Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Agnesdelatorre (talk | contribs) at 03:40, 19 February 2010 (→‎Help me to compute this problem.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


    February 16

    Edit counter not working

    Also, the edit counter is down.When I click on it, instead of showing the number of my edits, it says enwikipedia is not a valid wiki Please inform whoever manages the edit counter of this problem. Thank you. Immunize (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There are several edit counters; you don't specify which one. Remember the most reliable counter can be found at Special:Preferences. Soxred93's counter was giving that error earlier today but it now seems to be fixed. Xenon54 / talk / 02:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it was soxred 93's edit counter, and as far as I can see the error has been fixed. Immunize (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    They seem to be out of synch. For me, Special:Preferences shows 6236; Soxred93's shows 6248 (including deleted) and 6240 (excluding deleted). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Question for an admin

    Hi. I was just accused by a User:Seregain of making vandal edits to Wii Sports, but the only article I was editing was List of controversial video games. I asked him to show me the edit he was talking about but still haven't received a reply. If there's an admin avalible, I would appreciate some assistance. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.136.35.108 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not an admin, but the user was likely talking about this edit, which occurred from your IP address. If you want to avoid this, I recommend registering an account. PDCook (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Thanks.--94.136.35.108 (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone, especially an IP shouldn't be warned for an edit that happened over a week ago. It is a very good possibility that the person behind the IP has changed since then. That warning should not have been given. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One cannot assume such a thing. Yes, the warning should've been given when the edit happened, but it didn't. If this person does not intend to register a username, then the warning should remain in case the other person, if he exists, starts vandalizing again. Seregain (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We do assume that all the time. IP warnings start over all the time because we can not say it is the same person editing. We should assume good faith that it is someone else and not assume it is the same person. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 02:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One of Wikipedia's best qualities is that its users will never be forced to register an account. However, anonymous editing has its shortcomings - IP addresses for most ISP's can change at the drop of a hat. In large corporate/school networks, external IPs can change with each page load. It should never be assumed that two edits are by the same person, unless there's good reason to believe otherwise: usually it's because (a) the edits are close together or (b) the edits are similar or (preferably) the same in nature. If a warning isn't given when the edit happens, it shouldn't be given at all. By the time someone else notices there isn't a warning, 9 times out of 10 the IP will have gone to a different user. Xenon54 / talk / 03:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many instances of IP addresses only contributing disruptive edits, sometimes over a period of months or years. One of Wikipedia's worst qualities is that its users will never be forced to register an account. Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 09:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I too am puzzled by the claim that one of Wikipedia's best qualities is that its users will never be forced to register an account. First, because I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that unregistered editing creates net value (that is, do the positive unregistered contributors outweigh the negative ones, and would requiring registration drive the positive unregistered contributors away? I've never seen anyone even attempt to prove this), and second because the premise of the statement isn't entirely true - we already "force" users to register accounts if they want to do a list of things that keeps increasing over time, such as edit semi-protected articles, upload images, create new articles, etc. It's possible that the trend to restrict unregistered users will continue to grow, until Wikipedia will have all but required editors to register. --Teratornis (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Date from UTC in the 'in this day' context.

    While I realized that GMT is the rule of the world, that does not lay to rest the question to what date 'On this day' should apply in each time zone. In particular, on 10:05 EDT January 15, or 03:00 UTC January 16, the 'On this day' refers to January 16 rather than 15.

    While this is of minor concern to us EDT uses, there exist UTC+12 and UTC-12 users to whom this is half a day out of synch. Surely the conversion to standard time should for this purpose should not be insuperable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.102.176 (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It would mean serving different versions of the Main Page, to ALL users. Unfortunately the Wikipedia servers would not be able to cope with that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unrevertable vandalism

    Someone please check the vandalism by this edit. When trying to undo the vandalism, it reverts to a spam list and cannot revert. Benjwong (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done I reverted back to what I think is the last good edit and removed the blacklisted website. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 03:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found that a site on the spam blacklist can be restored by rollback; if there's a good reason for the blacklisted URL to be present (I've run into that kind of situation once), you can post a request at WP:AN if you don't have rollback yourself. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to do a normal revert and it did not work manually or with undo button. Is this the same as rollback? I have no admin rights. Thanks for fixing. Benjwong (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, rollback is different; see Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    NOINDEX

    I want to prevent indexing for a specific page in my userspace, but I can't find a help page on how to do it. Do I type __NOINDEX__? I'm extrapolating from __NOTOC__, which I use frequently. And while we're on the subject, is there a page that contains a list of __NOthisorthatortheother__ commands? Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Use __NOINDEX__ or {{NOINDEX}}. See Help:Magic words. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How to design this template?

    Resolved: Gonzonoir (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi i want to make one for my favorite club, but I can't seem to find the template for this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Kilda_Football_Club#Players_and_staff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eathb (talk • contribs) 11:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The template in that article is Template:St Kilda Football Club Squad - you could base your template on that by clicking "Edit", copying the contents to a new template, and substituting the player names, club name, and colours as appropriate. Help:A quick guide to templates does exactly what it says on the tin, and Help:Template gives an exhaustive breakdown of how templates work and how to create them. Does that help? Gonzonoir (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah that was what i was looking for. Thankyou. Eathb (talk 11:50, 16 Feb 2010

    You're welcome. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Technical issue in Chełm#.22Wise_Jewish_Men_of_Chelm.22

    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The [edit] links for this section and the preceding two sections seem to be tied to the top of the lower illustration. As you change the page width, these three [edit] links (which appear on the same line) seem to move with the illustration, and do not appear with their sections.

    I've viewed the page under Opera, FireFox, and Chrome, and in all three the issue occurs.

    Screen shots are available.

    Is this a bug in the Wikification software?

    ~~Ð’n talk 11:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You have just met WP:BUNCH. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh! Well, then, I'm glad no one else has fixed this yet, as I'm happy to learn about this little fellow and how to deal with him! We can consider this issue resolved... ~~Ð’n talk 14:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Older version of an image

    Hi, I want to use the former version of an image file. (This file had been created in 2006 by a user and just a few days ago, some other user has edited it; but the new version is faulty.) How can I add the former version ? Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you wish to revert the image to the previous version, click the revert link to the left of the version you want to revert to. If the file is from Wikimedia Commons, you will need an account there in order to revert images. Before you do this, it is a good idea to talk to the user who uploaded the new version that you believe is faulty.
    If you want to keep the new version but use the old version under a different name, you can do so by clicking on the old version in the file history, save it to your computer, and upload it again using a different file name. --Mysdaao talk 13:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    how can I send this page to a friend?

