Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moseyman (talk | contribs) at 21:56, 9 February 2011 (→‎Is it ok to have more than 1 comma per sentence? like in Mechanical fan?). 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
     Skip to bottom 


    February 5

    DISPLAYTITLE

    Hi. How can I add extra parts to the title using the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} magic word? I know that using <span style="display:none;"> could hide parts, but what the code to add new parts? 119.235.2.251 (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Be more specific about what you want to do, and where you want to do it (page name? is it on Wikipedia, or another wiki?). Wikipedia:Page name#Changing the displayed title describes what you can do on Wikipedia, and it does not sound like much. --Teratornis (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, I want to change my userpage title from the default User:Example to something like User:Example ABC. How do I do that? I am quite positive this is possible... 119.235.2.213 (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I must inform you that it is not possible with {{DISPLAYTITLE:...}}. This magicword only works to change the formatting of a title, and cannot add or remove text from it, because the title, if copied, must still be searchable back to the page. The <span style="display:none;"> trick is a hack that the developers, when they implemented {{DISPLAYTITLE:...}}, probably did not foresee (or they would have disallowed it). While it is possible with some creative CSS to hide parts of the title, it is not possible to add new parts. You can, however, change your username if you really want it that badly (follow the instructions at WP:CHU carefully). Keep in mind that changing a username is not something that can be done and undone on a whim; choose your new name wisely, should you opt to change, and plan on keeping that name for a long time. Intelligentsium 04:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. mw:Manual:$wgRestrictDisplayTitle is the default true at the English Wikipedia. I don't know about other wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Veiled Chameleon

    I'm curious as to if the c in Veiled Chameleon should be capitalized or not. Albacore (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it should not. Common names of animals use sentence case, with a few exceptions. (See WP:FNAME for details.) --Danger (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually WP:FNAME gives the example of Southern boobook which is a redirect to Southern Boobook (the latter seems to be canonical). It looks like we have a lot of similarly titled articles, see for example Crested Lark, Crested Tit, Crested Porcupine, Variegated Flycatcher, etc. Also see WP:FNAME#Capitalisation of common names of species which says the various WikiProjects decide whether to capitalize the first letters of second and following words in animal names. --Teratornis (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the current exceptions are birds, primates, lepidopterans and odonates. --Danger (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions bug?

    I am confused by Special:Contributions/71.6.14.2. It says the IP address is currently blocked, but the log entry it shows is a 1 week block back in 2006. Is it bug or what? —teb728 t c 06:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a bug to me. It's a fairly new feature of the MediaWiki software. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So how do I report it? —teb728 t c 11:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Poking around further, I think this might be an example of Bug 23059. It would take a high-powered admin to verify this, though. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have lifted the non-existing block, which according to bugzilla 23059 wasn't supposed to work. Hmmm... decltype (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    EDITORS

    HOW DO I CONTACT THE ENTIRE LIST OF WRITERS OR EDITORS WHO HAVE PRODUCED A SPECIFIC ARTICLE ?

    PAUL BENEDETTI

    74.233.33.147 (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you mean a specific Wikipedia article? You can click "View history" near the top right corner of your screen, and browse the list of contributions, on that page there's a part that lists some "external tools", one of these is "Contributors", click that for a full list of whose worked on the article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you go to an article, you'll see a "View history" tab at the top right. Click on that and you'll see all the versions of the article as well as who created them. You'll have to contact people individually though. There is no system to contact every one of them at once. And please, STOP SHOUTING. On the internet, using ALL CAPS is seen as shouting. And doing so unnecessarily is seen as rude. Dismas|(talk) 06:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow the directions I gave, that little tool will show all the contributors on a single page (if there are less than 1,000).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't try to contact the entire list of contributors, only those who have made a substantial numbers of edits to the article you have in mind. The Wikipedia community includes many editors who make one or two small corrections to hundreds or even thousands of articles; they are unlikely to be experts in the article's subject area. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (WP:AGF?) Maybe 74.233.33.147 is using a mobile or a similar shiftless input device, as I would suspect with other recent all-caps entries here on Help Desk. Whether such a low-quality device is appropriate for editing here is a different matter.
    And please note that I don't want to accuse Dismas of BITEing of ABFing. I see Dismas's reply as a warning that all-caps is widely perceived as shouting, not necessarily that it actually is. User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    normally I needs to start a discussion on the talkpage of the article. Mostly editors that are active and have contributed more than a minor edit or have interested in this subject will have the article on their WP:watchlist. mabdul 13:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How can I create my own wiki?

    This is my little brother's account and he was wondering how to create a separate wiki. I have tried to get him up and running with WikiPages and WikiMedia but it's very hard to install and isn't even good format. He says that he remembers clicking on something a year or so ago and it gave him the option of creating his own wiki (Wookiepedia as an example). Now I can't find that button, and neither can him. Can you tell us how to create a wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.57.199 (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you have problems with installing a MediaWiki wiki, then you can try wikia.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal discussions with subject as verification

    Hello, I am a bit confused on how to correctly provide verification when the information has been provided to me by the subject through personal conversations and that of extremely close relatives . i.e My cousin Joy Adamson, author of Born Free, I am trying to verify some information about my late cousin (deceased Joy Adamson) and also am trying to provide better citations for another subject(living person) so that my edits are not deleted. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litzi17 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read WP:COI and WP:CITE before. mabdul 10:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And also WP:V. Information should be cited to a verifiable source, i.e. one that anyone can go look at whether it be on the internet or in a library. Your personal conversations with relatives and friends are not verifiable. Dismas|(talk) 11:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Content in Wikipedia must be based on published reliable sources. —teb728 t c 11:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism?

    Are these recent edits vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamaat_al-Muslimeen&action=history Gobbleswoggler (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe. Maybe not. It may have been a well intentioned anon IP who thought that they could copy the FAQ found here directly into the article. Should it be removed? Yes. And I've done just that. Thanks for pointing it out. Dismas|(talk) 10:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Trouble with Louisiana Senate photo

    I uploaded this photo and I'm trying to attach it to the legislature template on Louisiana State Senate I've never had a problem like this before. The photo for some reason or another will not display itself.--Jack Cox (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like you've got it to display now, yes? Deor (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Linda Christas College

    I am a student at Linda Christas College, in my third year.

    I have been told that Wikipedia has no editorial board but finds a way to continually reject a listing for the College.

    The reason the rejections cannot be reversed? Well, there's no editorial board, of course.

    Wikipedia has requested contributions from the College, and yet, has on numerous occasions rejected the College.

    We have major community professionals on the Board, but evidently, if they are on the Board, that disqualifies them as third party verifications.

    Some students in the past have joshed with Wikipedia because of the obtuse behavior of Wiki editors. One of the most innovative and hopeful new approaches to education in the world, and Wiki editors continually rule against including the school. Must all be graduates of traditional "think inside the box" kinds of folks.

    Wikipedia has no editorial board, and, therefore, rejections and deletions of articles are done by, well, no one. But, at least the anonymous editors are consistent. One look at the history and, WOW. These guys deserve what they get.

    You have asked how to attract more friends to Wikipedia in your introductory materials. My first suggestion would be not to take 5,000 families and trash them by asking them for financial support, and then negatively working them over by anonymous editors. 5000 families representing the 5,000 students attending Linda Christas College who will not forget the anonymous way in which the College has been treated.

    Just in case you have anyone who would like to reverse the real travesty that is the "no editorial board" rejections of Linda Christas College, our Provost's name is Dr. Ann Voisin. Her e-mail station is [details removed].

    Please don't pretend that you are wanting to improve Wikipedia (as in the intro when I opened my account) when large swaths of the population are eliminated by, well, no one really. Just anonymous editors who really need to do something else with their lives.

    Insulted by Wikipedia in Virginia

    Adelard Smithson, Class of '12 Linda Christas College — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelard55 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, I thought you said your name was Lara DeSoleil. ―cobaltcigs 12:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion can be reversed if it can be shown that multiple reliable sources have provided significant coverage of the college. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The hours Linda Christas proponents have spent here, railing against Wikipedia editors' various failings with regard to their institution, would be far better spent by (a) providing us with the citations we need to support an article or (b) persuading the reputable independent media to write or broadcast something about the college's achievements, thus creating coverage we can cite and removing the current obstacle to an Wikipedia article. I suggest you ask your principal to explain tertiary source, if the article itself is unclear. Please try to understand: it is not Wikipedia's fault that the media has not yet given substantial coverage to this institution. When it does, we'll be right here. Karenjc 13:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you think, as you've acknowledged in your question, that the fact that multiple different editors keep telling you the same thing is very telling—even more than if a unified "editing board" existed and gave you a unified answer? That answer would not change if we had an "editing board" because it is our policies for inclusion that you keep coming up against (and cannot meet); not the people you keep blaming and insulting, rather than taking on what they are telling you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it's time to drop the stick? I can see near dozens of AfDs and they all came to the same conclusion, non-notable, self-promotional and spam. The accusations towards editors and Wikipedia itself will get you nowhere, neither will sock puppetry or meat puppetry. You have exhausted near every avenue of good faith available to you. Rehevkor ✉ 16:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Linda Chritas spammers never drop the stick. There are blog posts from all over the net with people complaining about how the supposed students and supposed faculty of this supposed school repeatedly complain about being filtered out of discussions, there are lots of complaints about fraud, the school is not accredited, and there have not been a single, solitary, reliable source provided that would show that the school is anything other than a diploma mill. Corvus cornixtalk 00:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    IPv6

    Are Mediawiki wiki's ready (specifically Wikipedia) for IPv6? How will anonymous edits be handled? --XRDoDRX (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 83#Wikipedia IPv6 deployment.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, take a look at the external links section in article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dai_Bai_Zan_Cho_Bo_Zen_Ji. Wiki is not a forum to promote one's dharma talks and websites. Should it be erased? Isn't this spamming? Spt51 (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I'd strip all but the first link (the official site?) and a consensus can be gained on the talk page on which of the others, if any, are worthy of being kept. Rehevkor ✉ 15:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Contributions

    How do I add my previous contributions under a miscellaneous IP address to my new account. Johnny Boulton (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not possible, a previous response such a question may be of some assistance though: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 July 2#Transferring IP edits to a username. Rehevkor ✉ 15:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Making myself a contributor to a portal

    Good Morning,

    I have recently set up a wikipedia account, and tried to add myself as a contributer to the mathematics portal. When I did this I accidently added or modified someone elses information, and I do not know how to correct this error. I would like to contact the person who's profile information I goofed up, and add myself as a contributor to the mathematics portal. Can anyone explain to me how I would go about this? Any information that anyone could provide would be greatly appreciated. you can contact me at [details removed].

