Wikipedia:Help desk

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.
• 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.

Ask a question

February 3

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

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

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

Because on Wikipedia, we don't follow Webster's style guide, we follow our own Manual of Style, which requires that punctuation go outside the quotation marks unless it is part of the quotation. Algebraist 00:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can the Manual be changed? --96.232.54.7 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it could, that's the great thing about a wiki. But things usually have a reason for being that way. You could try suggesting it on the talkpage of the manual and see what others think about it.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see here, where it is explained why this method is used. The method you mentioned is also used in some cases, as shown there. I don't think any suggestion to change the manual to incorporate only your method would be accepted because of the reasons mentioned there. You can try, of course. Chamal ^talk 00:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you would get any support to change MOS from British English speaking/writing editors. – ukexpat (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you make your own page?

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

You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You cannot make an article about yourself unless you are famous; for example, a movie star, a politician, a bishop, etc. You can, however, sign up for a free Wikipedia account, and make a user page, on which you can write all kinds of stuff about yourself. Creating an account has many other benefits as well. --96.232.54.7 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually you aren't allowed to write an article about yourself regardless of whether or not you are famous as that would be a conflict of interest. Although anybody else could.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 00:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. How would anybody know though? --96.232.54.7 (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well usually it's blatantly obvious. They may say so themselves, make it sound like advertisement (WP:NPOV), only edit that article (WP:SPA), have a username that is the same as the article (WP:UAA), make an article about something nobody has heard about (WP:NOTABLE), etc. Although you're right, it would be hard to tell but if it really is that significant then it probably already has an article written about it.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 01:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is no rule that says you cannot write an article about yourself assuming you meet the notability criteria. The appropriate guideline -- WP:AUTO -- says it is "strongly discouraged". – ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Strongly discouraged" meaning "There is no way you will ever do it in such a way that is acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, so don't even try". Seriously, if you are notable enough, someone who doesn't know you personally will eventually create a Wikipedia article about you. If there's not enough information in the world outside of Wikipedia for people who don't know you personally to write a quality article about you, then you aren't notable enough. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Name

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

For the same reason that www.expertsexchange.com moved to www.experts-exchange.com. Well, for similar reasons. All the old page names still work, but the CamelCase makes it easier for people to parse the individual words correctly. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Map of 2018 FIFA World Cup bids.svg

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

I added the template {{NowCommons}} to the image page, this places the image in the deletion categories and acts as a speedy deletion template. Nanonic (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this is one part of Wikipedia I have little experience in.--Patrick «» 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted it. Theresa Knott | token threats 04:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

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

Of Wikipedia? The Wikimedia Foundation. – ukexpat (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking to cite Wikipedia in a paper or other academic report, you might find Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia helpful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

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

See WP:ROLLBACK and Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback for more information. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Tools like twinkle do some magic and give you the rollback button even if you don't have the rollback right (which you don't have at the moment).--Commander Keane (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Actually it seems some people use the term "geological information system". I would guess it's like a geographic information system which includes geologic depth. If the questioner would tell us where he/she first heard the term, we might determine whether he/she really means "geological information system" or "geographic information system." Unfortunately, most supplicants on the Help desk have not read How to Ask Questions the Smart Way and so they omit critical details from their questions, such as the history of how they arrived at having their questions, and what goals they are trying to advance by asking their questions. Thus we cannot be sure whether a questioner really means what they wrote in some cases. --Teratornis (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Song infobox

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

I would probably bring it up on the talk page. Since I don't know the subject matter, I can't comment on what should or should not be there. I would think, that if nothing else - the original song info should be included in the body of the subject, if it's not in the info box. (sourced and verifiable of course). — Ched (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well is there some guidelines on multiple infobox usage? HelenWatt (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A compromise would be to include both infoboxes. Several songs do just that. However, the most important place to have this discussion is on the article talk page. If the two of you cannot reach a reasonable agreement on how to proceed, you can bring in extra help via dispute resolution, for example seeking a Third Opinion or a request for comment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm not involved, but I'm interested in seeing something in writing on infobox usage. There doesn't appear to be anything which discusses this on the template Talk pages. HelenWatt (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia

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

• I'm not sure exactly which percentage of references are news articles, but your teacher is basically right. We only compile information that is already available. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Actually, I'd say that (with the exception of extremely current topics), considerably less than half our material is from newspapers and television/radio/web reportage. Most of the content tends to be from books, magazines, academic journals, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

That is why we have to adhere to neutral point of view and use reliable sources. Wikipedia articles are not a collection of news reports, article writing requires much more than that. Also, news reports are not the only sources used. Chamal ^talk 12:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedias interpretation of reliable sources seems to be popular websites and well known newpapers. If i were to write an article using a book nobody on here has heard of, would anyone really check if the book even exists? Britannica for instance has 4000 highly specialized people who check and make sure the best sources (not just reliable ones) are used. Apparently there are only around 1000 admins (about 700) active that are made up of people of little or no understanding of how to write an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.163.251 (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not just websites, but all kinds of sources. Maybe this page will help you to understand more. A book that nobody has heard of would hardly pass as a reliable source. There are ways to check if the book exists (for example, ISBN numbers or even a simple google search). In our better articles (FAs, GAs etc) the factual accuracy is generally checked strictly. In stubs etc, this may be somewhat lax, because of the large number of articles there are. There are actually 859 admins, but their job is not to check for factual accuracy. This can be done by any user (numbering 47,428,849) or reader, and an admin's role is different. There are a lot of people who do cleanup work, copyediting and stuff. I myself is not an admin here, but Mgm who answered your earlier question is. So as you can see, all of us work to keep this place as an encyclopedia. All our articles are not perfect of course, and they have to be developed gradually. BTW, the facts given in articles can be checked by the readers themselves. You can see some small numbers next to the text that will direct you to the source that information comes from. If there isn't anything like that for some controversial claim, you can request it by adding {{citation needed}} there. It's hard to explain everything here, I suggest you read our core policies, which will show you how things work around here. There are also some links at the bottom of that page, which will take you to more detailed policy and guideline details. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Someone added a book reference yesterday with an improbable title to an article on my watchlist. It was an actual book with quite relevant information. I personally have amassed a fairly extensive library related to my work here, and have found many more references in the local libraries. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Strictly speaking, the teacher's original claim has an incorrect connotation. To say Wikipedia is "just a collaboration of news articles (actually: reliable sources) put together in a way to create article (sic)" is like saying Pelé was "just" a footballer, Mozart was "just" a composer, Science is "just" a collection of ideas, etc. The qualifier "just" might mislead the hearer into thinking Pelé was not much different than the average kid kicking a football around in the street, that Mozart was like any other tunesmith, and science is like any other collection of ideas. All of these connotations would be very wrong, because all four of these examples are considerably more than "just" the particular one of their attributes that the teacher's cognitive capacity can grasp. There are thousands (maybe millions) of Web sites that aggregate, summarize, or reorganize previously published content in various ways. The vast majority of them are far less successful than Wikipedia (which is the world's fifth most valuable Web property now). This suggests there is quite a bit more to Wikipedia than the ignorant teacher has thus far figured out. Also, it is not entirely true that Wikipedia has no original work - we have our images and other media files which in many cases are original works that Wikipedia users donate to the project. --Teratornis (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ask your teacher to describe how one of your textbooks is created. How is this better or worse than how Wikipedia is created? Ask you teacher if Wikipedia's approach is better or worse than other encyclopedias, and why. Note that it is much easer to check the sources of a Wikipedia article than it is to check the sources of a textbook or of traditional a encyclopedia. -Arch dude (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sociophysics