    Dear Team, due my less knowledge I could find any button where I can send this page to a friend !? kind regards

    student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.145.105 (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Send them a link to the page via email. Supertouch (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You can send the URL of the page you want through an e-mail. Near the top of your browser there should be an address bar that contains the URL of the page you are looking at. Copy that address and paste it an e-mail that you send to your friend, who can use that URL in their browser to load the same page, as long as he or she has Internet access.
    Another alternative is to save it as a PDF, but you need an account for that. If you create an account, there will be a link on the left side of every Wikipedia page that says "Download as PDF" which allows you to save that page as a PDF file, which you can then send. --Mysdaao talk 13:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Energy efficient Gear Boxes

    How worm reducers are less energy efficient gear boxes when compared to helical gear boxes ?

    How much percentage saving in energy can be achieved by using helical gear boxes in place of worm gear boxes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vssajeevan (talk • contribs) 14:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried the Science section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. TNXMan 15:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Archiving

    My talk page is becoming fairly long (76 kilobytes), but I do not currently want older posts on my talk page archived. I am correct that it is not mandotory to have older posts on my talk page archived, right? And if I choose I to archive, how do I go about doing it. Any help would be much appreciated. Immunize (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not mandatory, but is recommended (ease of reading, etc.). MiszaBot is most commonly used to archive pages and you find more information on using it here. TNXMan 15:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I might consider when my talk page becomes much longer than it is currently, but right now I think it would be best if all previous topics of discussion on my talk page were visible. Immunize (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you'd like to see an example of archiving in action, you can see my talk page and associated archives. On the other hand, this user choose not to archive. It's your call, either way. TNXMan 16:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are descriptions of different techniques at WP:ARCHIVE. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    security question

    I just got an email in Russian saying that someone on the Russian wikipedia requested a password change using my username (I don't actually know Russian, but thanks to Babelfish, I did figure out the general gist of the message). Does this mean someone is trying to hack into my account? If so, what should I do to ensure the security of my wikipedia account?--little Alex (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not necessarily a hacker. Have you unified your accounts? If so, it is possible that a user on Ru Wikipedia thinks that it's their user name and is trying to change the pw. I am pretty sure that if you take no action on the e-mail the pw will not be changed. – ukexpat (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ukexpat is correct. Receiving one these emails does nothing unless you act on it. Once in a blue moon, a vandal will send one of these in an effort to cause panic, but it actually does nothing. TNXMan 17:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hidden edits on talk page

    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't figure out why the edits at Talk:European colonization of the Americas don't show up, can anyone help me fix it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The "close comment" wikicode was missing a dash. I've fixed it up for you. TNXMan 17:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. No wonder I couldn't figure out what was wrong! Clearly needed expert attention. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're too kind. :) I've found that if large chunks of text go missing, it's either a goofed comment code or a misplaced ref tag. TNXMan 18:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying to find a bit of amusing vandalism

    I once saw an edit which read something like, "Beetles do not wear yarmulkes, because they are not Jewish". This must be in someone's "funny vandalism" section of his or her user page, since that's the only way I would have seen it, but I checked some pages and couldn't find it. This edit came up in conversation and I would like to be able to show it to someone. I am just wondering if, by any chance, someone is familiar with this edit or knows a way to find it? Keepscases (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you cannot find it with Special:Search, then the edit is probably buried in the history of some page, where it is no longer visible to the search tools that I know about. Celebrating clever instances of vandalism on Wikipedia simply encourages more vandalism, however, so please don't do it. If you want to read something funny, check out Uncyclopedia which is an entire site dedicated to screwball nonsense like this. --Teratornis (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Do we have a 'template' for an article about a film?

    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed that Wikipedia is missing an article about a particular film and wish to create an article for it. I'm wondering what's the best way to get started. Do we have a 'template' or boiler plate that I can use to start the article? By 'template', I don't mean one of the Wikipedia templates such {{NPOV}}, I mean a sample or example article we can use as a starting point so that we can follow best practices? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that I am aware of. The best approach would be to follow the layout and format of an existing film article and refer to WP:MOSFILM. Also please bear in mind WP:NFILM. – ukexpat (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. It's a home movie I made so I'm sure it meets notability requirements! J/K. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    user-agent: huh??

    Since when does wikipedia *require* a user-agent header?? Undo that braindeath, please. What browser people are running is none of a site's business if the user chooses not to reveal it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.42.13 (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User agent is a standard part of the HTTP protocol. You have not characterized the problem to a point where I can understand or resolve it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally interjecting here, but what exactly is a user agent? If someone can explain that, I could probably understand the asker's question. The article on user agent didn't do much but give me a headache. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The user-agent as meant here, is a header send by the client, to the server along with every request for a page. Last night the search and API servers were so overloaded with idiotic commands by people who try to data-mine Wikipedia for information to use in SPAM, that action had to be taken. During that it was discovered that the requirement for a User-agent (which the foundation has had for years), had been broken for a long time. It was fixed. User-agents are required, because developers want to be able to recognize VALID tools. If a VALID tool becomes abusive (too many requests, or broken requests), they can resolve the problem. If a tool is clearly spoofing (faking) its user-agent, or does not provide one and is abusive, the clients will simply be firewalled and you won't be able to use Wikipedia at all. If a user doesn't want to reveal it's browser, he is allowed to set a very common, but fake, header. This is no problem. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Since earlier today (yesterday?). Er, not wanting to get into the merits (or not) of concealing your UA, why not just provide a false one? - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, providing a false useragent is certainly plausible for users of certain non-Microsoft browsers. User Agent Switcher for Firefox and related browsers is an example. The extension allows you to appear as anything you want if you tinker with the settings: IE, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, wget, even a Googlebot. If you don't already use Firefox it's a good reason to start. After you switch your useragent, you can go to a website such as http://www.wieistmeineip.ch to verify that it works; as an example, before and after switching. Xenon54 / talk / 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, all counterarguments thus far are specious, as you point out a client can set its User-Agent header to anything it wants [or null]. Using something that can be completely controlled from outside as an anti-spam measure is naive at best.

