↑ To top of page

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

Skip to bottom

September 13

Porn picture hacked into 911 article DISGUSTING!!!

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

Please remove immediately!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.71.71 (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it's a problem at Commons... —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need a Commons admin to quickly block commons:User:Trowbridge tim — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed up and responsible user's been blocked. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 attacks page

Can someone please change the picture that was posted on the September 11 attacks page!! Some one has defaced it with a pornographic image and I have edited enough pages to have access to edit protected pages...please help!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlymaha (talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above thread. The vandal has been blocked at Commons. Singularity42 (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for three days, gotta AGF! Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Account was subsequently globally locked. Being unblocked means nothing if your account's locked. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing Information Learned From TV

I just watched a program on one of the cooking channels on cable. During the show they took a few seconds to show the spelling, definition, explanation and an example of a food related item. I found this same term on Wikipedia...the entry was described as a "stub" and was missing several points of interest mentioned in the TV program. Therefore, I want add my paraphrased version of what I learned from the program to the Wikipedia listing. Would I be violating the show's copyright or any other law by contributing this information? Thanks for your help! Annexia2 (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem is whether this show is really a reliable source. The secondary problem is citing the specific episode of the show, since "Episode of ThisHereFoodShow broadcast at 2:00 p.m. on September 12, 2011 on MyLocalCable Channel 63" is not a reference adequate for verifiability. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if you could search and find a more reliable source for the information you want to add. --ColinFine (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the show has a website you might find the informtion there then use that as a reference. Reliability can then be judged by interested editors. Roger (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong picture/logo

Hi The Webjetlogo on their page is wrong. The company updated it this year. The new logo doesn't have the lines of the mouse buttons. See the top left corner of their website for the new version - http://www.webjet.com.au/flights. Wikhelper (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- John of Reading (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ektoise

hi, I have been trying to correct a page that has lies on it. this page:

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

this band was formed after I was fired from it in 2010, NOT 2007, they have released my intellectual copyright without my credits, as confirmed by APRA. they also ME AS A FORMER MEMBER AND MY OLD BAND PURITY DEVICE AS BEING THEM. THIS IS ALL LIESI was putting FACTUAL INFORMATION regarding the THEFT of MY PROPERTY.And you stopped me. I have no money to sue these people, but I welcome any attempt for them to sue me. I view your PROTECTION of them as ASSISTING IN THIS CRIME, and if I ever do take legal action, I shall be taking it against your CORRUPT WEBSITE as well. YOU PUBLISH LIES.

I am FURIOUS with you. I will be telling everyone wiki is a bunch of LIES.

STEVEN E CAMERON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddhifer (talk • contribs) 05:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability beat the truth every time. If there are no reliable sources to back up the above assertation, then it cannot be in the article, even if it is true. Buddhifer has been blocked indefinitely per WP:NLT. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel aggrieved. But the problem for Wikipedia is that unless it has been published in reliable sources we have no way of telling whether what you say is true; and in any case we have no way of telling whether you are who you say you are. Wikipedia is not protecting anybody: it is repeating what has already been published by reliable sources (and where it is not, the information should be removed from it). --ColinFine (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Village lock-ups

I am interested in expanding the Village lock-up page. I have already managed to edit the page under 'Surviving lock-up locations in England and Wales.' Now I would like to add some specific details of individual lock-ups - please can you tell me how to create a new heading on the page to do this. How do I add a photograph? I am afraid that my computer knowledge is somewhat limited and I need an 'idiots' guide. Thankyou.Royerin 08:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royerin (talk • contribs)

If you edit the whole page using the "Edit" link at the very top, you will see the current section headings "== The heading text ==" each on a line by itself. You can add new sections by keying new lines like these in the places where you want them. The Wikipedia:Cheatsheet may help you. For photos, I'll post some standard advice here. Please feel free to ask again if you get stuck.

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.
If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, 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. I hope this helps. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modification to ChemInfo Box

Is it possible to modify the ChemInfo Box Templates for chemical pages so that as well as the CAS# identifier they also include the EC# identifier which through the implimentation of the EU REACH Regulation (1907/2006) are becoming the prefered standard way to difinitively identify a substance in the EU and beyound.

Cheers,

Nik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.58.8 (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the templates in Category:Chembox templates? I think you should discuss such a change at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry first, as this seems to be a change that would affect a large number of templates. If there is consensus to do this, then I see no problem to request such a change. If you are only talking about Template:Chembox, you can request this at Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox, as that template is idefinitely protected. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to bring in more information, there is page on EC number (chemistry)Naraht (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doppelganger account

Resolved

– Request filed. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is another account that I would like to register as a doppelganger account. That account was created in 2007 and has no edits. What is the right venue to request control of that account? WP:USURP seems to be only concerned with renaming of accounts and thus seems to be the wrong place for such a request. I would appreciate any pointers to the right place. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USURP is the right place for you to ask to take over an existing account. GB fan 11:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am doing something wrong. At WP:USURP I placed {{subst:usurp|Toshio|reason=I want to usurp that account as a [[WP:DOPPELGANGER|doppelganger account]] to avoid possible impersonation.|usurponly=yes}} in the edit box of the new section. In the preview window there appears a red warning message saying

"You have not added a confirmation link! Replace this message with the url that confirms that you hold the SUL for Toshio."

What exact url am I supposed to enter there? I don't get it. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would

{{subst:usurp|Toshio|reason=I want to usurp that account as a [[WP:DOPPELGANGER|doppelganger account]] to avoid possible impersonation.|link=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AToshio&action=historysubmit&diff=450281509&oldid=105232586|usurponly=yes}}

be sufficient? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I filed the request (diff). Should be ok now. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas J Fleischmann

Tomas J Fleischmann should be listed as Tomas M Fleischmann. It was a typo and need to enquire how to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.44.178 (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for that? - David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original author moved the page. GB fan 11:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been moved, but where is the source for the information? A Google for the string "Tomas M Fleischmann" finds nothing except for this article. If the commonly used name is "Tomas Fleischmann", that is what should be used as the article title. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a Tomas Fleischmann who appears to be the primary topic. I guess the IP poster is the article creator, knows the subject privately, and perhaps added the initial for disambiguation. If the initial is not commonly used in public (zero Google hits is a very strong indicator of that) then Tomas M Fleischmann should be moved to Tomas Fleischmann (author) and a hatnote can be placed on Tomas Fleischmann. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

It's not really a question, more of a suggestion really. I use wiki mostly to look up scientific words I read in my textbooks and unless I have heard them in a lecture before I have no idea how to pronunce them, it would be great if we readers could hear the terms we look up in UK and US pronunciation. It would be very helpful, I'm sure a lot of people would use the feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.200.49.7 (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are creeping up on 4 million articles. There are many articles that do provide pronunciation but not in comparison to that massive number. See {{Audio}} and various links and other templates mentioned in its documentation (there's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for audio of entire articles). The thing is that we are a volunteer project, so when something is missing or would be a good addition a person needs to step up and act boldly themselves to make the edits required. To add spoken pronunciation this not only requires inclination and knowledge of the correct pronunciation but that the person have the technical know-how and equipment to do it, which leaves out a large number of editors. Note that our sister project, Wiktionary, provides pronunciation for some words where we do not. Lastly, many articles that do not provide spoken pronunciation do provide International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) notation so that you can learn the pronunciation without it being spoken, if you understand that notation system.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science