Wikipedia is an enormous help to which I desperately wish to contribute to , but cannot because of the paypal blog: it would be appreciated if a proper researched article on 'Sociophysics' is displayed asap. ---ijaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autistic49 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Explain "because of the paypal blog", please. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I too cannot understand the question. However, that rarely stops me from attempting to answer - life's more fun on the ragged edge of coherence. Just picking up on some of the keywords, and ignoring the sentence structure, in a Google-like way:

• foundation:Donate explains how to donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation. If you can't or don't use Paypal, see:
  • foundation:Donate/WaysToGive/en
• "Contribute" can also have a non-monetary meaning, as in helping to edit our articles. See WP:COFAQ.
• Wikipedia has no article on Sociophysics at the moment. However, see the (most likely related) article: Econophysics, and you can:
  • Search Wikipedia with Google for: sociophysics to see where else we mention the term.
  • Examine the history of our article Econophysics to identify other users who might want to create a Sociophysics article.

--Teratornis (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

One can also donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation indirectly by using GoodSearch. --Kletta (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimmys talk page

Can someone take a look at Jimmys chat page - I suspect someone has messed with his archive box !

Cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for letting us know. Woody (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing a Page

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Wiki

I have just edited a page , but the information added will not align itself with the rest of the text after I have pressed the "Save Page " .

It continues t0 be highlighted in the edited form .

Am I missing something .

I would be glad for your help .

LweeraRuxing (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the page for you. GlassCobra 16:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Great ......many thanks .Ruxing (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Viewing .svg files with IE 7.0

I am absolutely sure I am not the first one who stumbled into this. I have searched entire Wikipedia, I have read the article on scalable vector graphics, I searched the F.A.Q. and help desk, and only thing I could find is a recommendation to download and install the discontinued Adobe plug-in for IE 7.0. I did this, to be sure, and found out that it does not support scrolling, so I could only see the upper left corner of the image, or the whole image greatly zoomed out, when nothing can be really seen. I am not a technician, and I really do not care a bit about graphic formats and their pros and cons. What I care about is that the most massively used web-browser does not support this obscure format used in the most massively visited on-line Encyclopedia, and I simply cannot see most of the images I am interested in. Naturally, switching to other browser just for Wikipedia's sake is simply not an option for me. Could you please tell me what plug-in should I use to cope with this? I would be grateful for a web link. And please no jokes about "pluggin' in one's own brains", I have heard that one already :-) 194.44.31.194 (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not an obscure format by any means, but I still would be interested in the replies, though I never use IE7. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean any insults. I just supposed that if it is not supported in IE, than it should be for a reason. Namely this format ought to be so scarcely used that supporting it is not feasible. 194.44.31.194 (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Adobe has an SVG plugin: http://www.adobe.com/svg/  – ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Internet Explorer has lagged behind Mozilla Firefox in several aspects of development, for example Tabbed browsing was available in Firefox before MSIE, and security features such as NoScript may still be ahead of MSIE. As the Scalable Vector Graphics article says, SVG is an open standard, which diametrically opposes Microsoft's explicit goal of maintaining proprietary advantage. Thus it is hardly surprising, though no less dismaying, that "All major modern web browsers except Microsoft Internet Explorer support and render SVG markup directly." If you (Mr./Ms. 194.44.31.194) want to fully enjoy the free content on Wikipedia, then you should reconsider your refusal to switch to a non-crippled Web browser. You are correct when you suppose that if MSIE does not support SVG, it is for a reason. The reason is, quite simply, that Microsoft (correctly) views the entire open source movement as a direct threat to its vast revenue, which it built through a comprehensive strategy of vendor lock-in. Microsoft wants information to be not free - Microsoft wants to own all the information it can, and charge you to use it. Notice that you asked your question on Wikipedia's Help desk, instead of trying to ask Microsoft to tell you how to fix their broken browser. Microsoft would charge you $90/hour to listen to you telling Microsoft about their bugs. --Teratornis (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more. I switched to Firefox several years ago and do not regret it at all. It has its issues, but with hundreds of add-ins available it is a very customisable tool. However, let's not forget that some organisations and companies do not permit installation of unapproved software on their PCs. If that is the situation facing the original poster, all I can do is suggest that they lobby their corporate IT organisation as strongly as possible. – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Another option would be to install Inkscape or some other SVG editor, and then the questioner could download SVG files and view them offline. That's a bit clunky, but it might be worth the nuisance if the questioner wants to take a detailed look at these files. I'm aware that many organizations do not permit various software packages on their computers. I wonder what those organizations think of their employees browsing to Wikipedia on company time? Wikipedia has an awful lot of content that probably doesn't contribute to a typical employee's productivity, not to mention a fair amount that is not safe for work. Depending on the job, there might only be a few Wikipedia articles that directly apply, but on the other hand some of them might be extremely valuable to someone in a work context. In any case, the questioner did not say whether he/she is browsing to Wikipedia from work. --Teratornis (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, jumping in here, but are we absolutely sure IE7 doesn't support SVG? I've just tried this wikibooks page in IE7 and it appears to work just fine (i.e. it looks the same as it does in Firefox). I've hovered over the images, and checked that I'm actually looking at SVGs... Are there some maybe aspects of the SVG spec that don't render in IE7? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To quote from Scalable Vector Graphics, "As of October 2008[update], Windows Internet Explorer is the only major browser not to provide native SVG support. IE requires a plugin to render SVG content." Presumably, you have some kind of plugin installed. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I must do. I had a quick scan of the add-ins, and the only interesting ones were Adobe PDF stuff and Java, but I'm by no means an IE person (and my IE will have been installed by my employer's IT department, so is quite possibly non-standard). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think MediaWiki renders SVGs as PNGs for thumbnails, like in that wikibooks page. However if you go to the SVGs image description page and click on the image, IE7, for me, opens a file download window, whereas Firefox displays the image.--Commander Keane (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha! (Feeling slightly daft now...) You're quite right - when I checked an image's properties, it was indeed a PNG. Thanks for that! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) This reminds me of a sign I saw hanging in a computer room (back in the days when you had to go to a special room to find a computer):

• If it is there, and you can see it, it is real.
• If it is not there, and you can see it, it is virtual.
• If it is there, and you cannot see it, it is transparent.
• If it is not there, and you cannot see it, it is deleted.

