This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

This help forum has been discontinued. New contributors will instead be made welcome at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, a friendly place to help new editors become accustomed to Wikipedia culture, ask questions, and develop community relationships.

There is an extensive Archive of old questions from 2004 onwards.

June 17

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R207910#cite_note-3

It mentions now: TMC207 has been successfully applied in a phase II efficacy study and is marketed by Tibotec and the TB alliance

And should be: TMC207 is in clinical development for treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis at Tibotec and for treatment of drug-sensitive tuberculosis at the TB alliance A phase II efficacy trial in patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis was successful.

please advise how I can make this correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.129.211 (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit that Wikipedia article directly - just click the "Edit" tab near the top of the page. However, please be aware that if you add or change information, you are strongly encouraged to add a cite for that information, a cite that is from a reliable source. (Press releases, for example, are generally not considered reliable sources.) Don't worry that much about the format; if you include all the necessary information, when another editor sees the change in the article, he/she can/will fix any format problems. If you don't include a citation, from a reliable source, there is a good chance that another editor will remove added information or revert (reverse) the edit. So it's definitely in your best interest (and the interest of future readers) to cite your source. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I only access Wiki by mobile phone. If I try to edit, the 'edit' icon is hidden by the Wikipedia globe logo. Even if I disable the images on my phone, the large square where the globe is remains active, preventing me from selecting the edit icon. How can I work around this? Many thanks Pooldis (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found that I had to edit via Opera, and then I could edit a limited amount (adding a new section, or editing a short section) - but I need to "disable mobile version" to do that -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 15:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a good question to ask at WP:VPT. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

Shift article from userspace to mainstream wikipedia.

How do i shift an article from userspace to mainstream wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColdDarkMatter (talk • contribs) 14:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may request a page move here Wikipedia:Requested moves. Mlpearc powwow 14:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article would need to be moved. Only confirmed users can move articles. If it was ready for the mainspace I could move it for you. The article is not ready. The article as it stands has no sources. Also a book published only 6 days ago will hardly ever be notable. GB fan please review my editing 14:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ColdDarkMatter to GB fan:As to the book being not notable,just search 'Kevin Mitnick' and see what results you get.It's as if George Orwell himself wrote the book on writing and someone called it 'unnotable'just because it's one day old. And as to the article not being ready,there are far many articles that are worse. Here are examples:The Second Coming of Steve Jobs ,Rick Mascitti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColdDarkMatter (talk • contribs) 16:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for Kevin Mitnick does not show notability of the book, Ghost in the Wires. To show notability we need to have significant coverage of the book itself, not just about the subject of the book. If the book is notable you should be able to find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources about the book. As far as other articles that are far worse, you will find them, but just because there are other articles that are worse than this one doesn't mean this one belongs in the mainspace. The article as it stands right now shows a reference but it is just a link to Amazon selling the book. I still believe the article is not ready to be in the mainspace. GB fan please review my editing 17:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of the book in reliable sources such as the New York Times, "Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times would, for example, demonstrate notability. And they would be good sources to cite about (for example) the quality of the book. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

Why was my edit violating the NPOV policy?

Hi, I had a quick question. I edited my representative Barbara Lee's wikipedia page but the edit was considered a violation of the NPOV policy. Here is what i tried to add: "Another very important fact, Rep. Lee in 2010 took nearly thirty thousand dollars in campaign contributions from the pro-war Political Action Committees (PACs) of major weapons manufacturing companies such as Lockheed Martin, Honeywell, Boeing, FedEx Corp and General Electric[32] ,then voted on a bill that may have allocated tax payer dollars to some of those weapons companies that donated to her campaign.[33] While Lee sat on the House Appropriations subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, her committee was responsible for the foreign aid bill, HR 3081 that allocated billions of dollars in military aid to foreign governments such as Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and Jordan.[34] In 2011, American journalist and Democracy Now host Amy Goodman, wrote an article highlighting how US military aid is a form of corporate welfare, exposing how the billions of dollars in foreign aid are then used by the recipient country to purchase weapons, fighter jets and missiles from US companies such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Electric.[35] The article quotes William Hartung of the New America Foundation: "It’s a form of corporate welfare for companies like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, because it goes to Egypt, then it comes back for F-16 aircraft, for M-1 tanks, for aircraft engines, for all kinds of missiles, for guns, for tear-gas canisters [from] a company called Combined Systems International, which actually has its name on the side of the canisters that have been found on the streets there."[36]

What did I do wrong, and how can I edit this so its not violating the NPOV policy?