    Thanks in advance,

    Russ VanderHorst — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russellvanderhorst (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That was a tricky editing task to start your editing career here - I've fixed it for you. There's no need to apologise to anyone; mistakes can easily be undone or corrected.
    At Wikipedia we don't use emails much; I have removed your email address from your question to protect your privacy. I've also left you some introductory links on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We prefer to use talk pages to communicate rather than email where possible. Email is best for private two-way communication. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a many-way public collaboration, where any number of people now and in the future may need to understand something we do now. Therefore it is usually best to communicate on public talk pages, so everything we do remains transparent to all other Wikipedia users who our actions might affect. This creates a slight initial learning hurdle for someone who is new to Wikipedia, as talk pages here do not work exactly the same way as other communication tools most people are likely to have used before coming to Wikipedia. Fortunately, everything you need to know is in the friendly manual. --Teratornis (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Don Johnson Heartbeat (song)

    Heartbeat is a 1986 song by Don Johnson. It was released as a single and included on the album of the same name. It became an international hit, peaking at #5 on the Billboard Hot 100, and charting highly in many European countries. It was also ranked at #90 on the list of the 100 Worst Songs Ever by Matthew Wilkening of AOL Radio, who commented, "Fame must have messed with [Johnson's] head, because Ol' Crockett really thought he could pull this off."[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.236.76 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have a question? ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I compared your post to Heartbeat (Don Johnson song) and found a single difference: You correctly say "100 Worst Songs Ever" where the article incorrectly said "100 Worst Songs Even" before my correction.[1] If you posted to point out the typo then it's simpler to correct it by yourself. Just click the "Edit" tab at top of the page, change the letter and click Save page. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia anybody can edit. If you post about a problem here at the help desk then please explain the problem, for example: The article "Heartbeat (Don Johnson song)" says "100 Worst Songs Even" instead of "100 Worst Songs Ever". PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    user page layout problem

    How can i have on my user page User:Penbat:

    • user boxes in the left hand margin and nothing else along side it
    • then followed by barnstars on the left-hand margin and nothing else along side it
    • and then followed by the text in the left hand margin directly below ?

    so everything is stacked vertically along the left hand margin. --Penbat (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this what you wanted?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    yes that looks nice. Thanks, What is {{clear}} by the way ? Just to polish it a bit further, how can i limit the width of the barnstars so they are both the same widths ? --Penbat (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    {{clear}} puts everything below the clear past everything above it, ie so formatting isn't messed up with like userboxes on the left, and barnstars on the right. Per your request here would put barnstars next to userbox, and make them the same length. CTJF83 20:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thx guys. i wasnt sure whether to put the barnstars alongside the userboxes but now think that looks best and incidentally seems to force the barnstars to word wrap to the same widths anyway. --Penbat (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the width is from here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    i noticed that edit but with the previous edit, the widths seems to work out Ok anyway as the text wraps. At least they do on my screen.--Penbat (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, on mine (Firefox on a mac), that has no effect on the widths.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am firefox on a PC. It may be more to do with screen resolutions. Anyway i have kept your edit in so presumably it covers different screen resolutions and still works fine for me. Just checked and my screen resolution is 1024 by 768.--Penbat (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just wanted to make a note here, for those who may not be aware of it, in addition to general help questions here, there's also a questions page for help specifically to do with userpage design, which btw, could use more people patrolling it. -- œ™ 00:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Userbox template code

    I created User:UBX/Multiple music artists, but I don't quite have the experience with templates to make it the way I want it to be. I would like it to have up to 10 parameters for music artists, which I could do fine (and will finish doing later), but I can't figure out how to get the "and" to crop up before the last artist/band specified regardless of whether or not a user fills in all the parameters. How do I code the template to where the "and" appears before the last parameter regardless of whether 3, 6, or 10 parameters are used by a user? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Template {{Fb r header}} copes with a variable number of unnamed parameters; it does this by requiring an extra, named, numeric parameter to tell it how many there are. Any use? -- John of Reading (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Doris Miles Disney

    My aunt was Doris Miles Disney,mystery writer, and I have have written an article about my memories of her. How do I add it to the brief summary now shown on her page? Thank you, George Tolve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgetol (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello George. I see you have already contributed to the article. Unfortunatly personal memories are beyond the scope of an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. In the future if you have something to contribute to the article you can suggest it at the talk page. Rehevkor ✉ 23:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add a little more to Rehevkor's explanation, the reason your memories of your aunt are outside Wikipedia's scope is because Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Every fact published here must be capable of being confirmed in material that has already been published somewhere else, in a reliable source. Personal anecdotes, unpublished memories and the like don't qualify, no matter how close the contributor has been to the subject of the article, because they can't be checked or confirmed. As Ms Disney's nephew you have a potential conflict of interest, which means you're discouraged from making changes to the article (particularly if those changes are in any way controversial), which is why Rehevkor suggests you discuss them on the talk page first. However, plain factual changes, supported by citations to good reliable published sources, would be unlikely to cause concern. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view explains the site's policy on the neutral and factual presentation of information. Karenjc 14:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm trying to find a way to get a template to link to all its contents and appear on the respective pages, but I wanted to know if there was a faster way to get it to work take Template: Florida House of Representatives for example, I would like to find a way to the make these links attach to their pages without having to manually go and add them to the respective pages.--Jack Cox (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There's nothing for it but to edit each page. If you're going to do a lot of this, you might consider applying for permission to use AutoWikiBrowser. This which would allow you to make each edit with fewer clicks and keystrokes. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there any bot that can do this? I do believe that I can remember that any bot on request will do such tasks (in case the Jack hasn't enough experience with AWB)... mabdul 12:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    February 6

    Alexandra Powers

    Hi! Would it ok to upload a photo of Alexandra Powers from this link: http://www.fandango.com/celebrityphotos/alexandrapowers_p57553 or this link: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_47108/alexandra-powers/photo I think her page needs a photo. But that's just my opinion. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I would imagine, since the subject is still alive, they would fail the WP:NFCC, as a free alternative could feasibly be produced. Rehevkor ✉ 00:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    how i enter the new information in wikipedia ?

    Hello Wiki !

    i want to enter the new information in wikipedia , but i dont know that how i can do it ?

    Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.102.30.50 (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Try looking at Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion for WP

    Hi,

    My suggestion is to have definitions of the words used in links to other pages. For instance if I look up scientific matter like quantum physics I, as a layman, end up more confused than when I started. The links may lead to other pages that explain, for instance, fermions, but the original page may be much easier to read when high lighting over hyperlinks also displays a brief definition of the word in question.

    Thanks for your time,

    Roy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.20 (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you create a free account then you can enable Navigation popups under "Gadgets" at Special:Preferences. This displays the start of the linked page (which will often contain a definition or introduction) when you hover over a link. Hovering over fermion gives me:
    "In particle physics, fermions are particles that obey Fermi–Dirac statistics. They are named after Enrico Fermi. In contrast to bosons, which obey Bose–Einstein statistics, only one fermion can occupy a quantum state at a given time."
    I can then hover over each of the displayed links while still remaining on this page. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary style

    I haven't been able to find an answer to this, when doing an article in summary style, what length should the summary section be?

    In the Burger King article I have the History of Burger King section summarized with 5 relatively short paragraphs. Each paragraph summarizes a section in the spin off article, which is not yet finished but is at 58kb as it stands now. I think the summary is an appropriate length because it summarizes a pretty long article in a rather small section, while others have commented that the summary has too much detail.

    So, what is the proper standard? Is there one? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:49, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

    Circular reference for Hibernate Query Language (HQL)

    HQL and Hibernate Query Language (used as links in many articles) redirect to Java Persistence Query Language; section Hibernate Query Language in that article has some information. In that section there is a link to Hibernate (Java) (section "Hibernate Query Language (HQL)"). In that section there is a link to Hibernate Query Language (HQL) - that redirects as described in the beginning of this paragraph.

    Thus, there is a circular reference. How can it be resolved? One way could be to decide the section in Hibernate (Java) is THE place for HQL (it seems to be the most natural place when there is no separate article for HQL). The section in Java Persistence Query Language could be dissolved into some other section as a passing mention and the content merged with the content in Hibernate (Java). The redirects (HQL and Hibernate Query Language) should then point to Hibernate (Java) instead of Java Persistence Query Language. What do you think?--Mortense (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Java Persistence Query Language could be merged into Hibernate Query Language section that is in Hibernate. Steps for the merge can be found in WP:MERGE. ~ Elitropia (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't a merge a rather drastic step to take? --Mortense (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not in this case. JPQL is based on HQL and HQL is provided by Hibernate. The section of HQL is existing in both articles in JPQL and Hibernate. From the merge page: "Reasons to merge a page include the following: unnecessary duplication of content, significant overlap with the topic of another page, and minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic." Also, we don't directly take the step, we propose it first as it is told in WP:MERGE. But, mine is just an offer of course, since you asked about the ideas. If you think this is drastic, the other solution could be that the link of HQL in Hibernate could redirect to Hibernate Query Language in Java Persistence Query Language instead of the main article itself. But still confusing. ~ Elitropia (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't intended as a rhetorical question, I just have mostly done copy-editing up to this point. --Mortense (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other side, you can always start a discussion in the talk page of these two articles which is best to do. Then the watchers of these articles could provide opinions, too ; ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean merging is difficult? I carried it out once. You only follow the steps in the merge article. If it comes to that point with these articles you mention, I could look out, help. But as I said earlier, discussions on the talk pages also would help to get more opinions. ~ Elitropia (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Protecting Page.