--Teratornis (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to everyone for such detailed replies. It seems to me that really the only option to view these .svg files normally is to switch to some other browser. What concerns me most is that if IE, which is developed with Microsoft's huge investments and manpower, is still bugged and incomplete, then just HOW bugged and incomplete are the rivals? Again, no insults intended and I am in no way a Microsoft fan, but I think my concerns are obvious. Or is this just a result of a distorted view due to powerful and aggressive advertisement? 194.44.31.194 (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.31.194 (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who confused more than I enlightened, take what I say wth a pinch of salt...! Powerful advertising is (IMHO) a factor; Internet Explorer was, for a period (after the Browser wars), superior to its main rival (Netscape Navigator). Development then largely halted, and several browsers (notably Firefox, but also Opera and others) stole a march on IE. Latterly IE has been actively developed again, and has picked up some features which other browsers have had as standard for some time (e.g. tabbed browsing). The IE team have also been more involved in standards bodies - hence my surprise that IE7 didn't support SVG - a standard that's been around for a long time.

The open source development model, too, plays a part (again, IMHO) - this radically reduces development costs and potentially increases the number of developers. Or, put another way, Microsoft have to pay IE's developers, and those developers might be taken off IE development as required (as the Windows Vista launch date approached, for example). In contrast, Firefox development is open to anyone who's interested - unpaid, largely, but Firefox developers will be developing it in their spare time so pay isn't the same concern.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting back on topic, 194.44.31.194 what are you trying to achieve? If you just want to see an SVG file in a large size you can get Wikipedia to render you a big PNG version. I have done an example at User:Commander Keane/Sandpit.--Commander Keane (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem;CC on CBS prime time programs

Why has there been only part CC on prime shows and are not only there but don't match the person doing the talking? I'm a hearing impaired 60 yr old which depends on CC because audio is not clear to my aid . Could you try to fix the problem for me on shows like CSI and other CBS prime shows. Thanks if problem is fixed. Chuck Schmutzer, Apache Junction AZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.47.52 (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Algebraist 17:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Even though this is not exactly the right place, I did a quick check and found the "feedback" page at the CBS web site. Click here for their feedback page. -Arch dude (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I post my article?

I currently have an article written in my user pages, but I would like it to be officially available in Wikipedia. How do I go about moving it? Rural Telephone (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In its current form the article would be speedily deleted as spam if moved to the mainspace. Please read WP:Spam and WP:Corp for guidance. Also, your user name is in breach of the user name policy as it appears to be promotional. – ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

RSS Feed

what is an RSS feed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.203.54 (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See our article on RSS Feed. You can also ask at the reference desk, where they answer specific knowledge questions. TN‑X-Man 18:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please check my posting to see how well it follows wiki guidelines

Resolved

 – stubified and moved to The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I am excited about posting my first page onto wikipedia. I was hoping someone could check my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Talentsmart2/sandbox to see how well it fits into wikipedia's guidelines and to offer any suggestions to help me make it wiki ready. I really appreciate your help and am excited about contributing to such a great wealth of knowledge <--Talentsmart2 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it still reads like a promotional piece, the reason that it was speedily deleted yesterday. If all the promo stuff is cut out, it would not even be a stub. Please take a look at articles on other books to see how they are written. – ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the problem the first paragraph, the quote, or the table of contents? I tried to model it after the 5 dysfunctions of a team by Patrick Lencioni and cite all the areas that could be seen as promotional. Could you please advise me about the best course of action to take. I really appreciate your help.--66.253.114.35 (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See my reply on User talk:Talentsmart2. – ukexpat (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It has now been stubified and moved to The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book. Marking as resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it be uncivil of me to note that it appears Emotional Intelligence does not seem to help much with decoding Wikipedia's stupefyingly complex policies and guidelines? In a way, it's kind of sad to see someone's good-faith effort getting marked up with all those scolding template messages, but I guess that's just Wikipedia rolling forward with its customary grim efficiency. --Teratornis (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And the OP has now been blocked. I agree with Teratornis that WP policies and guidelines are stupefyingly complex - if someone had set out to design them to put off or even to entrap new editors, they could hardly have done better. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As a philosophical aside (I'm not really qualified to use the word "philosophical" but who is?), lately I've been pondering the question the question of whether Wikipedia could be simpler than it is. (Merely wishing it were simpler, as WP:CREEP seems to do, is kind of pointless if Wikipedia cannot be (much) simpler.) If what Wikipedia wants to do is unavoidably complex, maybe Wikipedia's complexity reflects the underlying complexity of the problem. As Fred Brooks explained decades ago in his No Silver Bullet paper, you can only simplify the "accidental" complexity of a system. The "essential" complexity has to remain, or you break the system. While we (probably) cannot make Wikipedia much simpler, we might do a better job of proactively informing new users of our rules before they spend hours on editing projects that were doomed from the start. Currently we make zero attempt to check whether new users understand anything at all about Wikipedia before just letting them do whatever. It's like having a ski resort where the proprietors make no attempt to steer skiers toward the runs that fit their skills. Just let the novices "be bold" with the black diamond run, why bother trying to warn them? Maybe it's just me, but I think failing to warn people of impending danger, and failing to get some indication that they understand the warning, is contrary to being civil, in a passive aggressive kind of way. --Teratornis (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I Put An Image In?

I tried adding an image to an article, by adding a Photobucket link, but it didn't work. Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.190.157 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to upload it to Wikipedia first. Wikipedia:IMAGE#Uploading_images This might help. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But to do that you will need to create an account and be autoconfirmed (10 edits and account at least 4 days old). Also, please read the free use policy. The rules as to which images can be uploaded and used in articles are very strict. If it is an image that you have taken yourself, please consider uploading it to Commons so it is available to all the Wikimedia projects. – ukexpat (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that uploading images is one of the harder things for a new user to figure out on Wikipedia, what with all the crazy licensing stuff - don't blame us, blame those lawyers who invented the strange fiction of intellectual property sometime after the invention of movable type. I'm looking at Photobucket (wow, it makes Flickr look technologically advanced) and the terms of use are rather chilling. Some excepts:

• Except as provided within this Agreement, you may not copy, modify, translate, publish, broadcast, transmit, distribute, perform, display, or sell any Content appearing on or through the Photobucket Services.
• The Photobucket Services are for the personal use of Users and may be used for promotional purposes as well, but direct commercial endeavors may only be used if they are specifically endorsed or authorized by Photobucket.