    To "characterize the problem" if a browser [or protective proxy that it's running through] doesn't send a User-Agent header when going to the HelpDesk page, a page simply saying "please provide a User-agent" or some such is displayed and no real information is returned. This is incredibly stupid, as if I then send something like "User-Agent: fuck off" with every request then it works fine. What knowledge has anyone gained from that header??

    FIX IT. Don't rely on externally settable fields.

    The Help Desk is for asking questions about how to use Wikipedia. The volunteers here have no power to make the changes you think should be made. Discussions about technical issues like this one should occur at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Mysdaao talk 13:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Want to help?

    Do you have the burning desire to help out other editors, but come to this page and find questions are answered before you even get a chance? Solution at hand - editors are posting requests for help at WP:FEED and more than half the requests are languishing without a single comment. Then, if you look at those that do have a comment, most could use a second pair of eyes. here's your chance to opine on Philosophic Burden of Proof or French Bull or both. And more. Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 21:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Will get back to helping out there as soon as I can. – ukexpat (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Have added it to my watchlist and will see if I can be useful there. Karenjc 23:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability of school articles

    What's currently accepted for school articles' notability? I know the norm has typically been that all high schools are considered notable, then it was all schools are notable, then it was no schools are notable... I have contemplated making a stub about West Franklin High School, but I dislike creating articles only for them to be deleted. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Schools lists four failed notability proposals on the matter plus two failed proposals regarding naming conventions. Currently school notability appears to be under the jurisdiction of organizations and companies, although I can't tell how that directly applies to schools. I would look to see if guidelines have been laid out by WikiProject Schools, and if they have not, I would then ask on the talkpage. Xenon54 / talk / 23:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The common practice is that average schools below the high school level are seen as nonnotable, but only the average schools; nobody disputes that even the smallest school can be notable if it passes the general notability guideline. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, high schools are notable by default (though I disagree with that), but unless there is something especially notable about a lower level school (including a notable alumnus), it's best to write a paragraph about the school at the School District's article. Woogee (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    February 17

    Truncating Cites

    Can anyone tell me how to truncate sites? In other words, if I have a page were multiple cites throughout the arcticle are referring to one book, and multiple other cites are referring to another book, how do I get serveral cites pointing to the one book and vice versa? As it is, I have 24 cites listed at bottom of the article, but half are all the same thing... make sense? Carsonmc (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You can use the <ref name="Name of ref">full citation.../> format where you only write out the full reference the first instance and in subsequent references to that source just type <ref name="Name of ref"/>. This results in in only one reference in the "reflist" section at the bootom of the page with individual numbers referring to those individual citations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertouch (talk • contribs)
    I will try that. Thanks. Carsonmc (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NAMEDREFS explains it. – ukexpat (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you cite the same page number of the book each time? If you want to cite the same book many times, but a different page number each time, you might consider shortened footnotes. --Teratornis (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Article rating script not changing when rating is changed?

    Some months ago, I enabled the metadata script, which has always worked fine until now. Shortly after I completed Francis M. Drexel School, I saw that someone had rated it as a stub. Today, the rating was changed to start, but the gadget still reads "A stub-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Any idea why the script isn't keeping pace with the rating? Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A WP:PURGE will fix that. – ukexpat (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough, it didn't; there's no real need to place the purge-this-page link on the article, so I've not tried that, but I've repeatedly tried the other processes without success. And yes, I've checked — it's still tagged as "start", so this isn't a matter of someone changing back the rating after I last looked. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When I view the article the gadget shows "start", so it must be a purge or cache problem. – ukexpat (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Quotes before dying

    I once read enthsiastically a section on last quotes by celebrities right before their death. But I have lost the site. How can I find it?

    Hagop Kassabian Dubai, UAE Email: <e-mail address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.227.93 (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Google is your friend. – ukexpat (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can a redirect be undone?

    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As a very new editor last summer I mistakenly created a redirect for the novel Here Be Dragons to the author's page at Sharon Kay Penman. Now I would like to create an article for the novel Here Be Dragons. Can the redirect be undone? If so, how? Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Simply edit the redirect. If you keep going to the redirected page, you will find a link back to the redirect at the top of the page it redirected to. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't quite figure out how to get to that page, click here. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. So easy! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    image licensing

    Which license would apply to an image of commercial packaging that is my own work? NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 03:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it the image that's your own work or the design of the packaging? – ukexpat (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is a photograph of commercial packaging taken by myself. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 03:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons:COM:CB discusses many cases of photographs of objects created by other people. Does your photograph show any art works copyrighted by anyone else, in more than a de minimis way? If so, then you may have created a derivative work, and you will need the original copyright holder to grant permission in writing (see Commons:COM:OTRS for the procedure in that case, and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission). Note that the Help desk does not provide legal advice, so the burden is on you to insure you have not violated anyone else's copyright. --Teratornis (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, that was not what I was asking. I was going to upload it under fair-use, but I didn't see a template that said commercial packaging on it. Would the generic fair-use be suitable for the image? NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 14:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If nobody here knows, you could ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Teratornis (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerned abusers using Wikipedia to gain illegal access to Home Office by abusing Hotmail Facebook and Microsoft Products.

    (removed request to publish the access logs for Wikipedia) -- kainaw™ 03:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Who decides what isn't good enough for Wikipedia?