Thanks

Antiwarpatriot (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're editorializing, something we don't permit here (and I say this as a Quaker who happens to agree with you). If Lee has been criticized for this pattern of what you see as corruption, in substantial venues (i.e., not just by people like you and I), then we need citations to those criticisms. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by "citations", we mean "citations of a reliable source." Providing a link (for example) to a personal blog isn't acceptable. Also, please note that Wikipedia is more than normally strict about additions of controversial/contentious material to articles that are biographies of living people - such additions absolutely must cite a good source, or the added material is to be deleted immediately by other editors. (See WP:BLP for details.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 27

Help? Autoconfirm!

How do you get to be a confirmed user to edit a locked page? Wyatt_1998 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should be autoconfirmed. The requirements are registered more than 4 days ago and complete at least 10 edits. Are you trying to edit a semi-protected article or a fully protected article? You should be able to edit any semi-protected article, but only admins can edit fully protected articles. If you aren't confirmed, you can request it at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed GB fan please review my editing 18:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 28

request

Is there an easier way to find someone to request an article on a subject? Westernhail (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can request an article but it might take a while for a volunteer to get to it. The best thing to do is to create the article yourself. GB fan please review my editing 12:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

warnings at top of page

Hi, I made a new biographical page last December and a few warnings popped up on the top of the page (i.e., I needed better citations). Since then I updated the page, but all of the warnings are still there (still dated from last December). How do I get it reviewed so that the warnings come down?

Thank you.

Annabellebk (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tags that had been on the top of the article. I feel that in general those issues have been addressed. There are still statements that need to be referenced and I have added some specific fact tags to some statements that need to be sourced. I have also added a couple of new tags at the top of the article. Wikipedia articles generally have a lead paragraph that summarizes the article and then the rest of the article is split into sections. Also pertinent words within the article should be linked to the appropriate article. Hopefully these suggestions help you improve the article. GB fan please review my editing 12:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question directly: you can remove such tags. And you should, if you have addressed the problems mentioned in the tags. Those tags were added by an editor just like you, not by someone with special authority, and Wikipedia does not require any special procedures to be followed in removing these. (Worst case: another editor notices you removing them, reviews what you did, decides that your edit was at least partially wrong, and adds the tags back. Then you can have a discussion with that editor about exactly what he/she still feels needs to be done.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the help! I will move forward with it! Annabellebk

August 29

Creating several pages from one page

I've noticed that the Cineon article page needs a lot of work. I added some notes to the page stating what I thought might help. How do I pursue splitting the "Cineon" page into multiple pages based on the notes I wrote. I didn't hear from the original author.

Thank you for your help

Cheers

Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMagicdoor (talk • contribs) 05:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentiones on the article's talk page, splitting this article would be inappropriate. It needs tidying up a bit, but one article is sufficient -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 08:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image upload

I have tried to upload an image on an article not approved yet. Can I still view it on my userspace? Aliceako (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. The image name was incorrect in the article. Dismas|^(talk) 10:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting my own entry

I am having a hard time finding a specific answer to this question. Can I remove my own entry after I post it if I decide I no longer want it on Wikipedia?

Thanks - Kathleen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.205 (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove it, but that does not mean someone won't put it back. When you edit a page, below where you type in the text you're adding, there's a warning: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." TNXMan 14:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether "my own entry" refers to an addition to an existing article, the creation of a new article, or something else. If you added the only substantial content to a page then you can request deletion of the whole page per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually creating a new entry - question came up that if tone of entry becomes unflattering and sourceable can we delete it.

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.208 (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If entries are well-sourced but unflattering, then no you can't delete the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So once you posted article it cannot be removed unless a violation has been made correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.205 (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. Can you tell us the name of the page you have in mind? (I've moved your post here from the following section) -- John of Reading (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John - I'm doing some research for a client who wants to make sure they are using Wiki appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.206 (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said "if you added the only substantial content to a page then you can request deletion". You said "if tone of entry becomes unflattering". I guess you refer to a scenario where other editors have changed the article. In that situation you would no longer have added the only substantial content so you cannot request deletion per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7. You could suggest deletion with a process at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, but the suggestion might be rejected. It sounds like you or your client is considering something going against Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You should not use Wikipedia to promote yourself or your client with a flattering article. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:BOOMERANG. There is no "right" to manage or tend your article to ensure that it only says what you want it to say about you. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Creation

I have created a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICME_cyberinfrastructure, several months ago. It still has several warnings (such as "This article is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup."), even though the page has been significantly modified (attempting to address the issues) since the warning has been posted. Are these warnings still actual? What can I do to get rid of them?

I would appreciated the answers in the discussion page.