Why does no-one reply at the Science desk? I'm not trying to be rude, but normally it's alot quicker.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're all volunteers, so we don't get paid to answer as fast as possible. And not all knowledgeable about every topic. Some even edit while at work. So give it some time and you'll get a response. Dismas|^(talk) 12:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) It looks to me like your questions at the science desk have been answered by multiple people. If you're talking about your follow-up question about bladders appearing underneath the answers you've already received, that was asked three hours ago which is not long time and it may be harder to spot since it isn't a new question in its own section. More the the point, we are a volunteer project. People answer if they have the inclination and knowledge to do so. It takes the time it takes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And follow-up to Horsepower.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

213.107.74.132: Part of the problem, and I went over this with you on your talk page, is that when your questions are answered to the best of people's ability to answer them, you often ignore or cast aside these answers and then demand that the question be re-answered. It gets especially difficult for volunteers to answer your questions because a) you keep moving the target (changing the wording of a question slightly when someone provides an answer to your first question) b) refusing to do even basic work on your own (ignoring links to articles which can answer your questions, or refusing to very simple arithmatic when someone provides the answer in a slighlty different form than you want) c) asking infinite and subtly different variations on the same topic (such as asking one question on how often a human bladder needs to be emptied, then asking a followup question on how quickly a human bladder will fill up) d) asking for minutae so specific that it is unlikely (possible, but unlikely) that anyone except an expert in a very specific field would be able to answer. This sort of thing goes on and on in your editing history, both under this IP address and a prior IP address you used, which had been blocked for many of these sorts of problems, both at the reference desks and at the article space. Look 213.107.74.132, we really want to help you, but if you continue to abuse and wear out the patience of those trying to help, people are going to naturally become less helpful. --Jayron32 05:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help finding bad image (example.jpg) in Lonely Mountain article?

Resolved

About 2/3 of the way down in Lonely Mountain there are numerous example.jpg's in a gallery. I can't find them in the article. I've tried Purge and I've tried looking in the images and portal that are linked in that area? Any ideas?Naraht (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had vandalized the {{portal-inline}} template. I've fixed it. Dismas|^(talk) 12:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! I looked at the portal it was linking to, but not the portal-inline template.Naraht (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Why on earth do people vandalise pages? What's the point?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same reason people like to watch David Letterman throw fruit off of buildings.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In my opinion there is no easy answer to that question. Vandalism can take many different forms and I think there is a wide spectrum of motivations involved. Some people may simply find it funny, some other might do it out of frustration for an inability to "function" within the Wikipedia community. And other people might cause disruption unintentionally because they do not (yet) understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. There might be numerous other motivations and these are only a few of them. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't know about that. I love to watch Letterman throw stuff off buildings but hate vandalism. I think the vandalism thing is one of two things, either the person is a child or they view it as a challenge to see how long they can get the vandalism to stick or how big of an effect that they can have. Dismas|^(talk) 13:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:The motivation of a vandal.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request move issue

I created a page about the national home decor retailer Kirkland's. It is all fact-based and correctly cited. I requested that is be moved from a draft located at User/Jdcharlton: Kirkland's to its own page - is this correct? It does not seem like the request went through properly. It looks like I requested to remove my personal account. Please let me know. Jdcharlton (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has moved it for you, but has pointed out that it needs improvement. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding link to our site results in "spam" messages from Wikipedia

We are MerhabaTurkey.com and our website has a very narrow sphere of influence: It is written by, and is about, American Military who served during (and solved) the cold war in Turkey. For several years now we have been receiving much mail from students studying the cold war throughout the world and it dawned on us, that because of the historical nature of our website that we should have links to it in appropriate places on Wikipedia as it would help cut down on the amount of mail we receive.

We are a (very) non-profit organization which does not interfere with the articles written by our contributors. Consequently, our website is assigned in high school and college classes throughout the world particularly in Turkey.

So we elected to add links to our site in: a. places where the U.S. relationship with Turkey, military-wise, is a topic, b. places (Karamursel, Izmir, Ankara, Incirlik, Adana, etc.) where the U.S. Military had major bases in Turkey well more than 25 locations where we had smaller operating bases. c. places where the politics of the Cold War is discussed and where more information about the U.S. military presence in Turkey would play a valuable purpose, and where the first-hand information of our website would be educational.

BUT when we began adding links, we received messages from Wikipedia's automated software, accusing us of spamming Wikipedia, which is certainly not our intent.

Far from it: our intent is to see if we can cut down on the amount of emails and postal mail we receive by directing people right to the content they are looking for, and thereby trim the huge expenses we have to cover in responding to these requests - for which no income offsets.

If Wikipedia does not feel the information on our website is appropos to the topic of a particular page, we are certainly open to removing it. But we are not "spamming" and, in fact, are offering information not currently found on Wikipedia if one is trying to research the presence of the American military in Turkey (other than pages like Gallipoli, from another century). Jclaire1940 (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Orange Mike's messages on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

omission of my most recently published book on my page

On my page, for Robert Torrance, my most recently published book, Dante's INFERNO, a New Translation in Terza Rima (X-libris, 2011) is not included, and I was unable to add it. You can easily confirm its publication on Amazon.com. It is important to me to have my full bibliography listed on Wikipedia, so please do so. Thank you, Robert Torranc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.128.131 (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity press publications are not generally worthy of note here. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've already added it, and in the process I removed some blatantly promotional content and tagged it as an unsourced WP:BLP. Mr. Torrance I recommend you use {{editrequest}} on Talk:Robert Torrance to suggest some reliable 3rd party references for the article otherwise it is liable to be deleted--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to be rude, what is important to you is not the same as what is important to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pad_see_ew

Article may be vandalized with malware.

It sent Google Chrome into a tailspin, had to kill the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.5.2 (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am using Google Chrome also and am having no problems with the article. GB fan 22:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

Making custom anchors show up in TOC

Hi, I was trying to make a custom anchor, made using {{anchor}} or {{section}}, show up in the TOC of an article. Alternatively, is there a template or way to make an invisible heading, which would accomplish approximately the same thing? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could use ==={{invisible|Section name}}=== if you want to make an invisible level 3 heading which would show up in the table of contents as x.1, x.2, x.3 etc but would not be visible in the body of the article. There is also Template:TOC limit, which might be useful for you. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be possible to add Template:CompactTOC8 and use Template:Break in order for it to appear like a table of contents. This would mean however, that whenever someone adds a new section with a heading, that table would have to be updated manually. See the documentation of the CompactTOC8 template for some examples which might be useful for you. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your first suggestion with {{invisible}} is sort of what I'm looking for but is there a way to avoid having that big ugly space in between sections? See Capcom Five for what I mean. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a little ugly. Why do you want to hide those section headings anyway? – ukexpat (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to make section headings for each paragraph in that section so there would be a visual shorthand in the TOC for the members of the five, but it felt weird to have sub-sections consisting of a single paragraph. I suggested using anchors but I couldn't figure out how to place custom anchors that would appear in the TOC. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the section headings visible. All TOC entries should have a corresponding heading in the article. It's confusing otherwise. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image

can someone give me persoanla help with uploading Lenny Willams image to his wikipedia page. i have uploading the pictures but they are not showing on his wikipedia profile home page Lenny_singig.jpg‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debwms59 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It shows now. Many infoboxes add their own image formatting so the image parameter should only be the file name. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS

Does anyone know the actual name of this page? I thought that it had once existed, but Wikipedia:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS is a red link, and as an admin, I can see that there's no deleted history. Early in Wikipedia's history, there was a page with a title something like "VANDALISM IN PROGRESS" that people (for example, the Volunteer Fire Department) could use like WP:AIV is used today; the capital letters were to make it stand out more easily at Special:Recentchanges. I'm trying to find the name of this page, but WP:AIV has an absurdly long history due to the way it's used (far too long to try to find a page move), and the only capital-letter page that redirects to it, as one would expect the old name to do, is Wikipedia:CAPINYOASS, which definitely isn't it. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, any idea what "CAPINYOASS" might mean? Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cap (bullet) in your ass (arse for the Britishy-minded people). It's American street slang for shooting someone. --Jayron32 03:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specially shooting someone for "disrespect", real or perceived.--Cerejota (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, wikt:pop a cap in someone's ass. This is usually an escalation from slappin' someone upside their head.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I expected a quicker response on the page history issue than on the unusual redirect name :-) Thanks for the help on that side! Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for investigation#History. It was before my time but apparently it was indeed called VANDALISM IN PROGRESS in mainspace. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Anyway, there's a bit of a confused progression but here goes: there was a page at the name you thought, but it was not in the Wikipedia namespace; check out the logs for VANDALISM IN PROGRESS, here. Meanwhile, Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress existed and still does but it was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for investigation in 2006, has a history that goes back to December 1, 2001! and if you look at the logs for that page you'll see there was a history merge with VANDALISM IN PROGRESS. By the way, a method for finding such a move of a page lime WP:AIV, as you thought might be the way here, is to first click on "earliest", which is an option given right above the "compare selected revisions" button. Then change the number of revisions you want to look at and you should see at the end of the resulting URL something like "&limit=500&action=history". Now change the 500 to 5000. (It may take a minute to load). Now use your computer's find function to search for "move", or whatever you'd like. Going out to 5,000 revisions speeds up this type of search greatly. I use it a lot when I'm trying to find something in the deletion log, and I don't know the exact name but I do know something relatively unique from it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just redirected wp:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS to wp:Administrator intervention against vandalism. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder it was in mainspace; in 2001, they didn't have namespaces: everything was either PageTitle or PageTitle/Talk (notice the CamelCase to enable linking, since they couldn't use brackets for FreeLinking). What's weird, however, is that the earliest deleted revision of VANDALISM IN PROGRESS (thanks to PrimeHunter for thinking of that) is a redirect to Wikipedia:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS that resulted when it was moved to that title, but I can't find that original revision, and the relevant section of the edit history for WP:RFI doesn't have any record of the move. I guess it's just an artifact of the poor way that our earliest history has been preserved. Thanks, everyone, for the help! Nyttend (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Optical Fibers

Can you please expalin me how dispersion increases with length of fiber ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineetha.koneru (talk • contribs) 05:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't! But if you ask at the Science reference desk, the volunteers there may be able to help you. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps you should do your own homework? – ukexpat (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Zolbe: I want it deleted

I am Christian Zolbe and I just tried to edit the page about me. I made it when I was in High School and it is not updated and currently the information about me is incorrect. When I tried to edit it, I essentially tried to delete it, but it said that the changes have not been made because it may have been some sort of false correction (that was not the wording of it, but it was similar). As I tried to say in the note about the changes, I want it deleted because I am a junior in college at JMU and want it deleted because I will soon by applying for jobs and don't necessarily have it coming up if a potential employer searches my name into a search engine. I would rather them see sports accomplishments or clubs that I am in, ect.

It isn't the most important thing in the world for it to be deleted, but it would be nice. I am mostly sending this because I do not want to violate any editing code, but I was the one who created it, and I am the person it is about. You can contact me (Redacted) to verify that I am truly Christian Zolbe.

Thank you, Christian Zolbe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.88.147 (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you tried to blank the page User:Zolbe - if this is indeed you, you will need to log in to that account. It looks like there is no email address attached to that account, however, so if you have forgotten the password, you will not be able to retrieve it. I have applied a userpage template to it, which should eliminate the page from search engine results within a few days. Also, we cannot contact you via email or facebook - all replies will be on this page. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:31, 15 Elul 5771 / 06:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the page for deletion, since this page isn't the best use of userspace; even if you're lying and you're totally unrelated to the page (which I'm not saying is the case; we try to assume good faith here), the page should be deleted. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zolbe; please note that search engines won't find the deletion discussion. Nyttend (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could use some eyes on a few things

Hi there. I could use some eyes on a few things, all of which are mildly suspicious, and all of which stem from the article Pyrography.

Pyrography clearly exists, however I can't find any reliable sources describing it, the article itself is a fusion of cleverly disguised advertisement and not at all disguised advertisement, and the gallery conflicts with the article on what is, or is now, Pyrography.
On the subject of the gallery, it seems like one giant clusterfuck of everything that can go wrong with galleries. File:Pirografia Leopardo.jpg was put in there so that the uploader could advertise himself, as were File:OTClarkQueenEsther.jpg and File:OTClarkCreationofMan.jpg. In total, I there are at least four uploaders whose sole contributions seem to be self promotion through the use of that article, five if you could the issue below.
Maybe its because I only have access to English sources, but I can't find a shred of evidence that Párvusz is notable. It seems like the article, and the gallery, were created by Párvusz for his own promotion.

I am personally in favor of nuking most of the images on both pages, Wikipedia does not exist to help nobody artists promote themselves. I'm also in favor of reducing the article to a stub, as between the fact that it's all unsourced and that there's a good deal of advertspam, the page is pretty useless. Anyone around want to either endorse this or talk some sense into me? Sven Manguard Wha? 08:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went on the IRC and was advised that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyrography was the best way forward. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Egypt

Am I the only person getting problems with articles containing the "Egyptian Dynasty list" box? It only happens in Firefox (6.0.2). An example is New Kingdom but I suspect all articles containing "Egyptian Dynasty list" are affected. The article appears blank apart from the info box and the "History of Egypt" and "Egyptian Dynasty list" boxes. When you show the "Egyptian Dynasty list" box, the text of the article appears within it! When I edit the article on a test-only basis and delete the "Egyptian Dynasty list" box, it works OK (apart from the missing box). AWhiteC (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted some vandalism to the info box. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It was pretty effective vandalism: affecting many articles. AWhiteC (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the toolbox link for Related changes is your friend for this type of vandalism. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism ?

Can someone look at Mark Twain bibliography, looks like some kind of vandalism but I have not got the brain power to work out what needs revoking... GrahamHardy (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which problem do you see? People can see different things on a page for a number of reasons. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the page history over the last 2 days. There has been substantial rearrangement which is hard to decipher using the diff view. It seems that the 'Other writings' section has been mostly merged into the other sections or removed. But I agree it's difficult to work out exactly what's gone on with the large IP edit rearrangements and then the reverts Jebus989 ^✰ 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt GrahamHardy was referring to that. It doesn't look like vandalism and his post sounded like the article page itself looked wrong in an odd way. The recent edit summary "self-revert...not sure what's going on here" [1] also sounds like there was some sort of rendering problem. It may have gone away by itself but it's hard to tell when nothing was said about the perceived problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw lots of major changes made without edit-summary and that did not make obvious sense in the diff, so I reverted (assuming the unstated weird thing the OP saw that we're all trying to figure out was that). But then I looked more deeply and spot-checked some links and the edits were not blatantly bad, so I reverted figuring "not vandalism and I really don't know what I'm trying to cure anyway". DMacks (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern was the reduction in size from 7K to 4.6K... GrahamHardy (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons Attribution

Can I add Creative Commons Attribution text to Wikipedia? 171.226.126.171 (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which version of creative commons the text is licensed under. Wikipedia uses CC-BY-SA 3.0 and more restrictive CC licenses would be disallowed. Furthermore, some text may be inappropriate for stylistic reasons even if they are under compatible licenses. --Jayron32 14:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't "Creative Commons Attribution" simply cc-by? And don't later versions of cc licenses specifically permit the use of earlier versions of cc licenses? I can't see a copyright-based reason for saying no. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not every creative commons license is compatable with Wikipedia. CC-BY-NC is specifically not compatable. --Jayron32 17:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? cc-by-nc is Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial; the question is about Creative Commons Attribution, which is simply cc-by, and thus acceptable. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter H Thomas

Hello, We made some edits to Peter H Thomas' wiki page and we're now seeing a warning/error message. Can you please advise how to correct these issues?