    Because too many cases of ignorance have occurred, especially the case with Kinuyo Yamashita who is one of the original composers of Castlevania, a 20+ year old video game series with 30+ titles. It's unfortunate the people calling the shots sometimes don't have the knowledge to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.220.114 (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There are a lot of policies and guidelines on what is and isn't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. To start, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not describes what types of content Wikipedia is not going to have, and Wikipedia:Notability describes what needs to be shown in an article to demonstrate the subject is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. --Mysdaao talk 04:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And be sure to understand the difference between a subject which is insufficiently notable, and an article that fails to demonstrate the notability of its subject. An article may fail unnecessarily, for example when a subject is sufficiently notable, but the article's editors failed to provide enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability. This is a very common error by new users. Intuitively, most people expect they can simply write whatever they know. That is how people ordinarily communicate, they just say what they know. Wikipedia requires a higher level of discipline than ordinary speech. Wikipedia already has articles on most topics that will be familiar to most people, so almost everything left to write about is likely to be obscure enough that most deletionists will not have heard of it. Therefore, they will check to see whether the article is well-sourced. Also note that many alternative outlets exist. Wikis that specialize in games cover their topic areas much more deeply than Wikipedia. I doubt there are many people who agree with all the deletions here, however. For example, I'm annoyed that Style over substance fallacy got chopped. Having articles that survive for a year or more and then vanish makes Wikipedia unreliable as a reference, and leads to internal link rot when links to deleted articles get redirected in ways that make no sense. --Teratornis (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, the result of this rather complicated AfD discussion was delete. It seems like there weren't enough reliable sources to confirm the notability of the subject. You can bring additional concerns, if you have them, to the deleting administrator, identified at the top of the AfD discussion. PDCook (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Arrogance with Britney singles and promos

    It's not fair that both "Anticipating" and "That's Where You Take Me" are considered promos with cd singles and even the catalog number on page. A company will not spend money on making a promo look so commercialy good. Besides there are promos of "Toxic" and "Everytime" and any other single. They are on the web, people have to look for them but they exist. Are those not singles either? The problem is that both songs were release in a single country other than a continent, worldwide, or just the United States. Americans are the ones who say they aren't, but people from both France and the Philippines confirm both songs being singles. Do we have any contact with Jive Records or something so they can confirm or deny both songs. It's not fair to delete the article for a third time. I will post and post the same article until it is confirmed or denied.I put reliable sources but they delete them to justify the deletion. What can I do? Do I have a point? Help me make the articles better!--Avram44 (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What is "the article"? Do not assume the people who read the Help desk are aware of something that occurred elsewhere on Wikipedia. Also, I suspect your link to Toxic should actually be to Toxic (song), but that still doesn't tell me what "the article" is. --Teratornis (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "They are on the web, people have to look for them but they exist. Are those not singles either?"???? Just because something exists, does not mean it is notable. Denying that the recordings are notable is not the same as denying that they exist. You need to do some follow-up at WP:N and WP:MUSIC. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Interwiki bots

    What is the best place here on en.wiki to report a problem with interwiki bots? Is it Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard? Thanks! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 07:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Good question. We would like WP:EIW#Bot to give a comprehensive list of all the help and discussion pages relating to bots. Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard looks like the most promising among those listed. That's what I'd recommend if nobody gives a better answer here. I suppose the worst that can happen is you don't get an answer or they tell you to try on another page. --Teratornis (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Entrance exam

    what is the date of phd entrance exam of osmania university —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.143.198 (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Miscellaneous reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    india vs china

    gud day sir/madam

    i feel badly a need of page which shows some of key differences between one of worlds fast growing economies India and China Please add a page about this . thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.71.75 (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps the articles Sino-Indian relations and Chindia can help you? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    lowercase articles produce errors

    Why does the software not allow lowercase articles? It's complicated to add "{{lowercase}}" everytime and also that produces errors, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Touchscreen_portable_media_players, there is the IPad with capital 'I' and the IPod with capital 'I' but not listed in the capital 'I' section, but in the 'i' section with lowercase 'i'. Wouldn't it be better and easier to just have lowercase articles? That would remove all that strange errors... Regards -- Lexischemen (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be nice but I don't think it's a matter of just changing a software setting but rather it's a technical restriction of the software that would have to be solved by a developer. {{Lowercase}} (which I turned into a template link for you in your post) is a kludge and only affects the display of the article itself, when you see it. It will not change the way the page appears anywhere else, such as in a category, because the page actually persists at the uppercase title. If you want more information on why the technical issue is thorny to fix, someone else may have more insight.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I just read that I'm not quite right. We can just change it apparently, but doing so leads to lots of other problems (the solution would be worse than the problem it causes). Specifically, it would break all existing lower-case links. See mw:Manual:$wgCapitalLinks. I also imagine it would allow all people creating pages that should start with a capital letter to start them with a lowercase, and as the default first letter uppercase is the correct title in the vast majority of cases, we would be left with vast numbers of pages everyday that would need to be moved to first letter uppercase titles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    iPod Touch is sorted under lowercase i in Category:Touchscreen portable media players because of the default sort key it has, not because of the lowercase title. iPad doesn't have any default sorting, so it is automatically sorted by the article title, which is still uppercase I. See Help:Category#Sort order. --Mysdaao talk 13:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    unreplied discussion

    I posted a message at Talk:CITV (TV channel) and there's been no replies since I posted could someone take a look at my post ASAP. Thanks Paul2387 13:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It may be that not many people watch that talkpage and you might have more luck posting your discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Regards, --BelovedFreak 13:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikilinks to Categories

    I recently tried to enter a wiki-link to: "Category:CSD warning templates". Like this:

    >>>[[Category:CSD warning templates]]<<<

    The words within the double square brackets and the brackets themselves disappeared, like this:

    >>>[[Category:CSD warning templates]]<<<

    (I just entered the link Category:CSD warning templates without the nowiki tag between the two sentinals; i.e., >>> and <<<.) Why does the wiki-software do that and how can I make it stop so that I can links to categories? Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A normal category link, like the one you just used, will be interpreted by the software as an attempt to categorise a page. If you want to link directly, you an use a colon prefix: Category:CSD warning templates or the category. Hope that helps, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot. If anybody missed it, you can use: [[:Category:CSD warning templates]]. By the way, am I linking this help page to the category CSD warning templates? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears so. I've fixed it for you. TNXMan 14:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    http://search.wikimedia.org/ --- Wikimedia search service internal error. Backend failure.

    needless to say, the subject line should suffice as far as why the message. for those who don't know, however, this is the backend link the built-in dictionary / wikipedia of apple/Macintosh computers use to access info directly from wikipedia database.

    this isn't the first time when the servers were not available. just google this and you'll find out several incidents per year...

    can someone work on this and figure out why the link is broken?

    an entire Mac community (world wide, obviously) would be entirely grateful to have this fixed.

    sincerely, a humble mac user. --Macradu (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been fixed, thanks for your report. --rainman (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyrights Problems: A Wikipedia page on FAO - GIPB Initiative

    Dear Wikipedia Staff,

    The GIPB (Global Partnership Initiative for Plant Breeding Capacity Building) is a multi-party initiative of knowledge and research institutions around the world that have a track record in supporting agricultural research and development, working in partnership with country programmes committed to developing stronger and more effective plant breeding capacity. The official website of the Initiative can be accessed through http://km.fao.org/gipb/.

