to it.
    I don't think of these discussions as arguments. An argument is the point you're making or the evidence you're adducing, in order to prosecute your case. It forms part of an overall discussion, debate or conversation.
    I mentioned my other experience here not to establish some sort of credentials or to have me treated in any special way. It was merely to highlight that I take very seriously the rules about courtesy, not biting the newbies, and being generally helpful and positive. I felt that a response such as "Convincing us on the Help desk is hardly sufficient" was not that; and when added to the didactic tone of the rest of it, it came across as anything but "friendly". ("And since written text carries no inflection as speech does, it's entirely up to me to decide what "tone" it has when I read it." - I'll just point out that this works in both directions.) But I accept that was your intention, now that you've explained it.
    "Changing things without first identifying the other players and the stake they may have in the existing order might trigger an edit war." - well, yes, it might. But where did I ever announce I had decided to change anything? I raised this as a subject for discussion.
    "When you come to the Help desk, you are asking to be lectured" - I'd be very surprised if other volunteers on this page have a similar philosophy; but if that's really the way this page works, I won't ever come here again. It's not called the Lecture desk, it's called the Help desk. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) the Category:Sporting knights appears to be a sub-category of Category:British knights by occupation, which (to me) implies that it would include professional athletes whether or not that's what they were knighted for. if you want to propose a redefinition/rearrangement maybe you could work it into the WP:CFD page somehow? or try raising a discussion on the talk pages of the individual knights. Sssoul (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I'll consider those ideas. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    February 2

    Cite Error

    Resolved

    I keep trying to fix a cite error on InTru 3D but I can't find out what is wrong could someone please fix it and tell me what was wrong. Thank you. Hda3ku (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed in [5]. See Wikipedia:Footnotes. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Second longest river in Australia ?

    Wikipedia shows the Darling River as being 1,390 kms long and describes it as the third longest river in Australia. (I must concede I always thought it was the longest or second longest, depending on one's interpretation of its confluence with the Murray.) Furthermore Wikipedia shows the Flinders River as the longest in Queensland and the second longest in Australia, but with a length of 840 kms.

    I would have thought that the Murrumbidgee, Warrego and Diamentina, all being over 900 kms, would exceed the Flinders in Qld or Australia.

    Does anyone have any clues on this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.14.96.4 (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder how many people who live in North America can name the second longest river in North America? Or better yet, correctly state the number of bridges which span it? --Teratornis (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How to edit the text in the box to the right of an article (re: Pittsburgh Steelers)

    I have only made a few edits on Wikipedia but I was inspired by the Super Bowl to just make a quick change to the number of Championships from 5 to 6 on the Pittsburgh Steelers page. It has already been done so it is a moot point. My question is - how do you edit that summary box on the right hand side of the page? If I go to edit page, that text does not appear. I'm referring to what is now

    Super Bowl Championships (6) 1974 (IX), 1975 (X), 1978 (XIII), 1979 (XIV), 2005 (XL), 2008 (XLIII)

    in the box on the right hand side of the article. It does not seem to be in the "edit current page" area.

    Thanks.. Randomplanck (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)randomplanck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomplanck (talk • contribs) 03:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you click "edit this page" at Pittsburgh Steelers then near the top it says {{NFL team| and a lot more. This is an infobox template with documentation at Template:NFL team. It includes the parameter sb_champs which determines what is written in the field you mention. As you noticed, it has been updated.[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles that relate to extremely high-profile events tend to attract a lot of attention on Wikipedia, and thus you have to move fast if you want to be the first person to add some extremely well-known recent event. Given the huge audience for the Super Bowl, the most trivial detail for this largely pointless event will receive oodles of loving attention on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, many topics with life-and-death importance go neglected. Wikipedia needs more help with its less popular articles. Check the history of an article to see how many edits it has had recently. Wikipedia has lots of infrequently-edited articles which you can easily be the next to improve. --Teratornis (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, articles about recent, and sometimes pointless events are updated very frequently as the event progresses. I saw at one point that every time the clock stopped during today's Super Bowl, somebody had updated the time almost instantly, along with the score, and virtually every play was updated and documented. Until It Sleeps 05:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do people find the time? --Teratornis (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More about Infobox ship's code