Tomasz Haupt 16:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomaszhaupt (talk • contribs)

~~So once you posted article it cannot be removed unless a violation has been made correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.205 (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)~~ [reply]

I do not quite understand this answer. I made an attempt to make the page not to look as "a personal reflection" and I have no way of knowing whether I have achieved that, or not. If I have, I would like the warning be removed. Tomasz Haupt 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The comment by 151.191.175.205 was intended for the previous section; I have moved it there. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor like you added those tags. If you feel that the issues raised in those tags has been addressed you can remove them. You should explain why you are removing the tags so others know your thought process. For a simple explanation you can put in an edit summary. For more detailed explanations you should use the talk page for your explanation and use the edit summary to point to the talk page. GB fan please review my editing 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translations in existing pages

Hi, I am not sure how to upload a translation of an existing page. Just to be extra clear, the page I intend to upload is the spanish version of 'Society for Psychotherapy Research', which already has an english and a dutch version.

The thing is, I would like to have the page created as a translation of the main english page, and not to create a completely new page with a name that is translated into spanish.

Please avise, thank you! Gabrielsummers (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Interlanguage links, Wikipedia:Translation and es:Wikipedia:Taller idiomático. To create the page, go to http://es.wikipedia.org, enter the desired Spanish title in the search box, and click the red "crearlo" link. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

works into own page

how to place text writen in WORKS into my page in wikipedia. eg figures within the work-text that are copied or mathematics Boolean brain (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that will not translate; WikiMedia markup language is not Microsoft language. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centering Image Galleries

Hi. I have created a 4 picture image gallery.

It looks like this:

Nike shoe factory in Vietnam.
Canon electric factory in Japan.
Steel mill with laced columns in Bangladesh.
Spectator arena in Saudi Arabia.

The gallery itself though, is left justified (despite the photos being centred). Is there some command I can use to place the gallery itself in the centre of its page area?

Thanks. BOLD (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put <CENTRE> before it and </CENTRE> after it -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 13:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey phantomsteve, would you mind showing me what that looks like by using the gallery in this post? I tried and it didn't work :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akoute (talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the <gallery> tag can centre. You could use the {{Gallery}} template instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it works for me in Safari:

Nike shoe factory in Vietnam.
Canon electric factory in Japan.
Steel mill with laced columns in Bangladesh.
Spectator arena in Saudi Arabia.

I made a mistake in my last response - it should be CENTER not CENTRE in the two HTML tags! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 19:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Article on ReelAfrican Inc. not showing up

Hello, I've joined as a user and created a page about a company, ReelAfrican, Inc. However, no Google search picks it up, and currently the only way it is showing up is as User:ReelAfrican.

My questions is - why is the page not accessible directly and instead showing up as User:ReelAfrican. After having written out the article and saving it, is there a separate step for PUBLISHING it to the world wide web?

Pls respond ASAP.

thanks Victor

Reelafrican (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have created a page in user space: User:Reelafrican (which has now been deleted), but not an article in mainspace. It certainly isn't suitable for moving to mainspace. You need to read a number of guides, such as WP:1ST, WP:COMPANY, WP:COI, and WP:CORPNAME. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 31

Reverting a Redirect

I am trying to figure out how to revert a redirect of a page that I created. A user redirected the page of a musician to a band that the musician was in. I contacted the user on his talk page and he said that he knew there had been no consensus made to redirect the page and would not object to the redirect being reverted. I can't figure out how to revert the redirect though. How do I do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randbfan1980 (talk • contribs)

See Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects and Help:Reverting. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wish to create page with name that is already being used

Hi,

I am an academic archaeologist with considerable expertise in the field of "public archaeology". I also joined Wikipedia not long ago. My username is "webarchaeology" and my name is Carol McDavid.

At some point (probably early next year) I would like to prepare an in-depth wikipedia page on the topic of "public archaeology", with text in addtion to a DETAILED and annotated bibliography. The idea is that the bibliography could be added to or annotated by readers. Unfortunately there is already a category called "public archaeology", but the page for it re-directs to another page called "community archaeology". These are NOT the same thing, and to some extent the debate about this is noted in the "discussion" for that page. Recently I went into the "community archaeology" page and make some small changes to the main page which indicate that this debate exists. You can see these changes in the record for the page.