Thank you, Peter H Thomas

Roden16 (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are links provided in the warnings, so please read those. Also, if you are indeed the subject of the article, you ought to read WP:COI and WP:AUTO. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that you have a conflict of interest (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The way you could have avoided these problems was by not making any edits to the Wikipedia article at all. --Jayron32 15:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how do I correct the page? After following your directions I now understand what not to do, but how do I now correct the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roden16 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issues is that the tone of the article is too much like a press release or a resume and too little like an encyclopedia article. The language is too flowery and isn't very neutrally worded. The problem is that you, because you are the subject of the article, appear to be unable to write about yourself in ways which are going to be in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you want to know what a good biography should read like, find another one, perhaps at Wikipedia:Featured articles and look at the style of writing. The style of what you have written shows no emotional detatchment from the subject. The key problem is that because you are the subject of the article, it may be very difficult for you to have that emotional detachment from yourself. You will tend to overemphasize qualities over facts, tend to ignore the bad and overemphasize the good. It is natural to do so. That's why we ask people to not write about subjects they have a vested interest in, such as themselves. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more. --Jayron32 18:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing For Biographies of Living Persons

In general, is an internet link to a video of the person in questions speaking about themselves sufficiently reliable for inclusion as a reference for a quotation about that person in a BLP article? That is, suppose Person X says "I like eat red crayons with breakfast." in a video on MTV.com; if one were to include the quotation "I like to eat red crayons with breakfast" in the wikipedia article for Person X, would a link to that video be a sufficiently reliable source? Please be elaborate in your responses, as I am somewhat confused when I compare our policy pages on the subject with what is done in practice on some of our pages.KlappCK (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, is the video in question legit? There are impersonators, satire sites, etc. out there, and some good imitators. Also, is the link to a copyright-respecting location, not to a bootleg or YouTube upload of copyrighted material? Is the wording clear enough that you can rely on what you think you hear them say? (Official transcripts are a blessing, but are too darned rare.) Question, also, whether the content is both unambiguous and encyclopedic: i.e., are they saying anything of note, and saying it in such a way that it can't be re- or mis-interpreted? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question states: "Polizzi has been outspoken about past [[urinary incontinence|incontinence]] issues. In the episode ''And The Wall Won'' of the fourth season of [[Jersey_Shore_(TV_series)|Jersey Shore]] she said "I don't give a fuck what you think about me. I peed my pants in public, I'm still not embarrassed."[http://www.mtv.com/shows/jersey_shore/season_4/episode.jhtml?episodeID=182352]" I reverted, stating it was "Trivial unless discussed in independent reliable sources." If this out of context quote is used, perhaps she's trying to raise awareness of those who don't care what others think or showing support for the use of the word "fuck" or... whatever. We can mine any well known person's documented statements for comments we interpret as being noteworthy and meaningful. Following this, every president's article would be an endless transcription of everything they ever said and various editors' interpretations of the meaning of various sections. A reliance on independent reliable sources relieves this problem. If independent sources report on Polizzi's supposed outspokenness about urinary incontinence, we could report it. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you being a little bit grandiose here? She said she has peed her pants in public, given the nature of the show, and her personality, it was probably related to drinking (as an aside, JWOWW, in fact, has popped a squat, as it were, on multiple occasions, on camera no less, during the first three seasons of the show, each time as a result of excessive drinking). If indeed drinking did play a role in Polizzi's accident, then it lines up well with our definiion of functional urinary incontinence. Insofar as both of these assertions are correct, I am merely stating facts when I gave context for the qoutation, and I even linked to the video where she says those things. KlappCK (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:UNDUE: this kind of junk has no place whatsoever in an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point seems to be not whether or not the quote was said, but whether it is better for a Wikipedia article to report the quote. Merely being true and verifiable is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to include some fact in an article. Wikipedia editors need to make editorial decisions about which true, verifiable facts to include in articles, and how to include them, or whether to leave them out, and such decisions are not based solely on if the fact in question is verifiable. --Jayron32 17:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being grandiose, I'm seeking to limit the inclusion of pointless details (and, in this case, expansive interpretations). From her twitter page, we can add that she loves NASCAR, often feels like Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz, didn't get her tattoo to impress anyone, her favorite thing is popcorn, thinks green tea is (the) shit, etc. Thus, she "has been outspoken about" driving really fast, classic movies, body modification, disliking the raw food movement, believing Asians are into coprophagia, etc. No thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the importance of the content, that is fine (even though I disagree, I buy into WP:NPOV), as long as that is the reason given for reverting the edit. SummerPhD stating that they edits are "trivial unless discussed in independent reliable sources (she's seen eating frequently, where's THAT discussion?)" and "Trivial unless discussed in independent reliable sources" while failing to realize that they were apparently valid sources given the material, to me, is a classic example of counterproductivity, especially since I have been trying to follow the guidelines laid out in WP:POINT. Those explanations imply a different motivation for the reverts than is being given here. If the consensus is that the inclusion of that detail is inappropriate given the brevity of the page as whole, I can live with that, just don't confuse the issue by pointing at my sources, or with my word choice in framing the subject of my edit (multiple comments have been made of my choice to use the word "outspoken" by SummerPhD: as a rule, it would likely be more productive to suggest an alternative wording than to respond in the condescending manner that that editor has chosen). However, I would be interested in knowing under what circumstances the consensus would be to include such information in a BLP.KlappCK (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If and only if the information has become the topic of discussion in articles about the subject in notable venues. That's why I referred you to WP:UNDUE. In other words, if the articles about this person in TV Guide or Newsweek mention this information, then it might be relevant. If it's only the subject of some derision on blogs and webforums, then generally not. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support inclusion if the allegation were the subject of substantial secondary coverage in independent reliable sources. That is to say, if it can be shown to be A) verifiable and B) non-trivial. We may or may not be able to verify that various people and fictional characters have, at one time or another, peed outside, wet themselves and/or experienced a form of urinary incontinence. However, that verifiable fact must be written in a way that reflects the source and be relevant. "I don't give a fuck what you think about me. I peed my pants in public, I'm still not embarrassed." is NOT the same as being "outspoken about past incontinence issues." It isn't being "outspoken" nor is it "past incontinence issues". As no independent reliable sources have discussed this, it is trivial. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike: That is fine with me. I did read the WP:UNDUE article. That is why I said I bought into WP:NPOV (the parent of WP:UNDUE). I will just have to wait until some other reputable source follows up on those events. Thank you for you help.

SummerPhD: As I have alluded to already, I clearly made a poor word choice. I was having a hard time trying to decide upon the proper to work the information into the article; now that we have had this discussion I can see why. You would be right to correct my prose under normal circumstances, even if core of my edit had been otherwise acceptable. My point was that you didn't address this in your revert or when you left a comment on my talk page. Unfortunately, the reasoning that you did give, although done in good faith, lead me in the wrong direction on how to prevent the problem in the future (hence this discussion). As an aside, pointing out my edit history as a negative runs the risk of coming off as argumentum ad hominem.