    Sir

    I am unable to protect my page Rattan Hose from Editing. Please let me know in simple detail.

    Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slaich2000 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Simple detail: it cannot or will not be done. This website is designed to allow anyone to edit pages. You explicitly agreed to that when you entered the page text and clicked "save". DMacks (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The page Rattan Hose has been deleted as it appeared to be advertising or promotion for the company. You state at your user page "Rattan Hose in an Indian Company and needs the information to be protected against outside public to avoid external editing". But I'm afraid it doesn't work that way – this is Wikipedia, and with very few exceptions, any page can be edited by any person. No-one owns a page. If you want to re-create the page, you should first read Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest, and then I would suggest you use the article wizard which you can access from this page. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Foreclosure

    Hello, I got a letter from the city council I will have my house foreclosed, I have no money to pay my debts. What can I do? I don't want to end up homeless. Suzette Marguerette Peters, Bethesda, MD. Tlph. [details removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.111.7 (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact your lawyer. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Agave. A plant with many uses.

    Has anyone in the Wikipedia familly any experience of any variety of Agave used in Bioenergy development? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.197.135 (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a mention of Bioenergy in the Agave article, so you could start by reading the works mentioned in footnote 7. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ronald Reagan Aritcle

    I'm not sure how to let you know when there is a spelling issue in an article. In the Ronald Reagan article there is a line with what I think is the wrong word.

    Reagan joked, the producers "didn't want them good, they wanted them Thursday.

    Isn't this supposed to be thirsty? If Thursday is correct then I think more context needs to be added because it doesn't make much sense.

    Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.185.225 (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The quote's sourced to this Washington Post article, and Thursday seems to be correct. The context seems clear to me - the producers didn't care whether the B-movies were any good, they just wanted them to be made extremely quickly. I'm not sure how producers could want a movie "thirsty". Karenjc 14:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I read the image use policy but didn't understand it, so am asking for a "copyright for dummies" explanation please. If you take a photo of a painting or a sculpture, is it okay to use this on wikipedia?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    When was the painting "published" (first authorized edition placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority)? Was it prior to January 1, 1923? When did the painter die? Was it more than 70 years ago?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a specific example in mind I'm afraid. The context was that I was advising an editor at WP:Requests for feedback about this article: Bobbi Mastrangelo. I wanted to suggest adding some pictures, but then realised I was totally confused about what would be allowed. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This stuff is not easy and not easily distilled to simple rules. As best I understand it (and you might want to get a second opinion at WP:MCQ) if the painting is of US origin, and is in the public domain, then a photograph of the painting is not copyrightable under the doctrine of originality of expression (at least in the U.S.) and so you can ignore the fact that it is a photograph of a painting, and just look to the copyright of the painting, if any. Turning to that inquiry, if it was published (and with paintings I believe the language I quoted above regarding publication is the applicable standard) prior to January 23, 1923 in the U.S., then it's public domain. If you don't know the publication date, then you have to look to the artist's date of death--more than 70 years ago for the U.S. (more than 100 years ago for many other countries). The inquiries to determine whether a work is public domain are different if the country of origin is different. See :Commons:Licensing. Take a look at {{PD-art-US}} and its talk page for more on this. If the work is not in the public domain (or not freely licensed and with a license compatible with ours), then you have to turn to fair use—using copyrighted media under a claim that the use is fair under certain circumstances, despite copyright persisting. See WP:NFCC for more—another area that has many complexities. That's about the best I can do and I can't guarantee that everything I have said here is correct in all particulars.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the specific artist, now that I've looked at the article, since she's still alive and all of her works are post 1923, they are all presumed copyrighted. So in order for us to use them, they would need to have been released into the public domain by the copyright owner or be compatibly freely-licensed. If not, fair use is the only route.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your detailed response :) --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    information about bluetooth devices

    i want bluetooth devices information which have a capacity of 50-100metres to send rays from it and with device cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.108.203.170 (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried the computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.Template:Z38--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Burki

    REPORT User:Qwyrxian SITE: BURKI REASON: This is my tribe and much of our history is oral passed down from one generation to the next. This user has decided to become the policeman of our site having no ties to our tribe which begs the question: why is this person determined to delete info that can easily be verified on " notable personalities" on google? The two Olympians true don't have their own Wiki pages because not everyone wants such publicity. But all one has to do is google them and 1948 Olympics Pakistan and they pop up. The song clearly identifies Pir Roshan and yet it is also deleted. Why? I completely understand the need for accuracy and also recongize the importance of historical accuracy. This page is the only way to reach our tribe members across the globe and educate them on their lineage/family. Yet, Wiki "ambassadors" take it upon themselves for reasons one can only imagine to act dictatorial and thus limit the ability to disseminate information. Precisely what your site does not appear to aim for. I respectfully request that such self appointed "editors" be not givern carte blanche ability to act dictatorially (if this is indeed some sort of power trip) and thus successfully limit the transmission of free and accurate information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginiacity (talk • contribs) 15:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, but any material added needs to be cited to independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a primary source, but rather, a encyclopedia that has articles based on secondary sources. I apologize if I've misunderstood, but it seems that your issue is someone removing your research from Burki. TNXMan 16:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to my message on your talk page, I've now looked at the article in more detail. We honestly don't want to remove the ability to disseminate information, but as you will understand, given that anyone at all can edit wikipedia, we need to be able to check that the information is true. Hence every claim, especially about living people, should be backed up with a reference from a reliable source (see guidelines on what's considered reliable). If you can provide these sources, then the material can be added back in. If you're confused about how to format the sources, then send me a message on my talk page copying and pasting the links, and I'll help show you how to add them. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But please bear in mind that Wikipedia emphatically does not exist to disseminate information on behalf of any individual, group or organisation. It is not here to help you "reach our tribe members across the globe and educate them on their lineage/family". The article named Burki is not "your site". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, containing articles about notable subjects. You are most welcome to contribute, but if you add information to it without providing sources, it is at risk of being removed again by any other user. That's how Wikipedia works. Karenjc 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really have much to add beyond what is posted above. Note that it's not really me editing dictatorially,, its the rules and policies themselves acting dictatorially. It is actually a well-known problem that Wikipedia has systemic biases because it requires written sources, even though much information in the world is preserved orally or in ways that are otherwise don't meet our policies. Unfortunately, though, those policies do remain, and all I'm enforcing are the rules. Let's discuss this on the article's talk page; maybe some of the information does have written sources, but just needs to have those references properly formatted. I'd rather not just keep having to revert that information, because then the article isn't improving at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Something I've noticed...

    Why is it that so often when someone disagrees with another editor over the contents of a page, he/she acts like there was a worldwide conspiracy out to just get him/her? JIP | Talk 17:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This forum is for asking questions about how to use Wikipedia. Perhaps you should try the reference desk, under the heading "Life's Paradoxes", subheading "Wikipedia". Another possible area for further research would be the heading "Psychology 101", subheading "Worldwide Conspiracies". If you disagree with my suggestions, [details removed].--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    More seriously responding to JIP's philosophical question, I haven't noticed the phenomenon he mentions too much. More frequently, I've noticed that disagreements often become uncivil, unconstructive, circular, and disproportionately passionate. Too frequently, instead of discussing an issue, editors only argue. These arguments get out of control, and people say things they shouldn't and refuse to acknowledge any validity to others' points of view. Part of the problem is the environment of Wikipedia itself, which is mixture of democracy, anarchy, and very odd hierarchical bureaucracy. Exacerbating that blend is the fact that Wikipedia is an electronic medium, which allows for more misunderstandings due to sensory deprivation, and also permits people to more easily snipe at each other because one forgets there are human beings behind the user ids. Putting the final touches on this rather grim portrait, I find the endless policies and guidelines to be daunting, requiring immense amounts of time to absorb and attempt to put them together into anything resembling a cohesive whole. Maybe my flip answer was better. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It was :P But all good points. I've noticed it too - trying to reach NPOV does seem to descend disconcertingly often into "why do you want to suppress the free speech of jews/muslims/christians/conservatives/scientists/sceptics?" --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, well, if you're going to edit those kinds of articles ... --Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that most people don't know how to argue. For example, very few people could name five or more fallacies or cognitive biases, much less refrain from committing them multiple times a day. Arguments are productive when they occur between people who know how to make logically valid inferences from the available evidence. Arguments between competent arguers have been the basis for human progress since the Age of Enlightenment. Arguments between people who don't know how to argue barely qualify as arguments, but are mere disagreements that often can only be resolved through force. --Teratornis (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: religion and NPOV: I think Wikipedia's neutral point of view is equivalent to blasphemy in the view of the more fundamentalist religions. To avoid blaspheming, the pious adherent must always take an in universe view of his or her religion's core assertions. For many sects within the Christian faith, there is no wiggle room about the assertion that Jesus is God. (Not merely that some people claim Jesus is God.) Being "neutral" about the divinity of Jesus falls short of the unwavering belief that is necessary for salvation, according to Christian doctrine. Similarly, for many sects of Islam, there is no wiggle room about Jesus not being God and Muhammad being the Prophet. It is not possible to adhere to the literalist factions of these religions while being "neutral" about their core assertions. There doesn't seem to be room for a true believer to pretend to be neutral on Wikipedia, either. The Great Commission does not say "Go ye into all the world and write neutrally." In contrast, (some) fans of sports teams and fiction are able to step out of their universes and write neutrally on Wikipedia without betraying their core beliefs. You can be a fan of, say, the Pittsburgh Steelers without having to believe fans of the Green Bay Packers are going to burn in Hell for eternity (where they might join some recently disgraced NFL quarterbacks). --Teratornis (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For this reason, I think Wikipedia should discourage religious believers from writing about their own religions on Wikipedia, just as we discourage business people from writing about their businesses. Only a person who does not believe a particular religion's supernatural claims could hope to be neutral about it. It is obvious that WP:COI applies when people write about their own companies, or about themselves. Why would it be less obvious when people write about their own religions? --Teratornis (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    People who can write about their own religions neutrally are welcome. If they cannot, then they should avoid such articles. If they do not, then they are going to eventually run into problems with admins and ArbCom. Think through banning people from their own religions! Think about how impractical it would be to enforce! Think about how it would make us look.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What is wrong with the pages?