    The GIPB team is trying to create a Wikipedia page describing its objectives and activities under the Wikipedia account “LauraPa”. To this purpose, we would like to inform you that the GIPB Initiative is facilitated by FAO (the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) and that FAO holds the copyright of all material and pictures produced within this Initiative; therefore the images are used in conjunction with FAO, so please note that there is no copyright infringement for the following images:

    Knowldge_and_information_sharing2.JPG Gipb logo.png

    What kind of copyright licence do we have to select when we upload these images? Kindly illustrate us the procedure to follow in this case.

    Best regards,

    the GIPB Team —Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraPa (talk • contribs) 14:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Couple of points: First the "GIPB team" has a conflict of interest and so should not be creating or editing the article. Articles for creation is the place to request that such an article be created. Second, the easiest way to make images available for use on Wikipedia articles is to upload them to Wikimedia Commons, with a license compatible with Commons licensing requirements, see Commons Licensing. – ukexpat (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thirdly, aren't team accounts against the rules? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed they are. – ukexpat (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    full form

    what is fulll form of BOFORS IN bofors gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.119.88 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Do Bofors 40 mm and Bofors help? (and maybe a "please" next time?) – ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    delete iuvienna

    Moving from talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    DELETE THE ARTICLE IUVIENNA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.168.187 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2010

    There is no article of that name so I assume that you mean International University Vienna. Any particular reason why? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi IP. Stop shouting - or is your shift-key jammed? If you want to continue playing your games, I would recommend WP:NPOVN, WP:DISPUTE, and WP:How to delete a page. →Alfie±Talk 01:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Because it is insulting . Nobody asked you for this, I am pleading since months and you did not hear it so whats the alternative to speaking , simply shouting because you did not hear 84.112.168.187 —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 17 February 2010. reorganizing text so its not embedded in someone elses statement

    Again, I am assuming that you mean International University Vienna. The thing is, we don't delete pages without a good reason, see WP:DELETE. This article has been proposed for deletion before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International University Vienna); and since there were good reasons for keeping it, the delete proposal was unsuccessful. If you find the page insulting, the first question to ask is: does it satisfy Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV? If not, you could either edit the article so that it is neutral, remembering to follow other policies such as WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOR, or offer constructive suggestions on its talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, you need a reason , I'll give you several reasons, first wikipedia is considered an encyclopedia and not some magazine that is chatting around speculations. IU is going to become accredited, but it needs time, so far you have to wait until you write a comment on IU. Second, if you want to make wikipedia a newspaper, which tells the socalled truth on the first day and revokes it on the other day you can surely do it but then the public will continue to consider wikipedia as an untrustful source, in which to doubt. And third, imagine yourself , someone writes an article about wikipwdia and its non-reliable content at msn encarta, would it please you to have the rest of the world reeading about wikipedia as an unreliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.59.100.138 (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The reliability of the article and the notability are two separate things. There is coverage of the subject seen in a quick google news search. It may or may not be enough so that might be something people wish to discuss. Others have provided you with almost all of the information you need, and you should follow the advice instead of trying to instill fear in others that this project will be considered unreliable. That isn't a good way to get what you want. Point out concerns with the article on the talk page. Ask editors for help if the information is incorrect or if certain aspects look like they are receiving undue weight. We cannot tell the future. Right now, the sources say it is not accredited. If anything, you should be happy that it isn't labeled as a diploma mill. Cptnono (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You say that "Wikipedia is ... not some magazine that is chatting around speculations", and then you give us a speculation (that IU is going to become accredited). It may well be factual that IU is intending to get accredition, and is working toward this goal; and if these facts are referenced in a reliable source, they should be added to the article. But that it is going to be accredited is a prediction, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How to write a Family history on Wikipedia?

    How to put a family history on Wikipedia? How to write a bigraphy on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haripad (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is generally not the place to post a family history or a biography unless the family or the individual is notable, such as the Du Pont family - please take a look at WP:N and WP:BIO. Standard form message about creating articles follows:

    A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

    Thank you.

    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 with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite 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 Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at 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. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article. – ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Primary source question

    excuse my ignorance but most of the family guy articles Seem to use the show as point of reference. For example to suport statement in the Meg Griffin Fic-bio "Also, perverted neighbor Glenn Quagmire has shown a repeated interest in her, mostly due to his very low standards, asking if she has reached the age of consent (which would be 16 in Rhode Island, but he always asks if she is 18, which is what many people assume is the nation-wide age of consent)." it uses the citation "The Thin White Line". Family Guy. Fox. 2001-11-07. No. 1, season 3. “Are you 18 yet?”" is this not a primary source? considering that so many one liners in the show where do you draw the line? Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:PRIMARY. There may also be useful guidelines at WP:PASI and WP:WikiProject Television. User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Links to my sites

    Is it acceptable to put links into articles to direct people to pages of my sites that are relevant to the topic in question. I could incorporate a link on that page to return to the subject page in question. I would like to know in advance rather than risking upsetting anybody, you would like to view the pages and subject in question please just ask.

    Peter MayburyQueensland-uk (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please use a descriptive title in future questions.
    This would be a conflict of interest, so you shouldn't add an external link to your own site. This may be considered external link spamming by others. Instead, suggest the link on the article's talk page and let others decide whether it belongs or not. Please read Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest for more details. --Mysdaao talk 18:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    How to delete slanderous information and update with correct information

    I am requesting suppression and the ability to further edit comments and information about our company that are inaccurate and slanderous. I have made attempts to edit the information and have noticed that it appears to be automatically undone by an unknown IP address (see log below).

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

    The offensive statement is:

    Known to travelers for a "ripe, tangy odor",[4] the ranch is nicknamed "Cowschwitz".[3][5][6][7][8]

    We need this permanently removed and for us to have the ability to remove it should it appear again as well as the ability to change inaccurate and referenced information as they are outdated.