That said, I think we are done here. I feel like I've learned something too.;)KlappCK (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You learn something new every day, whether you want to or not. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007 (album)

Hi all! I was fixing up some linkrot and came across this article... It has a review box under the professional reviews box which (for me) in Firefox 6.0.2 and Chrome 13 overlaps the Track listing template; a behaviour I've never seen before. Any ideas why?! Cheers, Nik thestoned 16:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine for me in Safari under Windows. The track listing sits nicely to the left of the boxes for me. I know that's not a very helpful answer for you, but it really seems to be a browser related issue. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does the same for me as the OP describes, though I don't know how to fix it. I'm using Safari on a Mac. Dismas|^(talk) 17:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fixed. Wifione ^Message 18:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this Wifione, unfortunately the fix didn't work for me. See screenshot. I have a widescreen monitor, if that helps... Nik thestoned 08:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with article review

Backstory: The article for Jeff Dye is a redirect right now. Over the last year or so, several SPAs have tried to turn it into an unsourced biography.

In the last few days, I've been advising Kidnike03 (talk · contribs) on getting sources for a sourced biography to show notability of Dye. In the last few postings, Kidnike has admitted to being employed by Dye's management. They've been able to get a few sources and write a bio at User:Kidnike03/Jeff Dye. I'm not familiar with the article review process(es) and will be incredibly busy over the next week or so. So, can someone here take a look at the draft and deal with it appropriately or tell me what route I can take to have someone advise this user? I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 17:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some reformatting and clean up and it's probably ready for mainspace, just. Will need a friendly admin to move it over the current redirect... – ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link for Senator

I was trying to research which Senator I have where I live, and in doing so, found a racial slur through a hyper-link. I had gotten to the page about Senator Gil Cedillo, and at the end of the first paragraph there is a link to show me where 45th District is. When I clicked on the link, it took me to a page about the racial slur "Wetback". Clearly, someone took their time to make this happen. I just hope this is resolved before he finds out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.228.194 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, and thank you for bringing it to our attention. ^Avic_ennasis @ 22:23, 15 Elul 5771 / 22:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please delete Scott Tatman

Hello,

I have changed my name due to safety concerns and I would prefer that the Scott Tatman article no longer be available on wikipedia. I have legally changed my name to Scott Deckard, but Scott Tatman still comes up when doing searches in google. Is it possible to delete Scott Tatman while keeping the Scott Deckard page I redirected it to?

Thanks,

Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitmancdrs (talk • contribs) 23:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. ~~This appears to be a hoax.~~ In a single day you moved the article to various different names: [2], [3], [4]. The IMDB link still lists it under the original name [5]. ~~I am moving the article back.~~ Singularity42 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC) I am tagging the articles so an admin can make the move. Singularity42 (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Tatman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Original name of this article.
Scott Leander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) First renaming by the OP: [6]
Scott Lionel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Second renaming by the OP: [7]
Scott Deckard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Third renaming by the OP: [8]

Singularity42 (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly the only interest of Hitmancdrs since account creation 4 years ago has been this low-notability article so he may well be the subject. Perhaps the repeated moves was an attempt to hide the original name. But Wikipedia content is based on reliable published sources and they appear to use the original name so it should also be the article name per WP:COMMONNAME. Your best chance to remove the name is probably to ask for deletion of the whole article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Deckard. Deletion is not guaranteed but a request from the subject carries extra weight in low-notability cases. If you have legal concerns as the subject then you can use an email address at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). PrimeHunter (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that I may have rushed to conclusions about the identity of the user. I have struck my comment regarding that above. Singularity42 (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem right. A brand new user pops out of nowhere; moves a BLP to a number of different names; provides no reliable sources for any of the moves; and wants the original name deleted from Wikipedia. Shouldn't the user have to prove to Wikimedia or whatever that he is who he claims to be? For all you know he's just screwed with someone's bio and gotten away with it. That's not a good thing.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it all back to the original name. As PrimeHunter pointed out to the OP, he has to provide reliable sources that the person has changed their name, even if he is the subject of the article. Singularity42 (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a brand new user. He has been editing the article infrequently since February 2007. Until the moves yesterday it was a type of edits you often see from the subject. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

Changing the name of a page

I have tried to build a page for GPSports but it is listed under my username (Fatch1965).

All I want to do is to rename the page GPSports Systems.

I was contacted by a staff member but I couldn't understand his instructions.

Can someone just please change the name to GPSports Systems - that is all I require,

thanks

Adrian Faccioni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatch1965 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you are trying to move the article you created at User:Fatch1965 to GPSports Systems. This is easily done. However, the article as it stands at the moment is, IMO, a candidate to be quickly deleted as blatant advertising. Wikipedia articles must be neutral and cite substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. I would strongly suggest you review our notability criteria before spending much more time on this. If you then feel the company meets those criteria, you'll want to address the lack of neutrality and sources before moving the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting another user

I would like to email a user whom I believe I know. The directions I found say to go to his user page and if he has email enabled, I will be able to do that there by following the rest of the directions. However he does not have a user page. Neither, it turns out, do I, even though I have email enabled. I did not see anything when I set my own preferences about having to create a user page to get email. Is one actually necessary for this? I prefer to send email rather than edit his talk page, since who knows when he will be back here. Thanks. Karen Anne (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Karen Anne, thank you for your question. It's possible to e-mail an user if they do not have a user page. Go to their talk page and on the drop-down menu "Toolbox", you can see a link called "E-mail this user". You can do this only if they have have the e-mail setting enabled, which can be found in your preferences. Hopes this helps. You can read more information about e-mailing here. -- Luke (Talk) 02:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you already know this but when you are on a user or user talk page (whether it has been created or not), the drop-down menu "Toolbox" also has the link "User contributions" which shows when they last edited. If it was recently then chances are they will soon see a talk page mesage. Most active users probably prefer to be contacted on their talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help requests - COI/semi/PER

10 COI edit requests: Talk:Ahmed Omed Khpulwak , Talk:Column Technologies , Talk:Jonathan M. Gregory , Talk:Libya lobby in the United States , Talk:Mark Boerebach , Talk:Peter Scott (educationalist) , Talk:Product Red , Talk:Ravidassia (caste) , Talk:Stevens Institute of Technology , Talk:Unique Identification Authority of India

43 semi-protected edit requests: Talk:Africa , Talk:Anna Hazare , Talk:Armenian Genocide , Talk:Atomium Culture , Talk:Attachment therapy , Talk:Attila , Talk:Benny Hinn , Talk:Bosniaks , Talk:Capital punishment , Talk:Charles Manson , Talk:Constipation , Talk:Diamond , Talk:Dina Lohan , Talk:Elton John , Talk:George Clooney , Talk:Harry S. Truman , Talk:Into the Wild Tour , Talk:Iran , Talk:Jamaica Defence Force , Talk:Just Go with It , Talk:Karjat , Talk:Kashmir conflict , Talk:Leeds United A.F.C. , Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory , Talk:Lil Wayne discography , Talk:Liverpool , Talk:Mahabharata , Talk:Mathematics , Talk:Maya Angelou , Talk:Mel Gibson , Talk:Mormonism , Talk:Moses , Talk:NBA 2K , Talk:Pittsburgh Steelers , Talk:Pratapaditya , Talk:Rob Schneider , Talk:Skrillex , Talk:Steve Biko , Talk:Tau , Talk:Texas , Talk:The R.E.D. Album , Talk:Vietnam , Talk:Wales

9 protected edit requests: Talk:Singapore , Template talk:Cite journal , Template talk:Find sources , Template talk:Jcttop , Template talk:Sandbox heading , Template talk:WikiProject Comics , Template talk:WikiProject North Carolina , Template talk:WikiProject United States , Template talk:YouTube.