    As I asked before, unlike other infoboxes, Infobox ship dosen't have its real code. If Infobox ship doesn't have its real code, how can it be an infobox. If there is a code, where is it? Aquitania (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's explained in the answer to your question above: #Code for Infobox Ship – ukexpat (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that any template can begin with "Infobox" which is just a part of the template name. It doesn't necessarily mean that the template produces an infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Uploading

    Sir/Mam, I am new user of wikipedia.I want to know that if i want to upload any topic related to society,political or something else.Then what i have to do.From where i can uplaod my any view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketan Goyal (talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If by "upload" you mean "create an article", take a look at the following standard reply.
    Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
    Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.
    If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation.
    But note that articles must not be original research and must conform to a neutral point of view. – ukexpat (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Inexperienced Wikipedia User trying to upload image to article correctly, and with respect to appropriate protocol

    I have been editing the article Jack Dann, and wanted to replace the current image with something I perceive to be more spontaneous and becoming.

    I have found the following image, by photographer Cat Sparks

    http://flickr.com/photos/42956650@N00/2919366711/in/set-72157607797775638

    I have contacted Ms Sparks, and have been given permission via email to use the image, or others of hers in this Flickr set for the purpose of the Wikipedia article, as I see appropriate, as long as due credit is give to Ms Sparks as author of this image.

    I am uncertain what to do from here. I am confused about the correct licensing attributions for upload and how I might proceed to use this imagine without attracting censure or deletion for proceeding inappropriately.Mesmacat (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Finding Wikipedia article in Google search

    Hi,

    I have put an article on Pandit C R Vyas in wikipedia recently. I am checking if one can find that article from google. But when I am searching on Google search, i don't find this article.

    Is there anything to be done with the article to be found in google?? What could be other reason??

    Regards,

    Niranjan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niranjan.ranade (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It takes time for google to index them... around three days on average, it's not instant. -- Mentisock 10:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Which name to use in foreign games?

    Game in question is Jump Ultimate Stars which is a Japanese game and has not been translated to English (and it probably never will, but that's an aside). Jump game makes use of characters from numerous Manga titles, many of which have been translated into English and have English names, but most editors on the page seem to like to use the Japanese Romanji (Romanised Japanese) names of Manga instead of their translated English names.

    (e.g. [[Fist of the North Star|Hokuto no Ken]] instead of [[Fist of the North Star]])

    I personally prefer English, as this is the English Wikipedia and I think this would make the English names more recognisable than the Japanese ones, but I also understand that the majority of the editors (and probably the majority of the editors for Anime/Manga topics) would prefer the Romanji name. I also understand that this is a Japanese only game and that the Romanji names might be more appropriate (although to be completely fair the game uses their Japanese names, which are in Hiragana/Katakana/Kanji/Romanji; in the above example, the name would be 北斗の拳, but using this would be a bit extreme).

    If there's no specific ruling saying one way or the other I'm willing to leave it as it is, but if the manual of style suggests that 'official' English translated name is to be preferred, shouldn't we be using the English names for the titles (that have been published in English)?

    I understand this is pretty petty and I don't really care one way or the other (well actually I do, or else I wouldn't be asking here) but mainly I'm asking for future reference, so some info would be extremely helpful and in particular, not just for games but for any foreign material in general (i.e. Manga/Anime).

    In other words, when dealing with names/nouns in foreign languages, when should the name in the original language (or Romanisation of the original language) be used over an English translated one or vice versa?

    Thank you very much.

    Serrin (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. could someone please leave a note on my talk page? I realise I'm procrastinating by watching this page constantly instead of studying. Sorry, but I like to find excuses to waste time (e.g. wikipedia).

    Anyone knows how to change the 'user' link near the person icon? -- Mentisock 10:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Screenshots copyright.

    Greetings!

    My colleague has put some screenshots into the article about our company here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroCraft Unfortunately, the moderators keep removing the pictures saying it may violate copyright although these very pictures are posted openly on company's website (http://www.herocraft.com). How can we provide the license or what else is needed to post these pictures? Thank you in advance.