    I've noticed that after I rolled the navigator bar to the right, the Wikipedia page I was looking at immediately zoomed out. Now, whenever I'm looking at Wikipedia, all the text is tiny and I can't read it. Can you fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony414 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Somehow your ctrl key was pressed at the time you used the scroll wheel. There are a number of ways to fix this. You can hold down the ctrl key again and scroll; you can hit ctrl+zero (resets to default size); you can hit ctrl++ or -, or you can go to your browser's menu and hit view → zoom → zoom in or out. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Image doesn't show

    I noticed on the page Aoba Island the main image from Commons doesn't show for some reason. Any help would be appreciated. --Turn685 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Fixed The parameter 'photo_size' was missing. I added it and now the image seems to show as intended. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Showing navbox by default

    The Rugrats article has five collapsed navboxes. One is Template:Rugrats, which I think should be shown expanded because of its pertinence and the chief article's relative thinness. Is this possible? --zenohockey (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tweaked the template so that "state = expanded" works. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I check my messages?

    I'm sorry, I could not find the answer to this simple question. I have new messages. I clicked on everything on my account page to find them and couldn't. Couldn't find the answer to this anywhere. How do I check my messages? Thank you.Lonewolf1380 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Click the link that says 'My talk' at the top of the screen. In your case, it was just a note saying that User:Silverseren responded to your comments on Talk:Noah Ringer. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The "new messages" banner has a link to your talk page, and, for those cases where the last talk page edit is not obvious, a link to the diff for the most recent edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    FA in other WPs, FA in all?

    I'm trying to clear a backlog of Unassessed Articles in one of the WikiProjects in which I'm a member. I came across an article that was made a Featured Article, and it appears all Wikiprojects were marked accordingly. THEN, an editor added another Wikiproject banner to the Talk page, AFTER the FA status was approved, though the assessment on the new banner was left blank. Do I...

    • ...mark the unassessed WP as FA?
    • ...mark it B-class?
    • ...bring it to someone's attention?

    I'd hate to commit a breach of policy. Thanks. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    FA class overrides all. Just add it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Roger. Moving to assess as FA. Thanks for the quick reply! Boneyard90 (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a problem. If we did not do it that way, there is no practical way the article could ever take FA status in those Wikiprojects, unless it was demoted and then promoted again. FA status overrides all Wikiprojects, since the standards for FA are prescribed by the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, same question, but with GA and A-class articles. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    GA is similar since this is also peer reviewer by a neutral contributor from the community. A-stsus may differe between the projects...(at least that I do change at the time) mabdul 02:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Style guide reference for addressing the reader directly

    What reference can be used when an article addresses the reader directly? Example, from VIRUSfighter Server: "VIRUSfighter Server is an ... so you are always protected, without slowing down your server."

    There is

    • Writing style, "Do not address the reader directly." (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles))

    What is the right reference for this particular case? --Mortense (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I'd use the {{advert}} tag for this kind of thing, or change it myself if I had time. Will see what more experienced editors say though.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It's not, strictly speaking, a guideline, but WP:TONE covers this (second paragraph). There's a maintenance template, {{Inappropriate person}}, that editors apply to such articles when they don't have the time or inclination to rewrite the material themselves. Deor (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was expecting Inappropriate person to be about a person who is, well... It's rather less interesting than I imagined.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Translate

    Dear Sirs I read <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre> both in English and Portuguese. This article is about an important fact in Polish history. I am of Polish origin and live in Brazil (our language is Portuguese). Since I found the English article much better and complete than the Portuguese one, I would ask its producer permission to translate it into Portuguese and edit it in Wikipedia. Can you help me? Thanks 22:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldmtka (talk • contribs)

    You don't need permission to do that, go ahead and translate it. CTJF83 22:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to see this page on the Portuguese Wikipedia. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 22:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Rewrote an article, it appeared to be posted, but when I returned, the old original factually incorrect article was there.

    William Atherton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I am trying to figure out what I did wrong regarding posting an edit of an article. It appeared in the preview page just fine, I went back and hit "save page." and it was there. When I just returned to the same page, the old version was back.

    Can someone tell me what to do?Cassidyboy (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you look at the edit history, you'll see that your changes were reverted several minutes after you made them. You said in your major change that you verified the rewrite of the article through the subject. That's not permissible generally - you have to cite to reliable secondary sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) It was reverted by User:Teapotgeorge, with an edit summary of "Revert unreferenced coi edits." Do you have a conflict of interest with William Atherton? Either way, all additions about living people need to be sourced, see WP:BLP CTJF83 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted your major edits because they removed all the existing references and Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources rather than unsubstantiated "facts" I would advise you to find sources first and then suggest the changes on the talk page as you have a conflict of interest. regardsTeapotgeorgeTalk 22:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have reverted your edits again. Please read conflict of interest and WP:BLP before reinstating your edits. You claim your edits are correcting facts, but without reliable sourcing no one can tell whether they are or you are just messing with us. Astronaut (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    February 7

    Arabic translation

    I have a question concerning the accuracy of English to Arabic translation in an article. I'm fairly sure there are editors fluent in Arabic on the English Wikipedia. Could anyone offer me advice on how to find one? Joefromrandb (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We have categories of the form Category:User lang [optional proficiency code] (where lang is the appropriate language code). The one in particular that you want is Category:User ar, specifically the subcategories Category:User ar-5 and Category:User ar-N. Intelligentsium 01:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)][reply]
    (ec) Perhaps the WikiProject Arab world may also be a good place to ask. Rehevkor ✉ 02:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Much obliged. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting user config subpages

    Is there any way I can delete User:Voyaging/huggle.css? I do not use Huggle any longer and as a minimalist have no use for the page. Likewise, I was wondering about User:Voyaging/monobook.js. Is this a page all users have, or is it possible to delete? Thanks. Voyaging(talk) 02:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I imagine tagging them with {{db-u1}} would be the easiest way. Rehevkor ✉ 02:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Except templates do not transclude on .css and .js pages. It seems .css and .js pages can be added to categories; you can add [[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user]] to the page and it will be added to the category. You may wish to include a confirming note in the edit summary. Intelligentsium 02:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did so, thanks! Voyaging(talk) 03:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Strangely broken AfD

    I was reading the February 4th AfD log, and directly under this entry: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_February_4#Martin_Joseph_Sheehan there is a very strange AfD page, since it has only a single comment on it. It is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homicide Prevention, and was somehow created and included in the log by a user trying to state his rationale for removing a PROD, but it was done in such a way that the log page is broken, I think. It may have eaten another entry entirely, and it is badly misformatted. However, I don't know enough about how the log page includes individual pages to try to fix it without breaking something else.

    As an aside, I was also planning on taking the page in question to AfD, but I typically do that with a script, and I imagine it would choke horribly on the mess that has been left behind here. Can anyone help? gnfnrf (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Taken care of. Page deleted as housekeeping since the prod was removed by user, and I've removed its entry from the AfD log. There should be no trouble with nominating it for a real AfD discussion now. However, are you sure this is a good AfD target? Have you read WP:BEFORE? Right now I agree that the page reads more like an essay as the prod said, but it might be turned into an article easily by a person with some knowledge in the subject area.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the help with the cleanup. As for the article, I did consider if there were any good alternatives to deletion, and my conclusion was that it was a hopeless synthesis of source information, and not salvageable. However, I'm in no rush, so I'll tag it and watch it for a while before taking any other action. gnfnrf (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Followup note: page deleted as a G7 at request of creator.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with Citing sources and the message "This article uses the Cite.php citation mechanism"

    Hello, I am a new user to Wikipedia and have been trying to update an article that shows the message below in the reference section of the article: "This article uses the Cite.php citation mechanism. If you would like more information on how to add references to this article, please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php". I have read through numerous Wiki FAQs and tutorials on citing sources, but can't seem to find the answers to the questions below. Can someone please assist? Thanks... 1) Upon following the link to cite.php, it redirects me to Mediawiki. It looks like I should install the software, configure it etc... Is there way to properly cite a source in an article that uses cite.php without having to install and configure software? 2) If there is a manual way to update a footnote/citation that falls in the middle of the citation numbering list? In other words, if there are 5 citations listed in the references of the existing article; how do I add one that may fall in as number 3, and automatically change the citation numbers (in a cite.php scenario, so that number 4 becomes number 5 automatically etc...) I don't want to install any new software if I can help it.

    Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.195.187 (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What article are you talking about? —teb728 t c 05:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think cite.php is the ordinary footnote mechanism, using <ref>,</ref>, and <references /> described at Help:Footnotes. —teb728 t c 05:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wanted to help and update some Wikipedia articles, then you don't need to install anything! Use your reference and add it in the article text there it belongs to the ref - tags. mabdul 11:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide the article name. The link to cite.php is not useful for normal editors. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the help. The article is for: patent. There is also another one under: Provisional application —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.195.187 (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    OK— those are simply hidden comments. They aren't useful and I am removing them. Let us know if you need more help. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.195.187 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    St. Louis Rams

    I tried to edit the St. Louis/Los Angeles Rams Hall of Fame members and I messed it up. I tried to add Les Richter who was a Line Backer/Kicker for the Rams. He played from 1954 t0 1962 and was inducted into the pro football hall of fame on 2/5/2011. Maybe someone can fix it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.136.68 (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this what you intended? —teb728 t c 05:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    John Reid. Baron Reid of Cardowan. Sec of State for Defence 2005-2006

    When he was Sec of State for Defence and our troops were sent to Afghanistan. John Reid stated and I quote, 'that they would be in and out without a shot being fired' 5 years and 300 plus deaths later we are still there. I can find no reference to his 'in and out' statement anywhere in the Wiki report and I would suggest that it is included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.93.203 (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Find a WP:RS for that statement, and you can then include it in the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Though do keep in mind that an article "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" (per our policy on due weight) - Reid's biographical article should cover his involvement in the Afghanistan war proportionately to his wider career. It might be that this kind of material is better off in the article on the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). (You might get input from editors more knowledgeable on the subject if you raised the question at that article's talk page. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    not availability of language

    Hi there! I was trying some info, of course, I could get that but to my surprise, I could get the same info in Hindi language. How come wikipedia does not have hindi or tamil language support?