Chzz ► 04:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC) <updated 05:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)>[reply]

List of professional cyclists who died during a race

Resolved

I've come across an out of date ref, [9]

It's from The Durango Herald, and I don't know how to bring it up on the wayback machine

The CitationBot fixed things up but looking the fixes over I've realized that the Durango Herald/Dale Strode source has gone bad.

But the information was really good and it's referenced all over the article. Chzz ► 04:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC) (on behalf of...someone anon - passing this q to HD[reply]

I found a valid URL for that on The Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20061019232122/http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=sports&article_path=/sports/05/sports050624_1.htm . Shearonink (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New account setup not happening :(

New account here, but I can not log in as I keep getting a message :

  Password and/or Words in the box have been entered wrong (or some such message).

Ive used this same name and password for numerous other website log ins. Now my name is taken & it is impossible to log in. I have never used this function of your website, however, certain aspects in your science areas esp. polypeptide bonding, quaternary protein structures, and scientific methodology are in need of some corrections(citing current publications of course). Is there anyway to accurately attribute these corrections to my web alias (ie, my name) ? Quite frankly, if I can not log in to this site accordingly I will not even bother. I did not leave an email addy as I never do, for obvious reasons. I do not believe I am typing my password incorrectly. I keep getting a message to retype in the security word in the box. I am certain I am not a BOT and am correctly typing the 'box' word. Any advise or help in this area would be appreciated. I only wished to help this site be factual and specific in several areas happenstance brought me read. Now I just hope I can remember later to come back and check for helpful advise, heh. :)

P.S. So this post will list my IP addy? Weak.... Thank God for IP Spoofing :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.94.228 (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell from this whether you have managed to create the account or not. If you're having trouble with the CAPTCHA then I suggest you try Wikipedia:Request an account; the volunteers there will either create the account for you, or tell you that your chosen account name already exists. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the username? Many people make a free webmail account with an address they can just abandon if it gets abused. See Comparison of webmail providers for some options. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an article

Hello, Can you help me to add an article speaking about a company named United Broadcast and Media Solutions (www.unitedbroadcast.com). It is an important distributor of broadcast and professional audio/video equipment in the Middle and Africa. I m not a writer here in Wikipedia, but I can give you the information. Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahlbeldi (talk • contribs) 06:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, perhaps a good place to start for you would be Wikipedia:Article wizard. It guides you through the creation of an article step-by-step. Feel free to come back here to the help desk if you have any further questions (or ask me on my talk page at User talk:Toshio Yamaguchi if you like). Best. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Toshio. I have to start learning now. I think it will be good for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahlbeldi (talk • contribs) 13:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename page

I want to rename a page. What template do I use? I tried this: {{db-move|page to move from|reason for move}}., but it is not what I thought it was. Please reply to this talk page please. 213.107.74.132 (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are looking for the {{Requested move}} template. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Show" buttons redirect to unrelated (including CONTACT section)

Hi.

I am attempting to report that most of the "Show"" buttons on the following page do NOT expand text, but instead re-direct to other totally unrelated Wikipedia pages (in the mobile edition). http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulating_concrete_form

I attempted to submit this via the Contact Us section, but the same thing had been done to the "show" buttons there (!), so I could not locate the correct method to submit this.

I hope this is helpful.

Roberta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.144.162 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Show" buttons are working for me on that article. Is it still happening? Is it happening on other articles?

If it is not still doing it, I suspect there may have been a temporary fault on the server. If it is still happening, and especially if it is happening on other articles, I would suspect that something has happened to your mobile device. Beyond that I don't know, but WP:Village Pump (technical) would be the best place to ask. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of a specific template from an article

Resolved

– I substituted the template with {{Dynamic list}}. --Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a list article has been tagged with {{Expand list}} and the list article in question is one for which "Completeness" is hard to prove, is that template supposed to simply keep sitting on that article or should I simply remove the template and drop the user (in IP in this case) a message notifying him/her of the removal? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which list is it? Have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list in question is List of prime numbers. What criteria for "Completeness" should be applied in order to determine whether the template is still appropriate or not? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A wonderful example. Perhaps you can let us know when the article does eventually list all the prime numbers? :-) - David Biddulph (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that one. See the mouseover at http://www.xkcd.com/899/ ;-) It might use {{Dynamic list}} instead and inclusion criteria can be discussed at Talk:List of prime numbers#Expanding the list? where I see you posted last month. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article is misnamed. It should be List of Lists of prime numbers.Naraht (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken. "List of lists of ..." articles are supposed to be category like articles simply listing multiple "List of ..." articles. The lists of prime numbers in List of prime numbers are embedded lists. The articles the section titles link to are not "List of ..." articles themselves and thus the article can be regarded as a normal "List of ..." article. Therefore your suggested title would be incorrect. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not embedded lists qualify, the fact is that that is actually what is there. Regardless of what Wikipedia makes the title say, it is *not* one list of primes.Naraht (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Naraht says is true—perhaps it should be called Lists of prime numbers? —Bkell (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I *like* that. Cleaner than mine with the same sentiment!Naraht (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A title of the form "Lists of ..." usually signifies a list of list articles. See Special:PrefixIndex/Lists of. It would be confusing to use it here. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sharing with social sites?

Can info off Wikipedia be shared to Facebook, etc. for example?

Thank you, ikijimi. 14:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)14:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)14:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikijimi (talk • contribs)

Yes, info from Wikipedia can be shared anywhere as long as it is attributed back to the appropriate article. GB fan 14:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tool for this (see Wikipedia:Sharebox and the instructions there for how to install it). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian War

In your site about the Bosnian War, you didn't mentioned my book, "In a Bosnian Trench: A Wartime Memoir of a Muslim Bosnian Soldier" by Elvir Kulin with Maury Hirschkorn. Please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.236.129.12 (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can suggest it at Talk:Bosnian War, if an editor without a conflict of interest sees it as a viable resource they can include it in some way for you. Although, the book was published through Trafford Publishing, a print on demand service, I'm not sure it'd be considered a reliable source, see WP:SPS. Яehevkor ✉ 15:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URL Message

Hey Everyone,

I'm trying to prevent link rot on the following 2 pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Hsu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Yolles

After running reflinks, I'm still getting the bare url message. I've seen other entries that don't cite their sources, and no bare url message pops up there, so I'm a bit confused.

Any help with this issue is appreciated!! Chanelno5ive (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was manually added, and you can manually remove it if you've cured the problem. Just include an edit summary so that it's clear what you've done. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, how do I manually remove it? Thanks!

Chanelno5ive (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like so. TNXMan 16:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

login not saved

Yesterday and today Wikipedia has not been saving my login, even though I told it to remember me for 30 days each time. What could cause this problem? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sort of thing is saved in a cookie on your computer; if you have all cookies blocked/disabled in your browser, it wouldn't ever save your login information even if you told it too. --Jayron32 17:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks, I unchecked "tell browsers that I don't want to be tracked" in Firefox, and now it saves my login. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windows-only free software

Wikipedia,

I use this free Windows PCL Reader product and thought it would be a good addition to the Windows-only free software section. How do we add products to this section?