    Haseth (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Posting images openly on any website, including a company's website, doesn't mean there is no copyright. Also, it's impossible for administrators to know that your colleague is actually allowed to share those images. In order for the images to stick, you need to go to WP:OTRS and send the relevant address a message from a company address that says it is allowed to copy the image, make derivative images and use them commercially without restrictions. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at WP:IOWN, and also WP:COI as you appear to have a conflict of interest. – ukexpat (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    spam filter

    Resolved
     – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1.I Why is "http://www. fisheaters. com" in the wiki spam filter?

    2.) Why can't I find a "special page" (or a FAA in FAQ) on the spam filter?

    130.133.8.114 (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The latest discussion (as far as I can tell) is located here, and JzG's reasoning can be found here. — Manticore 14:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks to both of you 130.133.8.114 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Snow

    I'm currently snowed in, so no classes for me today. Instead I thought i would try to learn wikipedia. Where do i start? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.171.39 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Wikipedia Tutorial would be a good place. You'd also want to get familiar with our key policies. You'll learn more as you go along. Have fun, and happy editing! Chamal talk 11:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Article Title

    I have a question regarding the search on wikipedia. When you search for crown oil- you get crown central petroleum article, to get the actual crown oil article, you have to type in crown oil ltd, so typing in crown oil should take you to the actuall crown oil ltd article. Especially that their official website is www.crownoil.co.uk and they own the following domain names: crown oil, crown oils-both take you to their website (www.crownoil.co.uk and www.crownoils.co.uk and even www.crownoil.com). In a short cut-typing in crown oil in the search option should take you to crown oil article; and typing in crown central petroleum should take you to crown central petroleum article. I just think that if a company is not called crown oil (but crown central petroleum), how can it take to an article of a differently named company? Am I right? Crownoil1947 (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adminbots

    Is there a list of adminbots somewhere? I've looked at Category:Wikipedia adminbots but it isn't comprehensive. User:RedirectCleanupBot isn't there and I'm sure there must be plenty of others who aren't. Is there a definitive list? -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 13:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Look in Category:Wikipedia adminbots. Cheers. Chamal talk 13:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:RedirectCleanupBot is no longer a Bot, although it remains an Admin. GbT/c 13:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is no longer an admin either - see the meta log. BencherliteTalk 13:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point - didn't think to look there. GbT/c 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pad lock

    What was used before a pad lock was inveted???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.144.37 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. Algebraist 15:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Referencing to 1 book but many different pages

    In the article List of military science fiction works and authors we have a source which provided many references, but on different pages. What is the easiest way to format these references? Debresser (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    <ref name="longbook"/>{{rp|424-5}} is one way, or was that not what you were asking? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not precisely what I meant, but since it says on the template:rp page that this is the only thing to do, so that's what I did. It's not bad, actually. It's just that I would have prefered to see the pagenumbers in the footnotes and not inside the article. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Shortened footnotes. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I didn't find any real solutions here. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively, you could have a simple list of references manually, then include a Notes section with the book's title and page number, using the <ref> system. See English heraldry for example. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pictures

    How do I upload a picture from Wikicommons to Wikipedia?

    --Resr Vaguery (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You probably don't want to reupload the image, just use File links as usual on WP and all should be fine. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) If it's already in Commons then you can use it in Wikipedia without uploading it to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Double images

    Resolved
     – ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've seen in some articles (don't remember which...) images that are doubled up horizontally in the same thumbnail frame. Can anyone tell me the syntax to achieve this, or just point me to an example? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You want this template for horizontally aligned or this template for vertical. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't edit a page, some sort of page protection i can't see?

    Resolved
     – ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been trying for a while to revert two edits to TUGS, made most recently with IP addresses. However, trying this with Twinkle and using the standard "editing an older version of the page" method both doesn't seem to work. I don't think its a problem with the cache as i first tried to revert it last night and it has still not shown up as changed. As well as this, it appears on my watchlist as the last edit by the IP address, not mine.