Since we prefer our images to have the Four Freedoms, Photobucket is not looking good for us. If you would consider uploading your photos to Flickr instead of Photobucket, and license them under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, the users at Wikimedia Commons have worked out a relatively simple procedure for uploading them to Commons so Wikipedia articles can use them. See for example the Flickr photos (by other people) I have uploaded. Only a fraction of photos on Flickr are under the two licenses we can use, but that's still a lot of freely usable photos. --Teratornis (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A comment on the Fraternity of Free Masonry

How do I post a comment of a personal experience in my membership in the Fraternity of Free Masonry? I think my comment would be of great help to the membership: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.193.178 (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you cannot - that would be original research and not capable of verification by reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The above reply is about as good as correct if you are a relatively new user on Wikipedia. With enough knowledge of Wikipedia, you might be able to get around the original research problem. Your basic options include:

• Find another user-editable Web site that lets you post about your personal experience. (Perhaps MySpace, or one of the Alternative outlets.) This is by far the easiest option for someone new to Wikipedia.
• If you are really determined to try to put your personal experience on Wikipedia, in some guise, then first you must find a reliable, published source that either recounts the personal experience of yourself, or of someone else whose personal experience is very similar to yours. Then you can cite that source for whatever claims of an encyclopedic nature you want to make on Wikipedia about this subject.

Note that very few people who are new to Wikipedia would be able to perform the second option anything like quickly. Just for starters you need to click on all the blue words we linked and read the friendly manuals behind them. Also, it's one thing to post on Wikipedia; it's quite another to make your contributions stick. Wikipedia encourages everyone to be bold and try stuff, but in many cases being bold before you have read all the manuals just leads to other users removing your contributions or mercilessly editing them beyond all recognition. If you're approaching Wikipedia with a certain specific goal in mind that you formulated without much knowledge of Wikipedia, you might find Wikipedia frustrating. A more reliably gratifying approach is to read lots of manuals, spend lots of time looking at things, and then start formulating goals consistent with the nature of Wikipedia as you begin to grasp how things work here. --Teratornis (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Saving visited pages

Is there a way to save and sort through visited pages for further reference, sort of like a WIKINOTES? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcap4 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not through Wikipedia itself. You can check your browser's history for pages you've visited recently, or you can bookmark the pages you want to come back to. Hermione1980 23:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bookmarking is the preferred way for most people. I use it, but I put the ones that I really want/need to read on my userpage so I won't forget (like the table here). flaminglawyer 23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Or add them to you watchlist. Even if there have been no recent edits, all of your watchlisted pages are viewable if you click the "view and edit watchlist" link at the top of your watchlist. – ukexpat (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your user page (and any number of user subpages you may want to create) can function as your wikinotes. See for example my blatherings here: User:Teratornis/Energy. Whenever you see something you would like to work into an article, but you're not ready to do it yet, or it's not complete and you need to collect more information before taking it to article space, you can add it to your notes. This can also be useful for other users who want to examine your work. However, note that your user page is visible to the whole world, and you have to adhere to Wikipedia's rules for content (see Wikipedia:User page). --Teratornis (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is Wikimarks which does what you requested. DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

February 4

data collection tools

I have some ideas about factors that influence article accuracy, vandalism, and community formation around wikipedia articles/topics. I was wondering how i might gain access to data collection tools that might give me information such as: rate of edits as a fx of time for an individual page, page views as a fx of time for a page, most viewed/edited pages at any given time, bot activity, etc. I know most of the relevant data is right there in the history but I don't know how best to harvest it. Do these sorts of research tools already exist for wikipedia, or is this something that needs to be written? --Shaggorama (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone reading the Help desk just now knows exactly where to find what you need (although I've been wrong before), but you can start hunting here: WP:EIW#Research, WP:EIW#Query, and WP:EIW#Statistic. Lots of people have done lots of studies and data mining on Wikipedia's database. Maybe you can find someone who has built the tools you want, or something close enough to customize. --Teratornis (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To start with: http://www.wikirage.com/ and http://stats.grok.se/ --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks gadget, those're exactly the kidns of things I was looking for! Where'd you find em? --96.231.171.72 (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also a list of Special pages which might have some links that would be of interest. (perhaps even Statistics) — Ched (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I foregot my password

i foregot my password how do i get it back i do remember my username though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.218.8 (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have registered an email address for you account, then go to Special:Userlogin and request a new password. If you haven't, you'll have to create a new account. Algebraist 01:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

thanky0u I will tri that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.218.8 (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you need to create a new account, make sure you supply an email address so you can regain any forgotten passwords in the future. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-expanding Template Parameters

A more specific question than many, but definately under the heading of "how to use WikiPedia"

Parameters do not get expanded when they are inside nowiki tags or XML-style extension tags.

Is there any sensible way to work around this? For example:

{{Template:Query|Q=rep_StockStatus}}

where the template code is:

<include nopre noesc src="https://my.domain.com/FetchData?q={{{Q}}}" />

which should expand to:

<include nopre noesc src="https://my.domain.com/FetchData?q=rep_StockStatus" />

but does not, the PHP code doesn't get parsed data, it sees https://my.domain.com/FetchData?q={{{Q}}}, which is pretty useless. Kenpem (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would bring it up at the WP:Village Pump, it's more of a technical issue with the parser rather than anything we here can answer. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 01:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't explain what you are trying to do. Where do you want to use such a template, and what effect are you trying for? Describe the goal, not the step. It stands to reason that if the MediaWiki designers blocked a certain type of parameter expansion, there probably won't be a precise way to circumvent their block. That means you may have to fall back to a completely different approach to whatever you are trying to do. Since you didn't say what you are trying to do, only the specific path you chose to do it, it's hard for anyone to say what a good workaround might be. --Teratornis (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:Version shows mw:Extension:Include is not installed on Wikipedia (and for good reason). How is this under the heading of "how to use Wikipedia"? Do you want it for another wiki using the MediaWiki software. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright question

Resolved

I have a question about File:Runescape moderators.png. It shows the icons used in the MMORPG RuneScape to identify moderators. The uploader (Zachera) specified a CC-BY 3.0 licence. My question: can this image be speedied -- it uses copyrighted works and doesn't declare fair use and places said works under a free licence -- and if so, which tag? The only fair-use related tags seem to be for images that claim fair use and don't have a rationale or for images that are completely missing licence information, neither of which apply here. Xenon54 (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Use CSD F11. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 01:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Gone. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox UK place}} slightly borked problem

Resolved

See Eorodale. Why is the Postcode District borked? The anchor has an extra pipe, but wikipedia is not even turning it into a red link. Confused. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Because postcode_area and postcode_district are linked and both need to be present. postcode_area just links whatever is in postcode_district to the article HS postcode area. To cut a long story short, just enter HS2 in postcode_district and it'll work. Nanonic (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

how to delete the page that I created?