    Pl. tell me?

    Balaji Canchi Sistla Hyderabad, India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaji690 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia does have versions available in many languages including Hindi and Tamil. However the English Wikipedia has by far the most articles, so the information you seek might not yet be available in Hindi or Tamil. Roger (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem of external links in body of articles

    Resolved
     – Courtesy of Chzz and Jayron32. Thanks!  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, all! As I'm sure you all know, WP:EL prohibits inline external links from being added to the body of articles; they're supposed to be used only in the "External links" section of an article and, of course, in references properly enclosed between <ref> and </ref> tags. I assume the rationale for this is that readers have the right to know for sure when they're about to click on a link that will take them offsite. When I see inline external links I've been converting them to refs, usually; but does anyone know of a script or (semi?) automated tool for finding inline external links and converting them to proper refs? I just saw our Xkcd article, especially this section. The article as a whole must have 30 or more inline external links. Anyway, if there's no such tool, does anyone at least know of a cleanup-needed template one could appropriately post at the top of such an article, to at least alert folks who contribute to it or have it watchlisted about WP:EL policy? Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "Prohibited" is not quite right; there are rare exceptional cases when it makes sense. The policy doesn't say "never", it says "not normally".
    I think the reason we avoid them, mostly, are because it's an Encyc, not a directory, and such links are often an excuse to get in a non-reliable source, or something that does not add to encyclopædic understanding of the subject (mostly, spam). Also, we want to build the web of articles, with wikilinks; if Bob worked at [http://www.example.com Example.com] then that company may or may not be notable. If it is very likely to be notable, then Bob worked at [[]] could indicate a "needed article", and encourage people to make it.
    The most common cleanup template would be {{External links}}, but there is also {{Cleanup-spam}}.
    See also Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup and Category:Wikipedia spam cleanup.
    I don't know of any tools that help; I've always fixed them by hand - checking them, moving them to == External links == when appropriate, or changing to refs, or removing altogether as appropriate.
    You might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject External links.  Chzz  ►  12:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, good points all, Chzz. It hadn't occurred to me that our external links policy might act as a kind of defacto linkspam filter, i.e. a sort of built-in notability checker. Nice. Also, I will look into the project you mention. Thanks. If you don't mind I'll not mark this "resolved" just yet, to see whether anyone else will have any additional light to shed on the question. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When I come across this problem, I always just strip them out by hand, converting relevent links into either references or moving them to the external links section, but most of them I just convert to either plain text or remove entirely. It's especially problematic for the "List of XXXX products" type of lists, where the list practically begs people to spam it with links to websites to buy their products. Its pretty clear that these lists should be restricted to products which are notable enough for Wikipedia articles, but it is a rampant problem. It takes time, but AFAIK, the only way to do it is to get your hands dirty and just clean it up. --Jayron32 16:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Jayron. That's what I've been doing so far, too, in a small way. But when I came across the Xkcd article with its huge number of improper inline links to offsite pages, I felt a bit overwhelmed: It's hard to even find them all (in edit mode), amid all the formatting that typically surrounds them... Or maybe that's because of the editor I'm using, wikEd. I'll have to look into that more carefully. But it does seem to me that this would be a fairly easy process to automate or (better, I think) semi-automate. Just use a regular expression to find all the places in the text (i.e. in the markedup/wikicode) where there's an "http" that isn't surrounded by a beginning and ending ref tag, and that are outside the external links section, then give (via, what, python? or some other scripting language?) the operator a choice of what to do.... Well, okay, maybe it would be more involved than I thought, but certainly not an especially difficult little programming task, for someone who knew the WikiMedia programming context. Any takers? :-) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Two accounts

    Having two accounts, in English and in Persian wiki, has a problem? How can I edit in Persian Wiki with this account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.25.255 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    See m:Help:Unified login; also when you are posting on a discussion page such as this, please remember to sign your messages, either using 4 tildes ~~~~ or the signature button above the edit pane. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

    If you do not already have a user account, and you make one, it will work on all language Wikipedias, and wikibooks, wikinews, and other Sister projects.
    I can just go to my page on Persian wikipedia, fa:کاربر:Chzz, and edit it as "Chzz" [2].
    If you already have an account, try Special:MergeAccount.
    See meta:Help:Unified login.  Chzz  ►  12:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Now-Commons date formatting

    Many imags that were tagged for the commons and have duplicates lack dates, and what I've found as I've added them manually, is that some of them actually do have dates, but they're still stuck in the Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of unknown date. Let me give you two recent examples with the example File:Sandidge 1858.jpg; When the date is written out like this (|month=January|day=14|year=2011), the category shows as being on an unknown date. However, when it's done like this (|date=2011-01-14), the category date shows up. I suspect this may be a glitch in the tag. Can somebody fix this? ----DanTD (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Now Commons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    The template hasn't supported the day/month/year parameters since August 2008, so all the files in the category that are newer than 2008 are merely wrong. I could edit them all? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about them all being wrong, because I've submitted my share to the commons myself, and have added dates to them, once I was aware of the use of dates in Now Commons tags. In any case, if you'd like to load up dates to these tags, go ahead. ----DanTD (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All the files currently in the category have {{NowCommons}} with no date. Does a bot stick the date in? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it. I've used the NowCommons tag, and I've always had to add the dates manually. ----DanTD 14:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    n Box Media Pvt Ltd

    nbox media — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nboxmedia (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your page Nbox media Pvt Ltd has been tagged for speedy deletion, so may have vanished by the time you read this. Please read WP:SOAP, WP:CORP, and also WP:CORPNAME and WP:COI, and more generally WP:1st and also your talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The advertising page was created after 14:21, honest! -- John of Reading (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    Yes, we believe you, John! I did notice that the article was created after the help desk question. I do find it frustrating that when a page is deleted its history disappears too, and the record from the user's contribution history, so we can't see what happened when. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing TCNJ School of Engineering Page

    Dear Wikipedia, I have been instructed by the Chair of Technological Studies for the School of Engineering at The College of New Jersey (TCNJ) to request a change to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCNJ_School_of_Engineering This page incorrectly states that Tech Studies offers a BA in technological education and a BA in math, science and technology. It should say that the department offers a Bachelor of Science in both degrees. For proof of this assertion please visit this page http://www.tcnj.edu/~engsci/tstudies/programs.htm

    Thanks for your time,

    ````` Peter Szafranski Web Media Specialist Armstrong 165 School of Engineering The College of New Jersey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.207.126 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the correction and the source to verify it. I have made the change, and fixed the broken formatting on the page. I have also removed a section of text describing one of the departments, as it was a word-for-word copyright violation of some of the college's own material, which Wikipedia cannot accept. Karenjc 16:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    editing problem

    I edited a section of "Art as Experience," Chapter 1. I clicked on the "save page" but my revision does not appear, yet my revisions can be seen when viewing my contributions.

    What am I doing incorrectly? Marshallginsburg (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Your revision appears for me. It is put into a box because you have indented each line. The wiki software doesn't like that; paragraphs are separated by an empty line. --Danger (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Short answer - Never start a line with a space. Roger (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Error when adding to a talk page?

    Resolved
     – by John of Reading.

    I'm a bit stumped by thing one. I tried adding a note to a bot's talk page, and it seems to erase half the page and merge two comments together. I am trying to leave this note, however if you look at the page after that comment was left, it's all messed up. Am I doing something wrong here? Avicennasis @ 18:27, 3 Adar I 5771 / 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    Fixed - an earlier post was missing two curly brackets. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome! Thanks! Avicennasis @ 18:58, 3 Adar I 5771 / 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    Facebook Community Pages

    My business has a Community Page on Facebook. Facebook says the page is run by Wikipedia. I would like to add more information to the page but I don't know how to do so. I cant find my business on Wikipedia and I cant edit the page through Facebook.

    18:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.30.115 (talk)

    Facebook does mirror some Wikipedia content, but not all content on Facebook is mirrored from Wikipedia. Which Facebook page are you referring to? Also, before you think about writing about your company on Wikipedia, please read WP:COI and WP:CORP. – ukexpat (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please link the page in question before we could help you. Diego Grez (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend that someone with authority to do so remove the REFERENCES section link to http://www.puertadetierra.com from the "Normandie_Hotel" page. That link is a domain owned by RegistrarAds, Inc., and appears to be a domain page designed solely to earn revenue by getting people to click on links. I did remove the a link to www.normandiepr.com from the EXTERNAL LINKS section for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmdnc (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed using the Wayback Machine. Jarkeld (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Tmdnc, anybody has the authority to do so. I'm guessing that you just couldn't find the right place to remove it from: references are in the body of the text, not in the section where they are displayed. See WP:Referencing for beginners. Also worth a look at WP:LINKROT for a discussion of how external links can go bad, and what you can do about it. But thanks for bringing it to our attention. --ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying to find out who wrote the artical on Tobias Wong?

    Hello

    im Trying to find out who wrote the artical on Tobias Wong?

    I dont understand the FAQ section to see.