So...my problem is, I am perfectly OK with the "Community archaeology" page as it now exists -- what I want to do is to create a NEW "Public archaeology" page which does NOT re-direct to "Community Archaeology". Can I do this? How? Sincerely, Carol McDavid Webarchaeology (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Luckily this is simple to do. Simply edit this page. Replace the #REDIRECT[[Community archaeology]] with your article content. Hope that helps Jebus989 ^✰ 15:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link posted above (Help:Redirect#Creating_and_editing_redirects) may also be of interest Jebus989 ^✰ 15:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply! I will save these instructions and do this as soon as I can. In the meantime I'll leave it as it is. thanks! carol Webarchaeology (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome, Carol. Contributions from experts are very much welcomed, but you should be aware of a couple of things before you start. One is the rule prohibiting original research: an encyclopaedic article that impartially discusses all the relevant published material on a subject is highly desirable, but it must not contain any research or synthesis which has not already been published. Secondly, Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit, expert or not. Your carefully crafted text may be changed by others in ways you disapprove of, or whose knowledge you consider inadequate, as well as by vandals. Of course you (or anybody) can revert their changes, but if a dispute ensues it will be settled by consensus, and not by your (or anybody else's) authority. --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who is mentioned in my article insists on editing themselves out

Hi,

I have written and currently maintain an article about a Heavy Metal group. A member left under acrimonious circumstances a few months ago (nothing at all to do with me - I just wrote the article and I am not directly involved with the band). A few weeks ago an edit was made which I believe constituted vandalism (flippant comment added) and all references to this member were removed. I can not be certain but I very strongly suspect it was done by this band member himself. He obviously does not want his name associated with this band any more. I removed the comment and re-added him, but the same IP address has now deleted him again. This has been done in a very clumsy way - leaving one sentence unfinished and leaving a gap in the list of band members.

I can repair the (minor) damage and leave him excluded - which hopefully would placate him - but that leaves a gap in the article. Reality is, for six months he was a member of the band and he played on stage with them at the Download festival at Donnington this year.

Please can someone tell me what is the correct etiquette in this circumstance?

Is there a more appropriate place I can go for advice and guidance on this sort of issue?

Thanks SAHBfan (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article cites reliable sources that support what you are saying about the individual, then you should be OK. The key policy is WP:BLP. If the statements are unreferenced and contentious (which they seem to be if the guy is deleting them) then they should be left out of the article. So, the short answer is to make sure that the material is appropriately referenced. If the individual continues to edit war, they should be warned accordingly and referred to WP:BIOSELF which sets out the process for reporting their concerns. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the reply. I am not saying anything contentious about the guy - or anything much at all. I stated that he was in the band from Feb 2011 to August 2011 and that he played with them at The Heavy Metal Festival at Donnington in August 2011. That is pretty much it - just statements of fact. Admittedly, this wasn't referenced as such, but there were hundreds of witnesses and there are half a dozen videos of him on stage on youtube! I'm sure there will be a write up somewhere listing the bands line up, I'll search it out and reference it. The issue is he appears not to want his name in the article, but to erase himself from the bands history, as it were. That leaves the article essentially incomplete. SAHBfan (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mention on the band's website but hopefully you can find a better reference to quote. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

De-orphaning

I recently posted my first article "Gypsy Fly," and it has been flagged as an orphan because "few or no articles are linked to it." I am eager to do what it takes to de-orphan it, but I don't really understand what needs to be done, according to the article on Orphans. The "Gypsy Fly" article has internal links, so I'm guessing I need to link to articles in a different manner. In very simple terms, how can I de-orphan this article and link to other articles? Please advise. Thank you. Ldhendri (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The orphan tag isn't saying that there are few or no links from Gypsy Fly to other articles; it is saying that there are few or no links from other articles to Gypsy Fly. This will be confirmed by the "What links here" link in the left-hand menu from the page. Try reading WP:ORPHAN again. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By clicking the "link to it" link in the orphan tag, you can see how many articles link to Gypsy Fly (currently 0). When there are three or more articles listed there, you can remove the orphan tag Jebus989 ^✰ 07:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

new user wants to add, or update, some information on Wikipedia regarding a drug.

I'm overwhelmed by all the information in the tutorial, but I would like to contribute some information to an existing article in Wikipedia; so can someone simplify the process a bit for me. Nabur (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At its most basic, all you need to do to edit is click on the "edit" tab at the top of the page, add what you'd like, then click "save page" at the bottom. What info are you trying to add and to which page you are you trying to add it? TNXMan 13:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty simple. Go to the article you want to edit, at the top you should see a tab that says edit. Click the tab. An edit window (looks like the one where you added this question) will show up. Find where you want to make the changes and make the changes. Please be sure to provide sources if necessary to support the changes you make. GB fan please review my editing 13:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may only add or update information if what you are adding has already been published in a reliable source: personal experience or research is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

editing wikipedia

How can I create a content box? Please notify on my talk page.