    Does anyone know if there is some kind of page protection which i cannot see? Thank you --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 19:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP reverted themself. Thus your attempts to revert the two edits are treated by MediaWiki as a null edit, and essentially ignored. Algebraist 19:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)works for me Dendodge TalkContribs 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, ok. I don't really know what's happened but everything's fine now so this is resolved. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Logging in

    I can't figure out how to access the page I have been working on. Under my preferences it says that I am logged into 1 project, but I can;t figure out how to get back to my page. The page I am working on is called The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book. Please help me get back to my page so I can continue to work on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talentsmart2 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No page The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book exists on the English Wikipedia, or ever has. Are you sure that was the precise name of the page you were working on? There was a page Emotional Intelligence Quick Book, but that was deleted two years ago. Algebraist 19:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Does your records show that I am working on a project? If so can you help me get there. I might have forgot to name the articule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talentsmart2 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The one project referred to in your preferences is the English Wikipedia. You are there already. Algebraist 19:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there anyway to see what I have been working on. I was working on a page last week until Thursday afternoon. I don't want to have to start over on it, so can you see what I have been working on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talentsmart2 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    All of the contributions you have made under this username are listed here. I don't see any to the article to which you refer. Maybe an admin can see the user's deleted contributions? TN‑X-Man 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your article Emotional intelligence Quick Book (note the capitalization - wikipedia articles are case sensitive) was deleted as blatant advertising. If you would like to rewrite it in a more neutral tone, you may try to do so. It may be best to work in a private userpage (like drafting your article at User:Talentsmart/sandbox), then ask here for someone neutral to review it. Once it meets wikipedia guidelines, it can then be moved into article space. Please also read our conflict of interest guidelines. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would like, I can restore the article you were working on and move it to your userspace. Let me know on my talk page if you want me to do that. Hermione1980 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And please also read WP:Spam and WP:N. – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And please stop recreating the article - it's back at The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book, and has been tagged for deletion per WP:CSD#G3. – ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, an dynamic ip address:

    has for the last couple of days removing wikilinks to Pygmy Marmoset. Not sure why, maybe they are trying to orphan the article. They take 5 minutes to remove the wikilinks, and then disappear. After a few hours, or a day they come back and do it all over again. I went and read WP:AIV, but they say there that IPs have to be active. Where exactly should I report something like this? BeckyAnne(talk) 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting - try the administrators' incidents noticeboard if it continues. BencherliteTalk 20:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tagged all four talk pages with a shared ip notice - maybe once they see their college has been "identified" they will cease and desist, but I will keep a watch on them also and if they receive three more warnings, report them to AIV for vandalism. It's not just the Pygmy article though - there are 7 more articles common in between those four accounts, so it might be helpful to put them on your watchlist so we can more easily see the vandalism occuring from this location. ArcAngel (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They almost never edit the Pygmy article it is always articles that wikilink to the it. BeckyAnne(talk) 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now it was done by 76.78.147.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which according to whois, is part of the same college. BeckyAnne(talk) 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to the administrators' incidents noticeboardBeckyAnne(talk) 01:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion code, what does this mean?

    I am currently working on a page called The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book and after putting the "in construction" tag on the page, the page was deleted while I was working on it with a message that says: R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace: userfied to User:Talentsmart2/The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book to allow more work before the article is put into mainspace.

    What does that mean, and how can I work on my page without having it be continuously deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talentsmart2 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It means your article has been moved to this page where you can work on improving it. It's not in the main article space, but in your user space. TN‑X-Man 20:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I moved your page into your userspace because I was not prepared to have a one-sentence article hanging around in the main encyclopaedia on the vague promise that you would be working on it "this week". You had previously been advised to work on the article first before submitting it. I have already left a message on your user talk about this, along with a welcome note. BencherliteTalk 20:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I presume that the articule I was working on last Thursday was also moved to that area. Can you please help me access that articule so I can edit it so its not as advertising.Talentsmart2 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No it wasn't, it was deleted outright. I am not going to resurrect that deleted version across for you, since it was written like an advertisement and you need to start again from the beginning. BencherliteTalk 20:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone else now has - User:Talentsmart2/sandbox. BencherliteTalk 20:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Same IP?