Hi, how to delete the page that I created? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.166.99 (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Db-g7}} may be appropriate but I cannot say for sure without knowing which page is it. This is the only edit registered to your IP address. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to a page on Wikipedia? If not, then the Reference Desk might be more appropriate. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 22:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Solving An Editing Dispute

I recently came across a dispute between two sides pushing two different edits. This dispute has been going on off-and-on for over a year, and certain editors involved in it are making it hostile, as well as making it suicide for a new person to join in. I am interested in that matter being disputed, but hesitant to actually get involved directly for that very reason. So, I was wondering, is there some place where this dispute can be posted and someone on staff or something can just flat-out say what should be done, without any extra discussion? Accusations and flames are flying around, and a lot of people are saying things about the matter I recognize as false just to spite people from the opposing side. General consensus and the Wikipedia guidelines point to a certain answer in the dispute, but just editing the article will prove pointless without something or someone that says that is the right edit. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is consistent edit warring over the content, submit a request for page protection to stop the edit warring. Instead of, or in addition to, that, if the editors are actively creating a hostile environment for others, I would go with an alert at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (possibly the Incidents subpage). Admins will be able to take a look and see if anything there merits sanctions on the users involved. If that doesn't resolve anything, you may want to consider asking the disputants to engage in mediation, without yourself taking sides. Some other pages you might want to try are Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. But only do one of these several suggestions at a time -- don't do them all at once! =) Powers ^T 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're new to this type of situation at Wikipedia, sometimes Dispute Resolution is a valuable read. It covers many of the items that LtPowers mentions. While it may not relate to this particular dispute (given the length of time), sometimes A third opinion can help diffuse a situation before it gets escalated beyond control. — Ched (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC) (fix link)05:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that won't work. In the past, people have tried stuff like that, from what I've read, and the ones who do end up suffering. I just want someone they can't argue with to speak up and say "This is how the article should be", so that the article can be fixed and anyone who tries to mess with it will get into trouble. That should stop all the fighting. But is there no place like that? WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that no one person has the authority to say "this is how the article should be." It is supposed to take a consensus of users to settle an edit war. By the way, which article is the problem at? Can't really help out in an editing dispute without knowing the explicit details...Someguy1221 (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to say. I am still new here, and during the time this dispute has been going on, a certain user inparticular has made it a habit of attacking people who join in or bring up the dispute again. My biggest fear is this user getting involved and making some outrageous accusation that will get me banned, like so many others. I will post the answer to your question on your talk page, but please do not post on that article or any of those disputes. Any discussion is destroyed the minute that user shows up, it seems. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous accusations do not get people banned. Bad behavior does. If you have something more than generalities, and want administrators to look into possible behavioral troubles, you may want to start a thread at WP:ANI. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Imagine saying to a physician: "A person is not feeling well. What should that person do to feel better?" Such a question is ill-posed, and a physician could not do much with it, because there are thousands of (known) ways to not feel well, each requiring its own particular treatment. Asking vague questions on the Help desk is something like that. Please read How to Ask Questions the Smart Way. Disputes on Wikipedia can be as diverse as Wikipedia's subject matter, and with 6,825,570 articles, that's a lot of diversity. However, there is one general rule that almost always applies on Wikipedia: in any sort of dispute here, the side which reads the largest number of friendly manuals usually wins. That is, the more you know about how Wikipedia works (and it's almost all in writing), the more likely you are to "win" when someone crosses you. As a corollary, if you are new to Wikipedia, you should probably just stay out of any ongoing disputes for a while, because you probably don't know enough about Wikipedia yet to avoid undermining your position by making some Wikipedia-specific procedural error, even if your position is factually sound. On Wikipedia there is no deadline. You can spend a few months making small edits to noncontroversial articles and reading the manuals. Later, when you have a firmer grasp on what is going on, you can think about working on some controversial articles. If you plan to argue with people who care strongly about something, and have a deeply entrenched position, you should learn how to argue (or refresh your memory if you already learned), by reading the following articles and links therefrom:

• Critical thinking
• List of fallacies
• List of cognitive biases

Most people are unfamiliar with the fallacies they use routinely when they think, and therefore when they argue. Most people are also unaware of their cognitive biases, or even that such things exist. By learning how to recognize these stereotypical flaws in thinking (both your own, and other people's), you can amuse yourself endlessly by dissecting and refuting other people's arguments (and possibly end up being universally hated, but it's worth it). It's easy to identify these flaws in other people's thinking, but much harder to get other people to recognize their flawed logic when you point it out. That's because most people think primarily with emotion, and then use semi-logical thought to rationalize what they initially believed for emotional reasons. However, we have to keep trying to use logical discourse, because it's the only type of thinking almost all people can learn to have in common. We will never all share the same emotional biases, but we can all learn to construct and evaluate arguments with the same logical rules. --Teratornis (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

None of this really helps...I'm not looking to join in an ongoing dispute; I'm looking for an answer to an ongoing dispute. It's been over a year, and there has to be some rule or method or person on Wikipedia that can dictate which side is right and what should be in the article. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You assert there "has to be" but there isn't, aside from what's been mentioned to you already. If that's not sufficient, then I advise you to just leave it be. Powers ^T 13:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

error in article !!!

richard nixon after he died was flown to california in sam 27000 , NOT sam 26000 as indicated in the article regarding the death and funeral of richard nixon. I am an air force one history buff. thanks you guys are a great for research Kevin Brooks <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.179.216 (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? – ukexpat (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sociophysics