    It says the editor but i want to know how that is.

    thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.40.3 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    At the top of the article on the right side you should see a tab that says history. If you click on it you can see everyone who has ever contributed to the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ 20:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And at the top of the History page, you will see a link for Contributors. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Many people want author information in order to cite an article. If that is your goal then see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Attribution

    I'm working on a not-for-profit book and I would like to use a picture from wikicommons, but the only author listed on the photo is MeegsC. He/she doesn't seem to have their email enabled. I tried posting a message on his/her discussion page, but haven't received an answer. Is there some other way I could contact him/her to find out how to attribute the picture? Byronlovesme (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    All pictures uploaded to Wikimedia Commons must be free (as in beer) for others to use, but the user uploading the picture must include more specific licensing terms (i.e., if attribution is required, if derivative works must use the same license) when doing the upload, or else the picture is deleted. If you post the name of the picture, someone here can tell you what to do. Xenon54 (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your request to MeegsC appears at the bottom of Commons:User talk:MeegsC. When you add a new comment to a user talk page on Commons, click the "+comment" tab at the top of the page to open an edit window with a separate Subject: field. Type a descriptive subject name, and your comment or question below. Click the signature button with the cursor at the end of your post. However, you might not need to get permission from MeegsC, permission may already be granted. His/her contributions include photos that are dual-licensed under {{GFDL}} and {{CC-by-sa-3.0}} (for example see File:Grus canadensis flying at Bitter Lake Nov 2010.jpg). You are free to republish any such licensed images according to the terms of either license. Neither one requires getting separate permission from the author. See Commons:COM:REUSE for more information. If you tell us the title of the photo you have in mind, we can check the licensing for you, to make sure it is not some weird special case. --Teratornis (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia users that have me on their watchlist

    Is there some way to see what Wikipedia users that have me on their watchlist? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Developers may have access to this type of information because they can dig around in the servers that hold the Wikipedia database, but neither users nor administrators have this ability. There would be serious privacy concerns implicated if people could view others' watchlists.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody can have you on their watchlist, because you are not a Wikipedia page. I guess you mean people watching your user page. Wikipedia:New_contributors' help page/questions#Who Is Watching? suggests that there are no tools for this. --ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's a helpful response. When you have a user's talk page on your watchlist, you will also see log entries related to the user, even though they don't affect either page. Hans Adler 22:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe watchlists are considered so private that not even checkusers have access to them. Not sure about that, though. As you probably know everybody can see how many users have you on their watchlist by following a link from your user or talk page's history. Hans Adler 22:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    February 8

    Help editing article with reference list

    Hi. I'm working on an article on my userpage about a business guru. Every time I've tried adding a reference or even editing the page at all, the article starts automatically deleting content near the reference section. How can I add references without having to do extensive rewrites? Thanks. --Catchthedream (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume you're referring to edits like this? I don't what's caused that, but Wikipedia seems a little screwy at the moment, as you can see from threads below. Maybe it will be fine tomorrow. If not, your problem sounds vaguely reminiscent of when an old version of Internet Explorer used to delete the bottoms of pages that were too big, so you might try updating your internet browser (Firefox is great). Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I do use firefox, let's just assume it's a wikipedia problem. Do we know when it will be fixed? Catchthedream (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a clue, but you can always save wikitext in an ordinary text editor (eg Notepad on computers running Windows), and paste it into Wikipedia later. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ChemDiscovery doesn't show up

    Hi:

    I've created a new article in Wikipedia, "ChemDiscovery"

    It seems to cater for all the requirements posed by Wikipedia; it's been a week after last change.

    It doesn't show up in Wikipedia search or anywhere else but my account, however.

    Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivia avvf (talk • contribs)

    Comment : 19:01, January 25, 2011 Rhaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "ChemDiscovery" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). [CharlieEchoTango] 00:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You created it both in article space at ChemDiscovery where it was deleted, and on your own user page at User:Olivia avvf. It reads like an advertisement and is unsuited as a Wikipedia article. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that, it also should not be on her userpage, or should be moved to a subpage as a draft so it can be re-written, provided Olivia doesn't have conflict of interest issues.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting an old version of an image file

    I went through the Wikipedia:Deletion process and Template:Ffd pages, along with their respective talk pages, and I couldn't find any way to request an old version of an image file to be deleted (without deleting the entire file itself). The image in question is File:Horsehead.jpg, which has a possible joke image of a horse (head). I used TinEye to trace that image to this website, so I can assume the horse head, besides being unencyclopedic and possibly irrelevant to the nebula, is most likely a copyright infringing image anyway. The only reason I question whether the image was intended to be funny or not is because the file name itself is not descriptive enough. (I may just put in a request to change that.) Somewhere along the way, the file "horsehead.jpg" became what it is now. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 03:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the file in question is a duplicate (or extremely similar) image to others, including File:Horsehead_Nebula.jpg and a derivative on Commons. So I suppose it should be deleted and the image on the article replaced? I'd still like to know how to tag an old version of an image as well. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 03:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would revert to the old version of the image and tag it as a copy vio. The license currently used on that image is invalid for the nebula image. Then upload the nebula image to a different name, or re upload to Horsehead.jpg once the horse image has been deleted. Rehevkor ✉ 03:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and done this myself. The image File:Paardenkopnevel.jpg is probably the closest version of the image on commons atm. Rehevkor ✉ 03:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much, Rehevkor! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ABOUT POSTING/CREATING a new article(about a leading company)

    can anyone pls guide me how to create a new article..becos i cant follow wats written in wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel741174 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:1st about first article in general; WP:CORP about articles on companies. If there's something specific in there that you don't understand, please ask. - David Biddulph (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Wikipedia:Starting an article. --Monterey Bay (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note the encyclopedia (and to some extent the help and reference pages) expect a certain standard of English. Using SMS language is unacceptable in an article. Astronaut 13:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And of course there is also the New Article Wizard. – ukexpat 14:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hidden category

    I've been working on the backlog of articles needing copy editing, and I recently copy edited Food. Now I'm having trouble getting it out of Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from February 2011. It doesn't have the copy edit template. It did have copy editing listed on the to do list on the talk page, but I removed it when I was done. It seems silly but I cannot figure out how to get rid of this category. Thanks, Spock of Vulcan (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The category is displaying from the {{Multiple issues}} template at the top of the page. Specifically, the template includes the parameter |crystal= (resulting in the text in the template: "It may contain unsourced predictions, speculative material or accounts of events that might not occur"). This parameter places the article into the copy edit needed category.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

    Claiming IP edits from new account

    Is there a way to claim edits I've made from an IP as being part of this new account? I have a vague recollection of reading something to that effect, but browsing help articles and googling haven't turned up anything. Imyourfoot (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, they can't be transferred to your new account, but there is a related suggestion here: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 July 2#Transferring IP edits to a username. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just note that there is a terminology mistake in that past thread: it would be a dummy edit (not a null edit).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thanks for the help. None of the edits were significant so it's no big loss. Imyourfoot (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Posting pictures...

    Hello

    I am totally new to editing on wikipedia. Till date have been using it to source information. I recently tried to add some informtion to the proile of one an Indian car rally driver. I wanted to add some pictures to this artcle but could not do so. can you [lease help me tell me how can I add pictures to a article.

    Thank you regards Atul Pande — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atulpande (talk • contribs) 07:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Atul Pande, and thanks for offering to help out! Here's some advice about adding pictures:
    • If you want to add an existing image to an article, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information.
    • If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy. I hope this helps.Template:Z40
    Does that answer your question? Gonzonoir (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    e-mailadres

    Mijne dames, heren, Om contact te maken met de claimafdeling SLM Claims is mij het volgende e-mailadres opgegeven: [details removed]. Dit e-mailadres is niet correct. Kunt u mij het juiste e-mailadres verstrekken? Bij voorbaat mijn dank. A.H. van Riet <personal contact details redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.17.30 (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.Template:Z25 Gonzonoir (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the OP's personal contact details to protect them from spammers and scammers. Any answers will be provided on this page. Karenjc 09:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Probeer dit: http://www.slm.nl/nl/customer-support/4/klanten-service/reactions Katherine (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Zenith Solar

    Article regarding Zenith Solar, I updated and added latest information for Zenith Solar, but the old information is still showing on top. This old information is no longer correct. How do I delete the old information?

    Thanks [details removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZenithSolar (talk • contribs) 09:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed your email address to save you from spammers' email-harvesting bots. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Zenith Solar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Your addition was removed by Dismas (talk · contribs) because the added material seemed over-promotional. Please see the FAQ for Organisations. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You username is also a problem. Wikipedia does not allow usernames that suggest an association with a company or other entity. Only individual people are allowed to edit in their personal, private, capacity. Please see WP:COI that explains the policy on Conflict of Interest. Roger (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and WP:CORPNAME on corporate names. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    short stories in german language for children

    sir / madam, I want to download / read / copy-paste small, simple stories in german language for children. How and where can I do that. Pl guide. thanks and regards meera9876-----– — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meera9876 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No where on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, and most likely the short story is copyright, and has no place on Wikipedia, sorry, CTJF83 12:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    IF the stories are either not copyright or else published under some kind of free licence - and that's a very big if - you might be able to host them on a web site of your own. You might be interested in Category:Free web hosting services. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we've misunderstood - the question says "download". If you are looking for stories that you can download and use yourself, to teach german to children, then you are unlikely to find any here at Wikipedia. You might find some at the BBC - Languages - German site, perhaps. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Big Problems with WP

    hello,

    I have much graphic problems with WP: Infoboxes are left-aligned, text-size in references are twice time bigger, hidden boxes are now open, in the history tab I can't find any link above, like "Contributors" and many, many more issues. Please fix this as soon as possible. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also seeing Infoboxes left aligned. -- GateKeeper (talk) @ 14:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the Wikipedians in IRC, it's maintenance. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it was announced that it was going to take place sometime in these days, the maintenance. Things should be back to normal soon. ~ Elitropia 14:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So are we supposed to wait for things to change back in the meantime, or are we supposed to adjust our computers, or what? ----DanTD (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can always report the bugs to WP:BUGS. ~ Elitropia (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see this supposed announcement. Might be helpful if a notice appeared at the top of one's watchlist while it's actually going on, so you'd know. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just found this, see the Technology report from yesterday. ~ Elitropia (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK now? I've got Twinkle back, anyway. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cynwolfe, I cannot tell about your page but it was there yesterday on my page, but sure it would be useful to keep it today, too. John of Reading, no it's not okay, the pages are still messed up. Well, patience now ; ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like this is clearing up. If you still have issues, please try Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sweet, clearing the cache worked well, here : ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I too am noticing issues - most noticeably the info box left aline. Furthermore, there is double referencing i.e. in the reference list is the highlighted title of the reference, but also a web address after the retrieval date. I've tried to cache, but it's not working... :? FilmFan2011 (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Next option: patience. – ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Info boxes wacked

    The info boxes for both Google Maps and Bergen Ballpark are showing up on my computer screen smaller than normal, left justified, and residing over the text (as opposed to the side of the text). Do these info boxes sho up the same way for anyone else? e.g., is this a problem with Wikipedia or an issue with my veew? The Wikipedia text that appears on my computer screen appears smaller. Is there some My Preferences that controls all this? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    See above. Personally, I thought the world was ending. --Danger (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    uploading... from user page.