    Is there a way to tell if these: [7] and [8] are the same person? I'm trying to find the root of a little problem. Is there a template to provide a user who does too much or only user talk page edits in a forum-like environment with a lot of "personal experience" descriptions of drug use. They've found their way to my talk page, yay. Mjpresson (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's likely. WHOIS returns the same ISP for both IPs, meaning if it's not the same person, it's two siblings or two friends with the same ISP. There is no template for this sort of problem; just leave a note on their talkpage explaining (civilly) that whatever they are doing is against Wikipedia rules, and if they start spewing profanities or insults or don't stop, then get an admin involved. Xenon54 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Converting Bare References

    I notice some articles have converted "bare referencs" and there is a "tool" or bot that does this. How would I convert bare references using such a tool? [9] is the tool (I think)97.101.183.225 (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There are some bots which do this (badly in my opinion). The easiest way is to do it yourself. A "Bare reference" is where there is only a blind html link like this: [10] and nothing else. Ideally, all references should contain full bibliographic information (author, title, larger work containing it, publication info, etc. etc.) The best way to do this is to use the citation templates found here: WP:CITET. I would recommend opening the bare reference, and converting it to a full reference using the citation templates yourself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    February 3

    Why are commas and periods usually placed outside of quotation marks, where they should be placed inside?

    For example: Today, the inhabitants of the village had to hear her so-called "apology". Instead of: Today, the inhabitants of the village had to hear her so-called "apology."

    The latter is grammatically correct per Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary, as well as a number of other well-know publications. --96.232.54.7 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Because on Wikipedia, we don't follow Webster's style guide, we follow our own Manual of Style, which requires that punctuation go outside the quotation marks unless it is part of the quotation. Algebraist 00:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can the Manual be changed? --96.232.54.7 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it could, that's the great thing about a wiki. But things usually have a reason for being that way. You could try suggesting it on the talkpage of the manual and see what others think about it.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see here, where it is explained why this method is used. The method you mentioned is also used in some cases, as shown there. I don't think any suggestion to change the manual to incorporate only your method would be accepted because of the reasons mentioned there. You can try, of course. Chamal talk 00:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you would get any support to change MOS from British English speaking/writing editors. – ukexpat (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you make your own page?

    I want to know how to make your own page on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.228.242 (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
    Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.
    If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot make an article about yourself unless you are famous; for example, a movie star, a politician, a bishop, etc. You can, however, sign up for a free Wikipedia account, and make a user page, on which you can write all kinds of stuff about yourself. Creating an account has many other benefits as well. --96.232.54.7 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you aren't allowed to write an article about yourself regardless of whether or not you are famous as that would be a conflict of interest. Although anybody else could.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 00:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. How would anybody know though? --96.232.54.7 (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well usually it's blatantly obvious. They may say so themselves, make it sound like advertisement (WP:NPOV), only edit that article (WP:SPA), have a username that is the same as the article (WP:UAA), make an article about something nobody has heard about (WP:NOTABLE), etc. Although you're right, it would be hard to tell but if it really is that significant then it probably already has an article written about it.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 01:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there is no rule that says you cannot write an article about yourself assuming you meet the notability criteria. The appropriate guideline -- WP:AUTO -- says it is "strongly discouraged". – ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Strongly discouraged" meaning "There is no way you will ever do it in such a way that is acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, so don't even try". Seriously, if you are notable enough, someone who doesn't know you personally will eventually create a Wikipedia article about you. If there's not enough information in the world outside of Wikipedia for people who don't know you personally to write a quality article about you, then you aren't notable enough. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Name

    Why was "Recentchanges" changed to "RecentChanges"? "Allpages" to "AllPages"? "Whatlinkshere" to "WhatLinksHere"? JCI (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Map of 2018 FIFA World Cup bids.svg

    I accidentally uploaded File:Map of 2018 FIFA World Cup bids.svg both here and on the Commons back in June and it's been a candidate for speedy deletion since. I need a sysop to delete the image from English Wiki so we can use the up to date one on the Commons. Thanks!--Patrick «» 02:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I added the template {{NowCommons}} to the image page, this places the image in the deletion categories and acts as a speedy deletion template. Nanonic (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, this is one part of Wikipedia I have little experience in.--Patrick «» 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have deleted it. Theresa Knott | token threats 04:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    who is the publisher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.149.216 (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Of Wikipedia? The Wikimedia Foundation. – ukexpat (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're looking to cite Wikipedia in a paper or other academic report, you might find Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia helpful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rollback