Devanshi tripathi (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Devanshi tripathi[reply]

A content box will appear automatically when the page has four or more sub-headings. See WP:TOC for more detail. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THANKYOU :) Devanshi tripathi (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Devanshi tripathi[reply]

September 4

adding a comment to an existing article/subject

How do I add a comment to an existing topic/article/subject? Note that I am new to Wikipedia. 75.15.177.135 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Help:Editing? -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 07:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain what you mean by "a comment": if you have information to add to an article (or change or delete in the article) you can edit it using the information in the link Phantomsteve gave you. But if you want to make a comment about an article (for example, if you think something is wrong but do not have authoritative information to correct it, or you think the article could be organised differently), you should post your comment on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New contributor page does not address my concern

If, as a new contributor, I want to edit or augment an existing page, neither the FAQ nor the new contributor page seem to offer any help or direction.

Thanks for listening, Kiosso (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do the replies to the previous question help? --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot access my user page and my user talk page.

I am sorry to disturb, but I am not great with computers. August 30, I have opened an account with Wikipedia. If I log in, I can access "My preferences", "My watchlist" and "My contributions" (color: navy). However, I cannot access my "User" page and "My talk" (color: dark red). If I try to access "User", I get the following response:

HTTP 404 - File not found

______________________________________________

Oops! This link appears to be broken.

Suggestions:

Go to en.wikipedia.org
Search the Web:

Wikipedia with User: Rtlam Search

______________________________________________

The two suggestions do not seem to bring me Further. If I try to access "My talk" I get a very similar response, the only diference being in the wording of the second suggestion.

What should I do to get access to my user page and my talk page?

Best Regards,

20:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtlam (talk • contribs)

Try to access your user talk page, User talk:Rtlam, now. I just left you a welcome message. GB fan please review my editing 21:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have Google Chrome then you may have the problem at http://www.troublefixers.com/solved-error-oops-this-link-appears-to-be-broken-for-some-webpages-in-google-chrome/. This might prevent you from creating pages at Wikipedia. Your user page and user talk page had not been created yet. GB fan created User talk:Rtlam. Your user page User:Rtlam has still not been created. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

Modification on a redirected page has creaed a fork (two slightly different pages for the same article)

Hi,

I searched the help for an answer to my question, but could not find anything.

Here's the problem: I did a small modification in the article on the director "Krzysztof Kieslowski". I changed the his country of birth from "Third Reich" to "Poland" (I understand there might be some discussions about this change, and I added a comment under that article's discussion section, but my question here is purely technical, not political) Now, the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kieslowski still shows "Third Reich", whereas the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krzysztof_Kie%C5%9Blowski shows "Poland". I saw that since my comment, some user made another modification, which was also taken only in the /Krzysztof_Kie%C5%9Blowski page, not in the /Kieslowski one. So basically, new changes are now taken on the page with full name URL (/Krzysztof_Kie%C5%9Blowski), and the redirected page (/Kieslowski) got stuck in its version from before my change.

Could somebody explain me 1. why this happened, 2. how to prevent this and 3. how to correct this, i.e. how get the same content under the two URLs mentioned above.

Thanks very much for any help.

ElectricSheep 456 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to try bypassing your cache. There is only one version but 2 different URLs. You might have a cached version of one at one point and a different cached version on the other one. Ifyou pull up the history on each of them they are exactly the same. GB fan please review my editing 21:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I clear my cache almost every day, and the issue kept reappearing after a cache clear, so the issue probably wasn't on my side. I would say it must have been on the server side. Anyway I learned something, and the issue does not seem to appear anymore since I posted my question. Case closed. Thanks. ElectricSheep 456 (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

September 7

Populous Cities.

SIR AS PER LATEST CENCUS REPORT THE POPULATION OF GURGAON IS ABOVE

1.5 MILLION , STILL NAME OF THIS CITY IS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT LIST.

THIS IS NOW FAMOUS I.T.HUB CENTRE APART FROM MARUTI INDUSTRY.

REGARDS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.38.82 (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us the exact name of the article you are concerned about. Gurgaon is on these lists

List_of_towns_and_cities_with_100,000_or_more_inhabitants/cityname:_Gand

List_of_towns_and_cities_with_100,000_or_more_inhabitants/country:_G-H-I-J-K

List of cities and towns in India

List of big cities in North India

List of districts in India by population

Is there another list of cities it belongs on? GB fan please review my editing 11:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add pictures?

To the articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.31.87 (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a page that might help explain, Wikipedia:Images. GB fan please review my editing 21:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

Lehigh Football article

Hi-

I tried a couple days ago but was not sure it took. I feel that I greatly improved the article and tried resubmitting today. Today's is the one I want to submit, in place of the previous one (same title).

Thanks,

Miampietro (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lehigh University Football Program exists, but needs a lot of work. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]