    • (cur) (prev) 01:35, 10 February 2010 Wikidemon (talk | contribs) (6,281 bytes) (→Description and products: 3 more cites for this...) (undo) • (cur) (prev) 00:55, 10 February 2010 76.102.12.35 (talk) (5,581 bytes) (Undid revision 343052976 by Mbaust (talk)) (undo) • (cur) (prev) 00:54, 10 February 2010 Mbaust (talk | contribs) (4,936 bytes) (removed references that are offensive and slanderous.) (undo) (Tag: references removed) • (cur) (prev) 00:35, 10 February 2010 76.102.12.35 (talk) (5,581 bytes) (Undid revision 343049322 by Mbaust (talk)) (undo) • (cur) (prev) 00:35, 10 February 2010 Mbaust (talk | contribs) (5,530 bytes) (undo) • (cur) (prev) 00:27, 10 February 2010 76.102.12.35 (talk) (5,581 bytes) (Undid revision 343046201 by Mbaust (talk)) (undo)

    Mbaust (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you are concerned, you need to take the issue up with the Los Angeles Times, which has used the phrases "[ripe, tangy odor" and "Cowschwitz". Wikipedia is merely using reliable sources to report on what they say. If the Los Angeles Times has printed a retraction of these statements, then could you indicate where it has done so, so that we can update the Wikipedia article? Otherwise, I don't see where Wikipedia should be found at fault for using an otherwise reliable source such as the Los Angeles Times. --Jayron32 18:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be best to bring this up on the articles Talk:Harris Ranch ..however Jayron32 i see no problem removing "Known to travelers for a "ripe, tangy odor" as this is a POV statement (maybe i think in smells like mint etc.. not allowed) ..The references for this does come form a major news paper however..its a review from one person and not a news article!!...I take it you work there or something ..do people not call it "Cowschwitz" because there are a few references for that that are fine!!!...Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Those statements are sourced to reliable sources so comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. You may not like them, but they are sourced. No one owns the article, and you cannot "demand" to have anything changed, or to have exclusive editing rights to the article. If you have issues with the article, please discuss them on the article's talk page as you have a conflict of interest. – ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See i read this and understand things a little different..I see that even if the source is verifiability does not mean its appropriate for the encyclopedia ...but i take it this is why there is always debate on this type of things...Wiki "how to articles" over lap alot!!...anyways best this is done on the article talk page.. Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Most relevant here would be WP:UNDUE, I'm thinking. I've given the original querent the usual WP:OWN and COI warnings. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The original poster could study the methods used by a group of editors to successfully censor all mention of Nadine Gordimer's robbery from her article. See Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 and the following archive pages. On Wikipedia, if enough determined editors don't want some well-sourced but problematic information to appear in an article about someone, they can outlast the people who want to include it. But this type of censorship generally has to be a group effort, and there needs to be an ideology of some sort behind it. Wikipedia probably has less sympathy for businesses that want to censor unflattering facts about their business. --Teratornis (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    February 18

    Do even half of the bands here belong in this category?

    Category:2010s music groups
    205.189.194.250 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you be worried about the fact that these bands were not created in 2010; or that these bands are not notable enough for being included on Wikipedia? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 08:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Somewhat my question. Just what is the criteria to be included in the category? I presume it's for when they were formed.70.54.181.70 (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your presumption, compare the similar categories used where the exact year of birth is unknown - Category:1960s births for example. – ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Generation X's in there? Wasn't Billy Idol born in the 50's.  :-D
    70.54.181.70 (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, the category page itself says it is for "Musical ensembles active (touring and/or recording) during the 2010s", and has since its creation. — Bility (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Silly Me. This is the category I was thinking more of:
    Category:Musical groups established in 2010
    :D
    70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous user at 70.29.210.242, problems with...

    I have a problem with an Anonymous user at 70.29.210.242 who is inserting flags into at least one article. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mission_of_Honor#Dear_70.29.210.242_: for a discussion on it.
    Am I not correct that if you're going to insert a flag, then you should at least log in with an ID? This seems to me as totally inappropriate behavior.

    BTW, where do I go to see an these published guidelines I keep hearing about, and is there an abridged version of them?
    I just re-found this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines.

    LP-mn (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    LP-mn (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No one is required to log in to add tags or for most other tasks. There is a short list of things that you must log in for, some of them are:
    1. Create a new article
    2. !vote in a request for adminship and other elections
    3. Edit semi-protected articles
    There may be others but those are the main one where you must be logged in. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmmmm... OK, but I still find anonymous edits bothersome.
    LP-mn (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Your comments above appear to be an attack on another editor, I would recommend striking your comment. Comments should be about content not the person. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is completely correct, and calling them "sleazy" only further hurts your case. Wikipedia is not a plot guide - I have to say this is one of the longest plot sections I've ever seen. Plot sections that long can run into copyright issues. Plot sections should be short and should not be the focal point of the article; instead, the article should focus on covering real-world aspects of the work, such as reception. Xenon54 / talk / 01:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. I've modified it. BTW, I do agree about the length of the summary. I've even _partially_ agreed about the accuracy. It's the anonymity of some critiques that bothers me.
    LP-mn (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    FA nominations

    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have an article in my sites that I want to nominate for FA status. I've never edited it or added on it, so can I still nominate it? I remember reading somewhere that to nominate an FA article you need to be a major contributor. Renaissancee (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please take a look at WP:FAC - I think it's all explained there. – ukexpat (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. – ukexpat (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blinking text

    Is blinking text permitted on article talk pages? Gerardw (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on WP:MOSCOLOR, no. – ukexpat (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Malicious user