Regards,

Brad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgeway04 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about an article, you can simply edit the article (either the whole article or the relevant section). But be aware that if the information you add is not accompanied by a reference to where it has been written about in an independent reliable source, then it is likely to be removed. In particular, for lists of items, the items should usually meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. It is not enough that it exists, or that you think it is good: people need to have written about it in reliable places. --ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click here to buy?

Are "click here to buy" links permitted in Wikipedia, as in this article?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't. I've removed it, thanks for pointing it out. In the future, you are welcome to remove these type of links yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you are actively encouraged to remove such spamming: anything like "for further information, visit our/this website, at www.spammyurl.com" or "click here to buy" or "for further information, contact us/them at spammeremailaddress" or "to join us, call 1-800-SPAMMYPHONENUMBER"' or any other clearcut evidence that somebody's committing marketing here. A grateful public will thank you; hey, I'll thank you ahead of time! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you come across an article that is mostly this type of material—full of advertising language—it may be eligible for speedy deletion under section G11 of the criteria. The tag you can use to nominate an article under that criterion is {{db-spam}} or {{db-g11}}. It is also very common that when you find articles like this, they are also copyright violations. You can check by dropping a unique piece of text from the article into a search engine in quotation marks. This is a separate basis for speedy deletion. See CSD G12 for the criterion and tag using {{db-copyvio}} or {{db-g12}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My signature

Per User talk:Ks0stm#Your signature being a pretty valid point, is there some way that I can change my signature from the "If you reply here..." message showing up on all user talk pages except my own to showing up only on user talk pages of users who aren't blocked except my own? Basically, ideally, the "If you reply here..." message would only appear if both 1. it was a user talk page other than my own, and 2. the user was not blocked. If these conditions were not met, then the signature would render as it does on this page. Being rather clueless on how my signature works (I wasn't the one who coded the "different page, different signature" aspect of it), can anyone explain to me how to do this or if it is even possible? Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not as it's currently set up, since there are no magic words for "{{PAGEOFABANNEDUSER}}". I think this would require some JavaScript if you wanted something to automatically check for banned users. — Bility (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with a paid-for advert

I was about to correct this bad wikilink on [10] and found it is also on [11]. Note: It does not seem to exist as a current article. From Googling around, it appears to be a paid for article originating from here. [12]. Would it be easier just to get an Admin to delete it?--Aspro (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They've all been removed, what's the problem? — Bility (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks sneaky. It appears an editor changed UIS to a promotional article, then reverted their edits immediately afterwards. They then added a link to another article going directly to the reverted edit of the article UIS rather than the article itself. It appears to be a form of trying to hide promotional edits from Wikipedia contributors while still promoting the material. It's a good thing that all the edits in question have since been reverted. JIP | Talk 19:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have since revision deleted the edit that included the advertising. If someone feels this was unnecessary or misguided, then the revision can be undeleted. JIP | Talk 20:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. [13] --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an image file too, although it's on commons. Яehevkor ✉ 20:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article still exists here too.[14]--Aspro (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've revision deleted that too, thanks for pointing it out. JIP | Talk 03:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deleted revision

I just found a Wikipedia page whose history shows a revision that I am unable to access at all, even though I am an administrator. The date appears grey and struck out and the selection button next to it is disabled. Does this mean it has been oversighted, which is beyond my powers as an administrator? JIP | Talk 19:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, yes. Taketa (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debt - Bondage - happened in Britain

I'd like to know why nothing is written about Debt - Bondage or women who sold themselves into (farm) Bondage in Britain, which went on into the early 1900's. While the rest of the world were cutting slavery trades this one went on which was a very shameful thing. As the women were put to work in the fields which would even put men under strain to do those long hours. Plus there was a stigma attached to this kind of work, which left a sunburnt triangle on the Bondagers face, which if they went to dances or walked without their usual head gear on, were recognized as "Bondagers' because of the sunburnt triangle on their faces. There was a book written by a Pastor (or Minister) about these poor women, but I'm sad to see that their terrible lives are not even register in the 'Debt - Bondage' section of your web site. In fact I saw a ref' saying about ancient 'Bondage' but this wasn't band until the 1900's so it goes into the modern. Which sickens me to think so much was being done for the rest of the worlds slaves, but those in Britain were not being addressed & sometimes I've heard of remnants of this type of trade being used to get money out of people, by making them work to pay of a course which is meant to improve them, but infact can put them into debt & they are not released from a job until this course is paid for in full & sometimes more than full. So this form of slavery is still with us, it's hard to believe eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.54.89.16 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is completely a volunteer effort. Just about every word on our 61,805,851 pages was written by a person who was interested enough in some subject to sit down and write about it. There is no central authority making decisions about what topics to cover. When you see a hole in Wikipedia, be bold and fill it, i.e., register an account and write the article yourself. However, in order to write an article that will stick, you will need to cite to reliable sources, write in a neutral tone and follow other policies and guidelines for the writing of encyclopedic content. I suggest you take a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial first, and then write the article using the article wizard. Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The answer to "Why does Wikipedia not have an article on X" is almost always either "Because nobody has chosen to write one" or "Because X does not meet Wikipedia's standard of notability", or both. If you can demonstrate by multiple references to reliable sources that subject is notable (which seems likely to me), and write about it in a neutral way, you are very welcome to write such an article, or perhaps to add a section to an existing article. However, if your purpose here is to soapbox, then however worthy your cause, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that the question could usefully be asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, which is often a good way of getting content editors to take an interest in the subject. There certainly seem to be some sources on the subject, such as this site - there are probably others, though googling for "farm bondage" brings up some (ahem) unexpected results. We have an article on Indentured servant, but there seems to be nothing in it about the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Meyer page

I believe that the awards section is incorrect. The medal of honor should be shown above ALL OTHER awards and decorations on a level by itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.67.209 (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what the problem is. In the infobox the medal is on a line by itself above all other awards. In the Military awards section the ribbons are laid out the way they would be on his Service Dress uniform. If that is the section you are concerned about, we shouldn't be modifying the layout of his ribbons. GB fan 22:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Help Desk, for asking questions about using Wikipedia. Questions like yours are better suited for the article's talk page or perhaps the reference desk. Inter change able|talk to me 22:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

Posting Verifiable Information

RE: Civic Arena - Pittsburgh.

To whom it may concern:

I am having difficulty with my chronicled information remaining on the Wikipedia site as the entire content is being removed.

I am the original petitioner for historic preservation of the Civic Arena in 2001. I have documented my post with 62 links, only to have others removing it. The supplied documenation links come from newspaper accounts and government offices. It is critical of demolition of a historic landmark, but again, it is documented.

I feel that I am within the parameters of Wiki TOS. I wish to share the deceit and corruption as part of an Encyclopedia or Wikipedia.

It is my understanding the Wikipedia was formed to share information and it must be "verifiable". If a few can control or block verifiable information/links, then the creation of Wikipedia is failing the reason it was created.

I have responded to all queries, or ones that have email links and have had difficulty navigating the cite. Please review and allow my previous posted information so it may be shared.

I will leave you with one factual question that illustrates just one aspect of this corruption. In 2007, Governor Ed Rendell drafted and signed the Term Sheet that included the funding of a new venue and the demolition agreement of the Civic Arena. How can the Sports & Exhibition Authority conduct a historic review three years later? There's much more...

Cite: http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/sports/11244255/detail.html

I want to stay within your guidelines and contribute to the true history the is documented and "encyclopedicc" in nature that is "verifiable". I ask for your help.