    Hi. I have written an entry about 'kit barker' but it only comes up on a user page. if I enter 'kit barker' into google it brings up the page [my user page with the kit barker info] but not when I enter the same search into Wikipedia..... It doesn't find it at all..... I just don't know hoe to detach the info from me [rivesdaletom] and have it as a stand alone proper entry, there seems no obvious way to go forward. Many thanks for help with this. T Barker Riversdaletom (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The process involves moving the userpage draft (User:Riversdaletom/Kit Barker) to mainspace. However, I don't think it is ready yet. The formatting needs to be fixed to comply with the manual of style but more importantly, you need to cite references to reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject is notable as described at WP:BIO. You refer to some books, but it is not clear how they support notability. – ukexpat (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to give you a bit of help with the most obvious form and format problems. Roger (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please write complete grammatical sentences. Do you have an allergy to the word "He"? Roger (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've helped some as well with some of the more obvious things like making lists, ISBN magic and stray formatting. But as pointed out, notability is significant concern.Naraht (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Naraht, I have just completely overwritten all your edits with mine. The perils of simultaneous editing! Roger 16:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all of them! :)17:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    How can I get my WP back ...

    ... to as it was yesterday? For example, look and feel of article history, user talk page, my contributions, etc. And as for performance! :( Any help appreciated. Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 17:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Patience, see above! There are some upgrades being done I think. Try bypassing your browser cache and a server purge. – ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind that, it's back to normal already. Thanks, whoever. I hope it stays like that now. Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 17:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Article on Bokeh has lost it's Wikipedia chrome

    The article on Bokeh <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh>, doesn't have the standard Wikipedia sidebar and other formatting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.5.104 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see several threads above and be patient. Software upgrades are being implemented. – ukexpat (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct the page "National Analysts"

    Good afternoon!

    I am employed by National Analysts Worldwide and have done primary and secondary research into the origins of our firm. I want to tell you that I had provided last week a replacement/edit to the initial page. My edits were not accepted. I note, this original page with its errors was only created last month, January 2011.

    I do wish to point out that there are a couple of falsehoods/errors in this page. Allow me to clarify for you:

    1. National Analysts Worldwide was previously known as National Analysts. 2. National Analysts was founded by Charles Coolidge Parlin. 3. Donald M. Hobart succeeded him as head of the department upon Parlin's retirement. 4. The origins of the "first commercial research unit" was formed in 1911 when Charles Coolidge Parlin was hired by Curtis Publishing Company to run that unit. The name of that unit was "Division of Commercial Research." 5. This date is significant to the industry and our company heritage, as it is the origin of market research as a discipline as well as the origin of the business unit. 6. National Analysts did become an independent organization in 1943 in order to provide research services to industry and government.

    Please consider my comments above and correct these errors.

    For your reference, some of my sources: Original corporate records, some held at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. History of Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing, page 5. (Wherein Hobart himself explains it was Parlin) A New Brand of Business by Douglas B. Ward (the entire book) The History of Marketing Thought Robert Bartels, page 124 -125. Marketing Research Text and Cases, Harper W. Boyd, Jr. and Ralph Westfall, page 15. Market Research and Modeling: Progress and Prospects, Yoram Wind, Paul E. Green, page 246 Marketing /Research People: Their Behind-the-Scenes Stories, Jack J. Honomichl, page 100. American Advertising Foundation site: http://www.advertisinghalloffame.org/members/member_bio.php?memid=748 American Marketing Association site: http://www.marketingpower.com/Calendar/Pages/CharlesCoolidgeParlinAward.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriciagreen (talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion should be conducted on the article's talk page, not here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please read the policy on conflicts of interest. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 22:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Images

    I have noticed that when you type in certain names and images are associated the images appear on the left hand side rather than the normal right hand side. Is there something going on with the site or is this something new that Wikipedia is doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.135.18 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    At Wikipedia, images can be placed in various locations within the article text. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for more info. --Jayron32 21:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A problem with the rollout of the new software version was causing issues with image placement. I think it's fixed now, so please bypass your cache to make sure. – ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism on Ishmael Khaldi page

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_Khaldi repeated vandalism and violations by User Zkharya. Needs to be reported and probably user should be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joatsimeon (talk • contribs) 21:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not vandalism. Please read WP:VAND to see what is. Oh, and watch out, if you keep reverting non-vandalism, you could be blocked for WP:3RR violation. CTJF83 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)That is absolutely not vandalism. Looks like you two need to work this out at the article talk page using civil discourse. You stand to be blocked yourself for edit warring over a content dispute. Leave the article alone and work out disputes on the article talk page, seeking help from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you need aditional help to resolve your differences. --Jayron32 21:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, well personal attacks on a private individual and irrelevant and unsourced material looks a lot like vandalism to me. It strikes me as though there are a lot of violations there (and I note that the user has been blocked previously for it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joatsimeon (talk • contribs) 21:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    note both given 3RR warning. CTJF83 21:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joatsimeon: We're not saying that his (or your) edits are perfect; but what we are saying is to stop fighting in the text, behave like mature adults, and take your conflict out of public view in the article talk pages. If you can't work this out, seek help from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You make claims that his edits are in error; seek outside help to decide if they are. They do not appear to be vandalism at first glance; given that they involve referenced text and a clear attempt to improve the article, at least from his point of view. Note that not every attempt to improve an article is necessarily an actual improvement, but all such good-faith attempts are never vandalism and you should not claim that someone is trying to make the article worse (which is what vandalism is; a deliberate attempt to make wikipedia worse) when they are not. Even if they are making it worse (and I do not say they are, I am merely conceding it for the point of the next statement), as long as they are doing so in the attempt to make it right, you shouldn't call it vandalism. Try to work with them constructively, and if that hits a roadblock, ask for help as described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Jayron32 21:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, remember to assume good faith. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 22:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Reference issue removed?

    I work for the company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpower_Pictures

    For two years it's had the issue with primary sources, but I have since updated it to only use third-party sources.

    How do I see to it that the issue is removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.66.210 (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Once the issue is resolved, you may remove the tag. I have done this for you. CTJF83 21:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    New format for pages?

    Hi, I guess somethings have changed and many infoboxes that were on the right are now on the left! E.g. Patronages of Saint George looks chaotic now. How do we move the infobox back to where it was on the right? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ?? The infobox is on the right, the table of contents is on the left. CTJF83 22:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the same. Infobox on the right. Right where it's always been. Dismas|(talk) 22:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. I tried Internet explorer and infobox is on the right as you guys said. But on Firefox I see it on the left, out of order. The same is true on several other pages, e.g. I also see Saint Joseph as out of order in FireFox but ok on Micorsoft's browser. New software somewhere? History2007 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Dunno, I am, and have for years used firefox, and have never seen an infobox on the right. WP:VPT issue? CTJF83 22:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The navbox at the end of the pages used to look strange earlier today. They have fixed that since. I remember some notice about new software for Wikipedia somewhere. Was that today? Where do we ask? History2007 (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Try WP:VPT CTJF83 22:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There we go: Wikipedia:VPT#infobox_alignment_out_of_line other people have that problem too. History2007 (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, cool, does purging your cache fix the issue? CTJF83 23:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it looks ok now. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure CTJF83 23:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Charley Parhurst

    Charley Parkhurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    How does one go about editing or correcting and article. The info you provide to do so seems to go in circles with no end. My concern is the Charley Parkhursts articles. Being a Parkhurst and reviewing Ancestory and LDS sites I believe Charley Parkhurst was born Mary Parkhurst in Sharon Vermont in 1812. She had two siblings Charles D. and Maria. Charles D.was born in 1811 and died in 1813. Her mother Mary (Morehouse) Parkhurst died in 1812. Sometime after Charles died and prior to her fathers marrage to Lucy Chushing in 1817 Mary and Maria were taken 19 miles away to an orphange in Lebanon New Hampshire. When Mary left (escaped) the orphanage she adopted the name Charley Darkey Parkhurst and began her life as a male. While there is a Charolette Parkhurst born in Bethel Vermont in 1804 who would have been a second cousin I don't believe Mary knew of her cousin.00:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Lucycushing (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you believe that you can fix the article yourself, please do so. If the changes you need to do to make the article better written involve mainly grammar, spelling, or writing style fixes, that's pretty easy, and you can just go ahead and do it. If you need to make substantive changes to what the article says, either by changing facts in the article or by adding new facts, you need to have reliable sources which you can cite in the article. But you are still invited to make the changes yourself. Ever single article at Wikipedia exists in the state it is in today because it was fixed by people exactly like you; interested people who wish to fix up an article to make it better. --Jayron32 03:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add a little more detail to the above. As you are a family member, some of what you want to add may be only supported by family stories etc. That is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes as it cannot be verified, so any such additions to the article will have to be cited to sources that can be verified. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    February 9

    ss paul hamilton liberty ship

    To Whom It May Concern,

    My name is Pat Harris. My father was aboard the Paul Hamilton when she was sunk. I was born 7 months later. My father was a member of a photographic recon group. I would be interested to hear from others whose fathers or mothers were aboard this ship.