    I could find help files on reporting problematic entries, but not on problematic users. One user, who perhaps made no other contributions to any page, vandalized M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun. Is there a procedure or anything I should do to report the user, perhaps for banning? --Thatnewguy (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AIV is the place to report vandals, once appropriate user talk page warnings have been given. – ukexpat (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You can report obvious and persistent vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Before posting there, a final warning in an escalating series should have been posted to the user's talk page (for example {{Uw-vandal4}}, {{Uw-spam4}} or {{Uw-speedy4}}), and the user must have vandalized within the last few hours, including after the final warning was given. Various warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Your block request is unlikely to be acted upon unless you follow these steps. Cases that are not simple vandalism can be reported at WP:AN/I. Of course, in conjunction with warning against and reporting vandalism, you have the ability, mandate and are encouraged to revert all instances of vandalism you find yourself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all. uw-vandal4 and uw-vandal3 both seemed appropriate; I placed #4 in the user talk page. An interesting note, though: A different vandal from a few days earlier had some of the same odd style of vandalism, and at least one of the same changes; that earlier vandal has been blocked. I don't know if it's possible to see if the two users are really the same, or to put additional attention onto the page, or if any of those steps is even necessary. I confess I don't have as much time these days to watch pages. --Thatnewguy (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you suspect that editor #2 is the blocked user editing with a new account to evade the block, ie a sockpuppet, you can file a report at WP:SPI where users with check user rights will investigate. – ukexpat (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ISP history

    how do I get my isp removed from history. I did some editing before I created an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorls2 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Except in very limited circumstances (see WP:OVERSIGHT), that is not possible. – ukexpat (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This link would help in understanding how to contact the oversight team. Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 08:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you make it very obvious that you are the same editor, no one will know! Just continue editing with your current account, and ignore the other edits. Although very rare, there have been occasions in the past few years (I'd guess a handful - and not for over a year or so!) but even if it was an article which I also edited when I signed in, I doubt that anyone would know which ones were the IP edits that I did. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:LOGGEDOUT. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fake template "transcluding" categories on pages

    Please help Bill Paxton, Frailty, and The Greatest Game Ever Played all have the following in them: {{Navbox |name = Bill Paxton |title = Films directed by [[Bill Paxton]] |state = {{{state|autocollapse}}} |list1 = ''[[Frailty]]'' (2001){{·w}} ''[[The Greatest Game Ever Played]]'' (2005) [[Category:American film director templates|Paxton, Bill]] [[Category:Film writer templates|Paxton, Bill]] [[Category:Films directed by Bill Paxton| ]]}} Can someone please fix this (I would, but I can't)? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What exactly is wrong with them? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no categories added by {{Bill Paxton}}. The template is in Category:American film director templates but does not add that category to any articles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What happened here was that 216.211.126.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in good faith added {{Bill Paxton}} to the three articles it was intended for, but substituted it. I replaced it with the transcluded template. The categories are no longer propagating through to the articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was gadget. Before I replace the substituted with the transcluded, the template categories were propagating into all three articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Changing the colour of links to footnotes

    Resolved
     – Discussion ongoing on article talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    At Talk:M25 motorway#Proposal re km and miles we are discussing ways of presenting clarifying information. I would like to introduce a link to a footnote in a couple of table cells that have white text on a black background. I cannot find any way to make the colour of the link to the footnote anything other than the standard blue, which does not show up very well. Is there a way to do this? Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Have replied there. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Paragraph in article deletes remainder

    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there. I'm trying to add a paragraph to the Moscow Monorail article that I translated from ru.wiki. When I add it, it appears, but the text about the stations, the see also and the references tag disappear from the page, even though they are still in wikitext when I click edit. Any Help?

    Buggie111 (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Buggie111: It's a broken set of ref tags, as the "cite error" message at the end of the page suggests: you are using </ ref> instead of the correct </ref> to close your reference. Substitute the latter in the two places where the former occurs and the problem will be solved. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like someone has already done so. I was too lazy to check my watchlist

    Buggie111 (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lists of heads of state

    Should a list of heads of state of a country be splited in many sections by national periods, or should it be an uninterrupted line and notice such things at an "observations" field? MBelgrano (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My gut reaction is it should be split into sections by national periods, assuming those periods are of significance. Sections usually make things much more legible.--212.183.140.51 (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, see List of Presidents of the French Republic for example. – ukexpat (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Monobook full?

    I am using the Monobook skin and lately when I add a userscript to the Custom JS subpage (?) it does not work as it should. After adding the script and saving that edit my entire screen fills up with code—covering even the Wikipedia logo—I then either reload that page or purge the cache and that code is not longer there on my screen as it was, but it is also no longer in my Monobook page hwere I cut and pasted it. What to do?--Supertouch (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any edits from you to any .js files in your userspace - which page, exactly, were you working on? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be on my Monobook.JS subpage, I just checked the history and it showed no new edits even though I have edited since Feb 8?!?--Supertouch (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure it's the document.write part. Try replacing
    document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dschwen/highlightredirects.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
    with
    importScript('User:Dschwen/highlightredirects.js');
    — Bility (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On further inspection, I see there are two more instances of document.write near the bottom, which, if added more recently, might be the problems. I had the same situation one time with the JavaScript writing to the body of the document instead of the head. — Bility (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the scripts having write in them and everything else works fine. Thanks for the tip. Regarding other scripts, I suppose will work and others won't, especially considering that I use a Mac.--Supertouch (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I tested your monobook.js on my (Windows) computer, and changing all the document.write stuff to importScript() worked for me as well. — Bility (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did so as well, and it resolved my problems but now I can't find the scripts I was trying to install...--Supertouch (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Replacing a non free image with a free image

    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I have a problem: I think that this non free image can be replaced with this free image in this page, but I don't know which is the right template to request its deletion, after replacing it. (since the image in question is used only in the aforementioned page)--SuperSecret 21:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think {{di-orphaned fair use}} would be the right one - don't forget to subst it! – ukexpat (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect, Thank you.--SuperSecret 23:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirects on watchlist

    I've looked high and low through the FAQ but I haven't found an answer for my question. Does anyone know how I can tell whether a page on my watchlist is a redirect or not? For instance, having the redirects show up in italics or anything like that. The reason is, some of the changes I track are page moves themselves. Many thanks! Please post a note on my talk page if you supply and answer so I know when to come back :-) Seven Letters 22:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirects in the watchlist don't have any special markup in their tags, so there's no way to tell them apart for the purposes of adding a special style to them in your user CSS page. It could probably be done with JavaScript, but it would take a while to execute, especially if you have your watchlist set to show a lot of changes. — Bility (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia search list

    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    When I type a letter in the search box, it gives a list of results.
    But why I am limited ONLY to wikipedia articles (I mean, those that start with 'Wikipedia') when I am signed in?
    I have been using wikipedia since well before I became a member and have always been able to find things (to some extent).
    If I am NOT signed in, I can find the items for which I am searching.