Sincerely,

Gary J. English Please send email to my Wiki account "avigilantone" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avigilantone (talk • contribs) 04:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies will be posted here. You need to read about Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. If there is controversy about a subject, it is entirely appropriate to report that controversy, with references to the independent reliable sources which describe that controversy. It is not appropriate to use words like "deceitful" in an article except when quoting a source; and generally sources referenced should be secondary sources which discuss the controversy, not primary sources.

If your purpose in editing the article is to promote a cause or faction, however worthy that cause may be, please find another forum for it: that is not permitted in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you also need to read about Wikipedia's 3 revert rule, as you've already broken it. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why can't this page be edited?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cadel_evans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.15.235 (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page isn't semi-protected, and neither is the redirect, if that's what you meant. It doesn't look like any edit filters stopped any recent edit attempts. Your IP isn't blocked directly, and the fact that you can edit the Help Desk shows that you're not under a range/autoblock. Sooo... What exactly is the trouble you are having? ^Avic_ennasis @ 05:04, 17 Elul 5771 / 05:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a known bug that I am guessing you ran afoul of here. Every once in a while, IPs will see a display of the notice that they can't edit the page as if it the page was protected when it is not. When this happens, if you click "view source" you should be able to edit the page anyway, ignoring the notice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox help

Is there any way to make the list of a particular group in navbox to appear in a different color only when on a page that's listed under that group?

Yes, I know of Navbox with collapsible groups, but I'd rather use navbox itself. I know something with #if and {{PAGENAME}} could be used, but that would require listing all the pages of the group again for applying the style attribute. Is there a shorter way of saying:

if(on a page in this list) {apply this color to the list}

or something like that? Thanks.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could code your navbox to accept a parameter, and then add the parameter to the articles. So in article X it might read {{Example Navbox|highlightgroup=1}} and in article Y it might read {{Example Navbox|highlightgroup=2}}. The code for the navbox would have to test the value of the highlightgroup parameter when it works out what styles to pass down to {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} or {{Navbox}}.

Notice that the {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} template already allows an article to draw attention to one of the groups by having it automatically expanded - that's the "selected" parameter. I suggest you try that to start with, as that will be much simpler. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's Girls

Director - Allan ('Duke') Ducovny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.61.66 (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question about how to use Wikipedia? GB fan 11:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is a request to change/add the director named above to the article Harry's Girls, but I can find no source to verify this (he seems to be a publicist), so it has not been added Jebus989 ^✰ 13:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template hidden

The Janet Morris template is permanently hidden/compressed (at least for me) at the bottom of article High Couch of Silistra, any idea why ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the edit screen of the article. It isn't a template, it is a created Navbox on that article with no content. So it isn't hidden there is just nothing there except what you see. GB fan 11:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I fixed it. The content of the template page needs to be transcluded into that article to work properly (see Wikipedia:Transclusion for more information). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! GrahamHardy (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer who wants to contribute needs advice

Hi all,

I'm a nature and landscape photographer who would like to contribute photos to Wikipedia, but I'm not really sure how best to do this. I'll be honest: my goals are both selfless (to provide useful images to the community) and selfish (to get better exposure for my art). I don't want to run afoul of any formal or informal policies, nor step on any toes.

I guess all I really want is help with how best to create a template to allow me to put pictures into the wiki so that I am identified as the author and my rights are protected, while allowing the source of the images to be identified, while allowing articles to use the images. I'm not sure if I should just copy someone else's template, nor what policy is with respect to links to source sites (which I have seen on a number of photos.) Also not clear on how one best can add images to particular articles, etc.

Thanks for any advice.

Desktopscenes (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are basically three ways the Wikimedia Foundation uses images.

Some images have been donated by the creators to the public domain, the copyright has expired, or there was no copyright to begin with because they were created by the US federal government.
The creator has agreed to license the image with one of the licenses acceptable to the foundation.
The image is copyrighted, there is no license, but the usage is a fair use.

Number 2 is what you want. See commons:Commons:Contributing your own work. The best place to put images where number 1 or 2 applies is Commons. Fair use images should be put in Wikipedia and a rational must be given explaining why the use is fair for each article in which the image is used. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(After e/c) You should read carefully through the page Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, which explains the kinds of licensing that the project accepts. You state here that you will allow "articles" to use the images; I'm afraid that a condition like that is too restrictive, because the aim here is that both text and images should be available for re-use by others, outside the encyclopedia, and even for commercial purposes.

But asking to be credited as the creator isn't too restrictive. There is a Creative Commons License for that. - 194.60.106.17 (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If, as I suspect, you are connected with the website www.desktopscenes.com then you may find that these licensing conditions are too restrictive for you. You should also abandon this account and re-register with a different user name, as your chosen user name may be seen as promotional. See the user name policy. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, which is more than the editor who summarily blocked my account bothered to do. Not a very friendly response to someone looking to contribute. I also find it rather ironic that there are so many terms and conditions under which I'm "allowed" to contribute photos, yet merely using the name of my site is sufficient grounds to lock my account in under an hour. The attitude, and the complexity, might explain why so few photographers want to contribute here, sadly. Honestly, I'm considering just forgetting about the whole thing, and not because I can't use the name of my site as a username. Charleskoz (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also commons:Commons:Choosing a license. Articles using an image will not display the source but clicking on the image will lead to an image page where the source of the image can be shown. You can choose a license where reusers are also required to keep attribution. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion...

Hi Wikipedia,

 Wikipedia is a well study and documented content,it really gives a insight of any topic....agreat job but this great job can be put

to a valuable contribution to socio-economic development by providing a road map for respective requirment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.194.223.213 (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications of changes

Hi!

I would like to know if there is a way to receive notifications to my email when my page is changed or updated by other people.

Thanks.

v t e Wikipedia help pages
*Visit the Teahouse* or the Help desk for an interactive Q & A forum. FAQs (?) Reference desks (?) Noticeboards (?) Cheatsheet (?) Directories (?)**
About Wikipedia (?)	Administration Purpose Principles Policies and guidelines What Wikipedia is not Disclaimer (parental advice) Making requests Who writes Wikipedia?
Help for readers (?)	FAQ Books Copyright Glossary Mobile access Navigation Other languages Searching Students Viewing media
Contributing to Wikipedia (?)	Advice for young editors Avoiding common mistakes Etiquette Simplified Manual of Style Simplified rule-set "Ignore all rules" "The rules are principles" Style-tips Tip of the day Your first article (article wizard)
Getting started (?)	Why create an account? Introductions by topic Graphics tutorials Picture tutorial IRC (live chat) tutorial VisualEditor user guide
Dos and don'ts (?)	Accessibility Biographies Biographies (living) Categorization Consensus Discussions Disambiguation Images Leads Links Lists References Tables Titles (of articles)
How-to pages and information pages (?)	Appealing blocks Article deletion Categories Citations/references Referencing for beginners Citation Style 1 Cite errors References and page numbers Convert Diff Editing Minor edit toolbar edit conflict Find sources Files Footnotes Image deletion Infoboxes Linking (link color) Logging in Merging Page name Renaming pages Redirect Passwords Email confirmation Reverting Simple vandalism cleanup Talk pages (archiving simple archiving) User contributions WP search protocol
Coding (?)	Wiki markup Barcharts Calculations Characters Columns Elevation Hidden text HTML Lists Magic words Music symbols Sections Sounds Tables Templates Transclusion URL Visual files
Directories (?)	Abbreviations Contents (Encyclopedia proper) Departments Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Guidelines Manual of Style Policies Tasks Tips Tools
Missing Manual Ask for help on your talk page (?)