This is a comment and not a question. A request is being made for a well researched article on 'Sociophysics'(SP) : the mention of SP under Econophysics does not constitute an article . Paypal payment is a process I cannot pursue as my country is not listed on the scroll. I hope things are clearer now.---ijaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autistic49 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• What has paypal got to do with it? You don't need to pay to contribute or to request an article. Payment might improve the chances of someone writing an article quickly, but so do BARNSTARs - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The commenter (not questioner, it seems) refers to the earlier instance of the #Sociophysics question on the Help desk above. The commenter should read Help:Talk page, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages) to see how to converse on Wikipedia with our idiosyncratic way of doing things. It's unfortunate that the Help desk requires more knowledge of wikitext editing than most people have, just to ask a question about how to edit on Wikipedia, but we're stuck with this bootstrapping problem because of the technology we use. --Teratornis (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

from draft to publishing

Hallo, I am new at the english wiki-pages. I finished a draft, and I don't know how to "publish" the articel. Can anybody help me? Thanks and best regards--Fishtownjam (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The draft has to be moved to the mainspace, but you can only do that if your account is autoconfirmed - 10 edits and at least 4 days old. However at the moment the draft looks like a copy and paste from http://www.chill-on.com/index.php (and other pages on the site) and therefore a copyright violation and would be speedily deleted as Wikipedia cannot accept copyright material (unless it is specifically released by the copyright owner as described in WP:IOWN). In fact it should probably be deleted as a copyvio from you userspace too. – ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sociophysics

I want to communicate directly with the two gentlemen who responded to what I posted yesterday but I cannot , inspite of my efforts. Could either of them help; should they be suitably inclined? This indeed is a question!! --ijaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autistic49 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Your question is still on this page. Each editor has a talk page (usually linked in their signature) where you can leave them personal messages. The links for the people who have responded to you are User talk:Orangemike, User talk:Teratornis and me (I know nothing about the subject, so I can't help) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The only additional information I can provide (see my previous replies) is these entries from WP:EIW#NewA:

• New articles proposed by non-registered editors:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard-Introduction – a series of qualifying questions leading to a page where the proposed new article can be posted
  • Wikipedia:Articles for creation – for both those proposing articles and those reviewing proposed articles
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
  • User:Henrik/afc-helper (user script) – enables one-click declines for proposed new articles

However, since you have an account, in theory you would not use WP:AFC. Note that creating new articles on Wikipedia and defending them against deletionists can be a lot of work. I myself have no interest in writing about Sociophysics, because I know almost nothing about the subject and I would have to spend a lot of time researching it before I could write an article which would survive here. (It's easier for me to contribute to topics I know something about, or have a personal interest in learning.) However, there might be other Wikipedians with an interest in the topic who could help, and I gave you clues about how to find them in my previous reply. Be aware that on Wikipedia it's easier to find simple tasks you can do to help the project, than to have some idea already in mind and then try to find someone else who can help you with it. Most people who have spent hundreds of hours reading the friendly manuals and honing their Wikipedia-editing skills are already fully engaged on the tasks they want to do. Only a few skilled editors go far out of their way to help new users, and as you can imagine most of those people tend to be busy. The world always has a surplus of needs, and a shortage of people who can fill needs. Perhaps that is one of the precepts of sociophysics. Basically on the Help desk we merely point you to the instructions that tell you how to do what you want to do. We are less inclined to do all the work for you, unless your request is simple (starting new articles on esoteric subjects is not simple). Wikipedia is a do it yourself system, which means the results you get out are proportional to the effort you put in. Also, I am sorry that this Help desk is so difficult for Wikipedia newcomers to use. Unfortunately this kind of wikitext-based discussion is optimized for people who already know a lot about editing on Wikipedia. It's not a good ergonomic fit for most people who have little editing experience on Wikipedia, which is kind of self-contradictory, but the only way to make things better is if someone figures out how and does the hard work. Software does not get better by itself. Wikipedia is an excellent editing environment for people who spend a lot of time learning about it, but it takes a major life commitment to master. --Teratornis (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

script that compares the edits of 2 editors

where's that script that compares the edits of 2 editors to look for common interests etc.? Tks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalk? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

RADIO Question

what is RADIO swill I have too get another radio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.53.75 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your question is unclear. In any event this Help Desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. The Reference Desk folks may be able to help you if you phrase your question more clearly. – ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sir Rabindranath Tagore

I worked as an RAF man in Bally, on the Barrakpore Road, in 1974. A large and beautiful white building stood on the east side of the road, west bank of the Hooghly, just a mile or so towards the city. I also worked in this building, and was told that it had been owned by Sir Rabindranath Tagore. I should like to insert this as a comment on the appropriate page about Tagore and to ask if anyonecan confirm this for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bs306hy (talk • contribs) 14:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless the building is notable in his life story, it seems like a bit of trivia not suitable for the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with an image copyright issue

This is something I should have known a very long time ago. But would someone mind talking me through the most correct and efficient way to deal with the following image: Newey.jpg on Glen Newey. Including not biting the newbie, not wasting other editors' time etc. etc. Thanks very much. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've marked it as deletable (no copyright information) using Twinkle. Algebraist 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. So, if I see nothing at all about copyright on the image page, then I tag for deletion. Not having Twinkle, what template do I apply? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

TW puts {{di-no license|date=current date goes here}} on the image page, {{deletable image-caption|1=date seven days in the future goes here}} in the caption on all articles using the image, and {{subst:Di-no license-notice|name of file here, without :File: prefix}} on the uploader's talk page. It's best if messages are left in all three places, so I recommend getting TW if you're going to this a lot. Algebraist 16:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know TW's useful, but there can be firewall issues. I take it I can apply those templates without it though, and it will just be more tedious. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Wikipedia article appear when I google the subject?

I recently contributed an article on Stonecroft Ministries. However, when I google the subject "Stonecroft Ministries," the Wikipedia article does not show up in the list of results. Why? What can I do to correct this issue?

16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Share the gospel (talk)

It does. If you surrounded your search term with inverted commas, it appears on the second page of the results (at least, it does for me). Please note that getting an article onto Google results is not the aim of Wikipedia..._Gb^T/c 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has now been speedily deleted as overly promotional. – ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to cleanly expand a {{reflist}}?

I would like to be able to generate a convenient listing of references from an article in wiki markup. With some templates you can apply a "subst", but it produces an "ugly" markup for this template (still uses css). There are two issues I'd like to address:

• The reflist should produce clean wiki markup (not css interspersed with wiki markup).
• I need to be able to grab a reference list from an existing article without saving to that page.