    Respectfully, Pat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.165.148 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for your loss, but this page is only for questions about using Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions. thanks! --Monterey Bay (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    More helpfully, you might get a better response at the Miscellaneous ref desk. Astronaut (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You might find joining the Ships nostalgia forums of use. Mjroots (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Anton Nel pianist posted an incorrect information

    Dear Wikipedia,

    I found an incorrect information about Anton Nel, the pianist. He claims to be a winner of 1984 Leeds international Piano Competition. However, his name is not listed among 1984 winners.... Also, he posted that he released a CD with EMI which is also an error. Please feel free to correct this wrongful information. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.155.38 (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Anton Nel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    I see that you have edited the article yourself. You may find that someone puts the information back again, citing one or other of the pages linked from the "External links" section. If that happens, you will have to begin a discussion on the article talk page. I haven't found an independent source for those facts. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    At MediaWiki:Sidebar, I can set it up so that people with a French interface see an item on the sidebar as the contents of MediaWiki:Foo-text/fr and people with an English interface see it as the contents of MediaWiki:Foo-text. However, everyone gets linked to to the contents of MediaWiki:Foo-url, even if they have a French interface and MediaWiki:Foo-url/fr exists. How to I make French people link to the right place? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.236.12 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think your question belongs at the MediaWiki support page. This page is the help desk for the Wikipedia encyclopedia. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Change title of article being developed on userpage

    Hi, I'm developing an article on my user page titled User:RoslynSKP/1st Transjordan attack on Amman - can you tell me

    1. how to edit this to 'User:RoslynSKP/1st Transjordan attack on Amman (1918)'?
    2. When its ready it will need to be moved out into Wikipedia - how is this done?

    (I did look on some FAQs but none seemed remotely like what I need to know.) Your help will be much appreciated. :) --Rskp (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of these can be done by moving the page. On the Vector skin, the Move option is in the dropdown menu to the right of the other tabs. Reach Out to the Truth 05:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to say that User:RoslynSKP/1st Transjordan attack on Amman is probably the best looking article that I've *ever* seen in userspace by a country mile and that at least on first glance proposing it for WP:GA immediately wouldn't be unreasonable.Naraht (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I personally don't like this citation format (I know it is really common); I would confirm this statement. mabdul 14:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still in development and would have to be wikified. I'm not sure why you wanted the move but there doesn't have to be a connection between a userspace title and an article title after a move to mainspace, and "1st Transjordan attack on Amman (1918)" would be an odd article title unless there were 1st Transjordan attacks on Amman in other years. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Couple of points echoing the above -- great work for a draft article! When it's in mainspace I will be nominating it for a DYK spot on the main page. But, I agree that the citation style, although fairly common, is confusing. Why not just use the simple group reference style, citing the source in full the first time (using {{cite book}}, {{cite web}} etc) and named references thereafter, so that there is only one numbered list of references? Also a question about the title: was there more than one trans-Jordan attack in 1918? If not then the final title should probably be Trans-Jordan attack on Amman (1918) or, if there has only ever been one trans-Jordan attack, it should be Trans-Jordan attack on Amman. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Not only is that style of citation very confusing it is also very fragile. It is almost as fragile as the use of "ibid". An edit, for whatever reason, of the "Bibliography" list can render a whole lot of references completely meaningless. The method described by ukexpat is IMHO the best way to deal with repeated citations of a single source.
    I must agree with others, it is an excellent first draft and IMHO deserves a GA rating right from the start (as soon as the citation method is improved). Roger (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The draft uses shortened footnotes, which seems common to the series of articles where the draft seems to fit, such as Sinai and Palestine Campaign and Battle of Jerusalem (1917). If the draft changed to long footnotes, then page numbers would have to be inserted with {{rp}} (which some editors hate) or by creating a separate reference for each citation. The shortened footnotes can be enhanced by linking the citation to the reference in the bibliography list; see Chaco Culture National Historical Park. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Cropping a picture

    There is a picture in Commons I'd like to use for an article but I want to crop out some extraneous background. My questions are, once I've done this, do I put it back into Commons as a new picture, or as an update of the existing one? And does it keep the same copyright notice as the original - do I simply copy that, or do I need to add some annotation? Thanks, Chefallen (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a commons:Template:Image extracted to use if you make new images. There is no one answer to whether you would overwrite the original image or make new images. That would depend on whether the original could conceivably be useful to someone. As to the copyright status, see commons:Commons:Derivative works. You must obey the license terms of the original image when you make a derivative work. For example, if the original license is {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} you would have to license your derivative work with the same license to obey the share-alike condition. If you need a precise answer you will have to tell us the name of the image. --Teratornis (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then again, a mere crop might not possess the required degree of originality to constitute a derivative work, and as such the crop would simply maintain the original license. I am not a lawyer. Check the backlinks: commons:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Image extracted and see how other users handled these cases. There is also a commons:user:Cropbot that has cropped a lot of images. --Teratornis (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    musicals of the 1930s

    cocktails for two sung and danced by man in evening dress which film?. buffer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.3.92 (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick search tells me that it was Murder at the Vanities. See Help:Searching. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The song "Cocktails for Two" appears in the 1934 musical Murder at the Vanities. In the future, please ask such questions at one of the reference desks since the help desk is questions about using Wikipedia, not for general knowledge. Goodvac (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding a WikiCommons image to an existing article

    I'm surprised not to find this in the FAQ... I thought it would be a fairly common question.

    I found an article that's requesting suitable images, and I have such an image. Checking the help, it seems that the only ways to submit an image are either to be 'autoconfirmed' (which I'm not) or to upload to WikiCommons (which I have).

    So my question really is how to get this image from WikiCommons into the article concerned?

    Thanks in advance.

    Astronautilus (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your interest in improving the encyclopedia. All the examples in the Picture tutorial work equally well when the picture is at WikiMedia Commons; there is no change to the syntax. If you can't make it work, post back here with the name of the article and the picture, and someone will help you. I've posted some introductory links on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Uploading a Word document

    For my Wiki article,is it possible to upload what I have already written in a Word document currently saved on my computer and then make the proper changes for the Wiki format? Thanks. Drlavonne (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You can just copy-paste from the Word document into the editing interface. For example, click on the page User:Drlavonne/draft. Then go to the article in Word, select all the text (ctrl-A) and copy it (ctrl-C), then go back to the Wikipedia page with the blank editing box and paste the text (ctrl-V). Then hit save. When you are done amending the text, you can move it into "mainspace" (see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft). You may also want to read Wikipedia:Your first article. Happy editing! Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See Help:WordToWiki. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    nowrap

    Can somebody help me with my signature? I want to prevent that the first dot-line is wrapped from the rest. WP:NOWRAP explained really much, but nothing helps me since this signature doesn't include a whitespace (except after mabdul but that doesn't matter.) mabdul 13:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Article is missing CSS

    The article on 'Hamstrings' is lacking any CSS:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamstrings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.67.66.8 (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks fine to me. Try to clear your entire cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    LINK CORRECTION - "Investor's Business Daily"

    I don't know how to edit, so I'll pass this along for what it's worth....

    In the Wikipedia entry titled "Investor's Business Daily," the second paragraph contains a colord link to "stocks." Unfortunately, the link goes to "stocks" as used in medieval times to secure a person accused of wrongdoing, not stocks, as in the stock market.

    Someone might want to correct this link.

    Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.100.59 (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Thanks for reporting. – ukexpat (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it ok to have more than 1 comma per sentence? like in Mechanical fan?

    Resolved

    Article:

    Mechanical fan

    Typical applications include climate control, vehicle and machinery cooling systems, personal comfort (e.g., an electric table fan), ventilation, fume extraction, winnowing (e.g., separating chaff of cereal grains), removing dust (e.g. in a vacuum cleaner), drying (usually in combination with heat) and to provide draft for a fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moseyman (talk • contribs) 15:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It is OK to have more than one comma per sentence. This is commonly used to separate items in a list. You may find more info in our article on commas. TNXMan 15:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And in our Manual of Style WP:COMMA. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And be sure to read Eats, Shoots & Leaves. Collect (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ...while we are at it Oxford comma too. – ukexpat (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I delete my own addition to a page?

    I should have played longer in the sandbox - I have added a reference (a book by Anthony Eden)in the wrong format to the existing article, prior to adding a small point in the text, and now I don't know how to remove it from the bottom of the references section. I would like to do this and start again when I am more confident. Please can you help? LizinEastbourne (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have undone this for you. Do you require assistance adding this reference? Rehevkor ✉ 15:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to undo an edit in future, use the History tab, look at the differences between the relevant versions, then undo. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Gerard way picture

    Hello

    Today i was reading the Kerrang Magazine and i noticed that Gerard way said that he would like that image changed to a more recent one.

    Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadelovesheep (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    An AP photo is very unlikely to pass muster. Collect (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If Gerard Way was to supply an up to date photo on a Wikipedia compatible licence, we could use it. Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Daily newspapers published by Community Newspaper Holdings sorting query

    Resolved
     – Sorting fixed. – ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This category has members (eg The Orange Leader) sorted at Curly bracket, any idea why this is happening and how it can be fixed ? GrahamHardy (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My guess is that it's a coding problem at {{CNHI}}, but at the moment I can't see it... – ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I figured it out - you need to specify a sort key in the template code used in each article: {{CNHI|Orange Leader}} for example will sort that newspaper properly within the category listing. – ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliant, now fixed the article sorting, Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My pleasure. There is nothing like a little early afternoon template sleuthing! – ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Commonist

    With Commonist, what is the punctuation for two Categories? For example, do I enter

    • Hyperbolic tilings | Poincaré Disc
    • Hyperbolic tilings, Poincaré Disc
    • [[Category:Hyperbolic tilings]] [[Category:Poincaré Disc]]

    ? —Tamfang (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a "bureaucrat" protection setting?

    I assume so when I found [3] and [4]. --Perseus8235 20:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No. East718 was having a little fun, and just typed the edit summary by hand. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    stylesheet not loading?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kino_(software)

    Seems to render incorrectly like it isn't loading the stylesheet.

    I don't know why that is.

    tried in FF Chrome and IE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.46.171 (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    OK here. Perhaps a relic of some of the Wikipedia software changes a day or two ago. Try clearing your cache, or otherwise you might need a restart. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Learning Swiss

    Hello, I am planning to move to Switzerland and I thought it would be good to know some Swiss. Are there any Wikipedian editors that are proficient in Swiss that may help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.128.153 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    French, German, Italian and Romansh are all spoken in Switzerland, depending on the region. In any event this page is for help using Wikipedia. I would suggest that you try the Reference Desk. – ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=412987765"