    For example, if I search for Altamont and type in the letters alta, I only get the result 'Wikipedia:ALTACC' while signed in.
    I do not even get Dinosaur as a possibility when I type in dino, yet this page exists.
    If I search for Altamont and type in the letters alta, I come up with many possibilities, including Altamont, New York while NOT signed in.

    This is NOT about the search results; this is about the search possibilities before actually clicking 'go' or 'search'.

    Why does this happen? Is this a temporary and/or recent problem? Is there something that I need to do when signed in to get to the pages easily? (It is not easy to get to a page if you do not know the exact page name and it does not come up in the list.) hello (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In your "my preferences", in the "search options" tab, do you have the correct namespaces checked? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I think. I did not see that page. However, when I made changes there, I made it even worse. I find zero possibilities when I type in a. I have marked (put an X) to article, talk, wikipedia, template, and template talk. If the above links to Altamont and Dinosaur are articles, then why do they not show up in results? hello (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmmm. This may not be the problem after all. But at least for now, put an X in all namespaces, including the "search all namespaces" box, so you're back to only one problem. Have you recently added anything to your Special:MyPage/monobook.js page? (you don't have one). Did you install WP:Beta? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured out the problem. It is the 'disable AJAX suggestions'. I did not know what AJAX was so it was disabled. I enabled it, with only the five marked areas as shown above. I now get all the suggestions that I expect to get. I find several Altamont possibilities and Dinosaur is there as well. hello (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is AJAX? It seems to be an acronym. For what? Also, when I had AJAX disbled (until minutes ago), I was able to find some suggestions, particularly the wikipedia stuff? If suggestions is disabled then I should get nothing, right? hello (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can do is give you a link: Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Guide/Ajax. Now you know as much as me. Glad it worked out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! hello (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Alphabetized lists

    In a table in which you can alphabetize the columns, how do you get it to ignore the words "the" or "a" at the beginning of table text? 2J Bäkkvire Maestro Test UR Skill! What I've Done 22:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You could put an invisible sort key before the text like:
    <span style="display:none">table item, the<span>the table item
    Wikipedia may even have a template for that type of thing, as I imagine it could be used in lots of sortable tables. — Bility (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See Help:Sorting and Category:Sorting templates. You might want {{sort}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    AJAX in wikipedia searches

    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone know what AJAX really is? The link provided for me under the heading "Wikipedia search list" above seems NOT at all like what I wanted to know. It talks about programming (of which I know NOTHING); it does not mention anything about searching. Wikipedia allows users to disable AJAX suggestions. What is being disabled? Or maybe it would be easier for someone literate to paraphrase this sentence "AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML) is a popular name for a web programming technique that queries the server or fetches content without reloading the entire page." The 'fetches content' part seems interesting. What is that? hello (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In short, it simply means your browser can request and receive information from a server without navigating away from the page you're currently on. In this case, as you type into the search box, an AJAX request asks Wikipedia which results what you're typing matches, and displays them as the suggested terms list. That's a non-technical explanation, and might not be 100% accurate, but it sounded like you were asking for. — Bility (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes! Thanks! That sounds right. Your explanation is easy-to-understand. The AJAX suggestions was turned off in my account until today simply because I did not know what it was. Now, I know and understand. It seems that other web sites use AJAX. I have seen the same kind of thing elsewhere. hello (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreliable Sources

    What can I do, when a page has informations based on a blatantly biased source, which in turn does not cite it's own sources? I am specifically talking about Beneš Decrees and Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia pages, which abundantly cite Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen, which however is absolutely not a neutral source, uses weasel words in it's explanation of history, and does not cite where does it get informations from. What can I do about this situation?

    There are absolutely unsourced claims being thrown around, and it seems to me that "citation needed" does not cut it, and a complete re-write is in order. On both pages the talk section has grown terribly quiet, however, and so it seems the interest of the community is minimal, and therefore it's unlikely I may ever get community's consent. --147.228.209.170 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You might try posting at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard which is a centralized discussion areas dedicated to discussing such issues.--SPhilbrickT 01:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    New word coined

    Hi All,

    I have coined a new word; Povernment - A government that taxes people into poverty.

    I was wondering how I would go about publishing that in your Dictionary section.

    Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

    sincerely,

    Hope Eternal Reigns —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope Eternal Reigns (talk • contribs) 23:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To be included in Wikipedia there must be discussion of the word in reliable sources If you just coined the word it probably is not notable enough for inclusion. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Sorry, but Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a place for things made up one day. Typically, for a word to merit a Wikipedia article the word must already be widely used and documented by reliable, third-party sources. The article may then discuss the emergence, popularity, and meaning of the word. Thus, "povernment" is not yet ready for Wikipedia. If, in the future, the word becomes a common term, it may merit an article then.
    If you are thinking about creating a page on the Wikitionary, read their criteria for inclusion first. Thanks, Liquidluck✽talk 00:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Although we might need to coin one for people who take a brief glance at Wikipedia and misunderstand what Wikipedia is for. --Teratornis (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I might add that the suggested neologism isn't likely to get much support from reliable sources, as the more poverty a nation has, the less effective its tax-collecting agencies usually are. I heard from an economics professor once that one of the major challenges facing developing nations is that many of them cannot reliably collect taxes. This suggests that one way to get tax relief is to move to a poor country. A failed state like Somalia might be even better, although you'd probably have to pay bribes to the local warlord. TANSTAAFL. --Teratornis (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    February 19

    Can only administrators close deletion debates at Possibly unfree files?

    NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion cleanup - template help and/or advice needed.

    Hi. I'd like to clean up closed discussions at Wikipedia:Public domain status of official government works, but I'm not sure how best do do it. I'm thinking of using one of the Collapse or Hidden templates, but I can't figure out which one is best/appropriate. (And wonder if having so many is good; deprecate some?) Moving and hiding/collapsing the dormant discussions is what I want to do. I suppose I could also use an auto-archive tool + search tool instead, but I don't think they're a good fit. All the discussions save the PR one are closed, IMO. --Elvey (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} may work. – ukexpat (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Help me to compute this problem.

    50g of sugar dissolved to 450g of water.How many percentage of sugar in the solution?Agnesdelatorre (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=344953281"