Can anyone offer any advice? ←Spidern→ 18:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt this is easily possible. The most likely people to know for sure are the regulars at WP:VPT. Algebraist 19:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

{{reflist}} is just a wrapper for <references /> that applies formatting. The footnotes system uses the Cite.php extension to the MediaWiki software <references /> is the extension tag that causes the software to generate the list of references. <references /> will be as clean as it gets, but it might not get you what you want. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

printing Wikipedia articles

When printing articles from Wikipedia random pages do not print-e.g. Philo did not print page 10 of 11. If I return to the printer and request page 10 alone, it still doesn't print-only the header and footer appear.66.167.14.252 (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What software are you using to print the articles? Algebraist 18:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

::Damn! I swear I looked through that stuff for an hour, but then again, I can lose my car keys on the coffee table ... lol. Thanks Algebraist, I appreciate that. It's exactly what I was looking for. (now about those keys ...) ;) — Ched (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

MoS person

Back a couple months ago when I was getting started here, I remembered reading something about lists and tables should be written in paragraph or prose form if possible. I've been back through a bunch of the MoS as best I can, but can't find this particular item. I suppose that it could be something that's been revised, but I believe it's more that I can't find it. The guideline basically was saying that if you have a list of items or comparisons - it is better to write this up in a paragraph rather than an bulleted or numbered list. Does anyone have any idea what I digging for here? And could you point me to the page/section? Thanks. — Ched (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has 'Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs.' Algebraist 19:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn! I swear I looked through that stuff for an hour, but then again, I can lose my car keys on the coffee table ... lol. Thanks Algebraist, I appreciate that. It's exactly what I was looking for. (now about those keys ...) ;) — Ched (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why look through things when your browser has a perfectly good find feature? Algebraist 21:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ctrl-F search requires finding the relevant page first. The questioner may want to put the {{Help desk searches}} template on his User page for reference. It contains a link for searching the Wikipedia: namespace (where most of the Wikipedia-specific manuals are) with {{Google custom}}, which we can also do here:

• Search Wikipedia's Wikipedia: namespace for: list table paragraph prose form

The third search result is: Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Paragraphs:

• Some paragraphs are really tables or lists in disguise. They should be rewritten as prose or converted to unmasked form. Wikipedia:When to use tables and Wikipedia:Embedded list offer guidance on the proper use of these elements.

It's also possible to install Desktop search software which lets you search, among other things, all the Web pages you have viewed. In theory, that could sometimes be a more effective way to search for something you have seen before, because you will be searching within a smaller targeted set of Web pages. However, sometimes you cannot find what you saw before because it could have changed in the meantime. --Teratornis (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And of course get to know the Editor's index. --Teratornis (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. Yep, Ctrl+F is almost always open (Firefox). Page history is usually only good for me if it's in the last day or two (given the number of pages I view in a day). The actual item I had read before was the link Algebraist pointed me to. I retained the idea, but didn't remember the wording (it was over 2 months ago when I started). Sometimes my eyes just kind of glass over I guess, must be the age ... lol. I like (and added) that desktop search thing though. Yep, ran into the EIW page about a month into my editing. Thanks again to you both - very helpful, and it's appreciated. Have a good one. ;) — Ched (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would caution against getting carried away with prose-ifying lists. If an article is obviously of poor quality, it may have inappropriate lists, but if an article has been around for a while and a lot of experienced editors have edited it, you might want to discuss what you want to change on the Talk page first. The higher an article's quality, the more cautious you should be about making drastic changes to it. Yes, we have a be bold guideline, but having all the courage in the world won't stop another editor from reverting your edits if they don't like them. --Teratornis (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved a Page, new redirect not redirecting

I moved John Ball Park to John Ball Zoological Garden after asking if there was any complaints on the move, not hearing any complaints for almost a year (I forgot about the move after I got permission to do it.) But the page is at the new spot, fixed the one double redirect I knew about, but the new redirect at the old article is not redirecting. Is there something I did wrong or does the page move have to be approved? BeckyAnne(talk) 19:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's odd. Purging and null-editing didn't fix it, but a dummy edit did. Algebraist 20:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the same problem as WP:VPT#Redirects not working, which no-one seems to understand yet. Algebraist 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I change the name of my account?

Hi,

The name of my company starts with a lowercase 'i' and the second letter is an uppercase 'D'. When I created my wikipedia account, I didn't realize it was case sensitive. How can I correct this?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idirect (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Three things:
  • 1, we do not allow companies or representatives to edit Wikipedia. See WP:COI.
  • 2, Wikipedia will always capitalise the first letter of your username. This is technical and cannot be changed (except in your signature, in preferences at the very top right).
  • 3, you may as well start a new account - this one has only two edits.  GARDEN  21:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

See [1] for your former request, and Wikipedia:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To just clarify something that Garden said, it is generally strongly advised that people do not edit articles that they have a conflict of interest with, such as companies that they work for. Also, accounts should be directly attributable to an individual, not a group of individuals or a corporation, so generally usernames that suggest such a "role account" are not allowed. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Creating a new entry

I'd like to create a completely new page. I don't see anything on Wikipedia on how to do it. Shouldn't this be at the very beginning of any tutorial? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.179.217 (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. Algebraist 21:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Creating new articles on Wikipedia, and getting them to stick, is one of the more difficult editing tasks. Putting this at the beginning of a tutorial would be like putting Piano Concerto No. 3 (Rachmaninoff) in a first piano lesson. --Teratornis (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact the last page of the tutorial, Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wrap-up and more info), links to Wikipedia:Starting an article. Even so, there are many potential pitfalls awaiting the new user who creates a new article. What do you want to write about? --Teratornis (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You might also like to read Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles/Creating a New Article. Nanonic (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wind Mill - Electrical Power Generation

I want to know the complete details about how the electrical power is generated from the turbine of the Wind mill, and how the power is used for charging Batteries ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.127.201 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the Science section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. Algebraist 21:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a subject I happen to know a little about. Read wind power and wind turbine, and then everything linked from the {{Wind power}} navigation template. However, since you ask about how to charge batteries, it sounds as if your interest is with small-scale wind power. Most of Wikipedia's wind power coverage deals with grid-scale applications, since this aspect of wind power is larger in every way, and in particular there is more source material we can use to write articles here. See commons:User:Teratornis/Gallery for some wind power photos I have uploaded from various free sources, especially the cutaway diagram of a standard three-bladed, upwind rotor, horizontal axis wind turbine:

• File:EERE illust large turbine.gif

Future advances in battery technology may lead to their wider use for Grid energy storage, in which case your question will also apply to grid-scale wind power. In fact such advances in battery technology may be necessary if humans are to avoid falling victim to the dire scenarios possible from both global warming and peak oil. That is, there are enormous risks in our current heavy dependence on fossil fuels in general and petroleum in particular, but replacing the large scale of fossil fuel consumption with renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power will require some way(s) to overcome their intermittent nature (and their lack of portability). Which is to say, if we don't come up with some sort of battery or ultracapacitor technology that can compete with fossil fuels in terms of cost and energy density, we may be in for a very rough time. --Teratornis (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoting lyrics