    I use the friendly and twinkle scripts on Wikipedia. Do either of them come with rollback rights, because I see the option to rollback on diff pages. Its supposed to be a granted userright, right? I don't believe I have been granted this yet by an admin, yet how can I be able to rollback? Cheers, Mazeau (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:ROLLBACK and Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback for more information. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tools like twinkle do some magic and give you the rollback button even if you don't have the rollback right (which you don't have at the moment).--Commander Keane (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the "Geological Information System(GIS)"?

    Hitesh2001 (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's called the Geographic information system, and if you click those blue words, it will bring you to our article on GIS. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Song infobox

    I just noticed a user has removed a song infobox concerning Please Read the Letter, claiming the single by another duo is more important than the original song. I was under the impression it was perfectly within guidelines to have the song infobox for the original. Comments please. HelenWatt (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would probably bring it up on the talk page. Since I don't know the subject matter, I can't comment on what should or should not be there. I would think, that if nothing else - the original song info should be included in the body of the subject, if it's not in the info box. (sourced and verifiable of course). — Ched (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well is there some guidelines on multiple infobox usage? HelenWatt (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A compromise would be to include both infoboxes. Several songs do just that. However, the most important place to have this discussion is on the article talk page. If the two of you cannot reach a reasonable agreement on how to proceed, you can bring in extra help via dispute resolution, for example seeking a Third Opinion or a request for comment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I'm not involved, but I'm interested in seeing something in writing on infobox usage. There doesn't appear to be anything which discusses this on the template Talk pages. HelenWatt (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) there was some discussion on this page here not long ago about the song and single templates - maybe some of it is relevant to your concerns. and/or you could raise the question on the Music Project talk page. Sssoul (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (Rev) Billy Simmons

    Billy Simmons sometimes referred to as "Rev" is a Chicago based guitarist, lyricist, and cosmetologist. (Rev) Billy who is origionally from Wichita Ks arrived in in the mid 90's to persue a career in music, eventually securing a spot in the band "Specula" for one album and a small tour. During the mid to late 90's (Rev) Billy also had a abbreviated run as a session guitarist/songwriter for R.C.A. Recording artist "Ké". In the early 2000's(Rev) Billy did session work as lead guitarist for the band "Morphine Angel" who were reportedly to put out a 10 song album on their managers label which is still incomplete due to reported tension within the band. (Rev) Billy continues to record solo material in the Chicago area occasionally plays as a guest guitarist. As of late 2008 (Rev) Billy and Tim Schroeder have started a duo called "Blunderbus" and are currently in the studio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.144.208.198 (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what the question is here. If you would like to create an article, simply create an account, and you'll be able to quickly start adding articles by being Bold. If you prefer not to create an account, you can request an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Hope that helps, if not could you please explain exactly what you are asking. — Ched (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia

    my teacher told me that Wikipedia articles are just a collaboration of news articles put together in a way to create article about a single subject, Is this true? I have been told that 98% of references are from the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.163.251 (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure exactly which percentage of references are news articles, but your teacher is basically right. We only compile information that is already available. - Mgm|(talk) 11:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    References from the news is probably not the best to use, Reporters write that stuff, storys get exaggerated ALOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolkittie (talk • contribs) 12:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That is why we have to adhere to neutral point of view and use reliable sources. Wikipedia articles are not a collection of news reports, article writing requires much more than that. Also, news reports are not the only sources used. Chamal talk 12:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedias interpretation of reliable sources seems to be popular websites and well known newpapers. If i were to write an article using a book nobody on here has heard of, would anyone really check if the book even exists? Britannica for instance has 4000 highly specialized people who check and make sure the best sources (not just reliable ones) are used. Apparently there are only around 1000 admins (about 700) active that are made up of people of little or no understanding of how to write an encyclopedia.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=268239294"