I am having trouble inserting lyrics into an article. I can prepare the lyrics with the right formatting in, say, Notepad; but when I copy/paste them into the wikipedia box in edit mode the formatting is wrong. Also, I don't get the uniform indentation in the left margin for quoting a body of text. If I use the wikipedia tool "insert block of text," I can paste the lyrics into wikipedia's edit mode box, but ALL formatting is taken out. Can anyone help me? Thank you.Hammerdrill (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We have special formatting - for example: '''Bold text''', ''Italic text'', <sup>Superscript text</sup>, <sub>Subscript text</sub>, <small>Small Text</small>

That makes: Bold text, Italic text, ^{Superscript text}, _{Subscript text}, Small Text Dendodge Talk^Contribs 22:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

First be sure you are allowed to insert the lyrics. See: Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry. For an example of how to format lyrics, if you are allowed to post them here, see And did those feet in ancient time. --Teratornis (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Transcluding Articles

Is it possible to transclude an article in the main namespace? {{ArticleName}} doesn't work, and neither does {{Article:ArticleName}}. Just asking out of curiosity... Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genius101 (talk • contribs) 4 Feb 2009

Hi there. Try just using {{:ArticleName}} ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I should have thought of that! And sorry for forgetting to close the nowiki tag. Also, thanks for the response on my talk page. Genius101^Guestbook 22:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You may also like to read the old discussions at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#transcluding prose and Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#Transclusion within the article namespace to see why this usage of transclusion is discouraged. Nanonic (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Are the references at the bottom of wikipedia articles in APA format?

Nascargeek21 (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There appear to be an unreasonable number of things called APA, and I don't know which you're talking about, but I'm fairly sure the answer's no. Wikipedia uses an eclectic mix of citation formats; see Wikipedia:Citing sources for the official guidelines. Algebraist 23:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think what you're after might be this: Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia#APA_style. Bencherlite^Talk 23:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

February 5

Deleted contributions

Is it possible to see a list of my contributions that have been deleted? Grsz¹¹_Review 01:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Only sysops can view deleted contribs. Xenon54 (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Could one send me an e-mail of mine? Grsz¹¹_Review 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Bencherlite^Talk 01:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki heading formatting

I need to know how exactly to make my heading appear? I created a new page with different headings but for some reason I have two headings stuck embedded in the last heading but they only appear during editting and not in the final product. Help me please. Kateri D.Phillips (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See Help:Section. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

linking to city/state

what is the proper way to link to a city/state (ie Lansing, Michigan) should i link to [[Lansing, Michigan|Lansing]], [[Michigan]], or [[Lansing, Michigan]]? -TinGrin 02:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I do believe it's the former, but I can't remember whether any pages actually recommend doing so... Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW most bios that I have seen do the former. – ukexpat (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) my understanding of the current guidelines on linking is that [[Lansing, Michigan]] is the preferred way. (why force two links where one will suffice??) Sssoul (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it depends on whether or not [[Michigan]] has already been mentioned (& wikilinked) earlier in the article. If it has, then [[Lansing, Michigan]] is correct. If not, then [[Lansing, Michigan|Lansing]], [[Michigan]] is correct. Mjroots (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Edits

i am attempting to insert relevant data on a page about a politician, nothing bias or false it is strictly factual and relevant. But when I check back in a couple of hours the edit has been removed. Do I need to establish an account or what please help me because I want to help y'all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.15.242 (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to your edit to Rahm Emanuel, the edit you made is still up there. Perhaps it is a problem with your your browser cache? Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It won't be for long: as the edit summary that removed the edit tells you, and has previously under different IPs, the material you are attempting to add to Rahm Emanuel has been discussed at great length on the article's talk page and there has been no consensus for the change. There's also been an RfC and the conclusion has been that we are not characterizing the organization Irgun as militant or Zionist or terrorist or patriotic or peace-loving or any other way - instead we are wikilinking to the main article Irgun where the organization is described at length. This article is about Rahm Emanuel, not his father, and not the Irgun. Tvoz/talk 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You don’t need an account, but you may need consensus to make an edit stick. —teb728 t c 05:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This was my first attempt to edit I had no clue about the concensus thing, I'll keep it in mind in the future and although I dont concur with the concensus I guess it must be obey; but I think there is objectivity in making note of his fathers terrorist ties on his page just to give people a real picture of the man, because I know that all the children of prominent Nazis have their parents life details plastered all over their pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.15.242 (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor nitpick from a Latin nerd, it's consensus. – ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the geological information system?

Hitesh2001 (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• This was answered two days ago. See Wikipedia:HD#What_is_the_.22Geological_Information_System.28GIS.29.22.3F and note that questions like this one belong on the reference desk. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

search

Carlyle Group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.94.82 (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you intend to ask a question? —teb728 t c 06:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...what? ArcAngel (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You can search Wikipedia with Google for: "Carlyle Group". --Teratornis (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete a page

Resolved

 – Chamal ^talk 16:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I delete a page, I mean not just delete the text but also the history of that page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endothermic (talk • contribs) 09:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Endothermic (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends. Generally speaking you can't, as only administrators and bureaucrats can delete pages. If, however, you are the only contributor to the page, then if you put {{db-author}} at the top of it, someone will be along to delete it shortly. If it's a page in your userspace then you can put {{db-userreq}} at the top and it should be deleted. What page did you have in mind? _Gb^T/c 09:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Its my userpage, I've added the tag; thank you for the reply. Endothermic (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding a link

Hi How can I add links to an article that I created, please ?86.209.158.62 (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)petitmichel

If you mean internal wikilinks, then you can link to one article from another article by using [[square brackets]]. For example, typing [[elephant]] will create a wikilink to the Wikipedia article on elephants. You can find more information here. _Gb^T/c 10:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. I mean putting a link into a W article that takes the reader to an external site.86.209.158.62 (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)petitmichel

See Wikipedia:External links. Please note that external links are included usually in the "External links" section, and are not included in the article prose. Chamal ^talk 15:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.86.194.251.49 (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)petitmichel

ER diagram and relational schema diagram

" A database is being constructed to keep track of the teams and games for a sports deed. A team has a number of players,not all of whom participate in each game.It is desired to keep track of the players participating in each game for each team,The position they played in that game and the result of the game.Design an ER diagram and relational schema diagram for this application.Starting any assumptions you can make.Choose your favourite sports."

can any one help me out please..??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dip query 09 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, This page is for questions related to using Wikipedia. Knowledge questions belong at an appropriate section of the reference desk. However, your question appears to be homework and it is our policy here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. You might find our general articles on Entity-relationship model and Relational model of use in doing so. So, attempt to do it yourself and if you need help with a specific part, then feel free to tell us exactly where you are stuck (again, at the reference desk, not here). Thank you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How to include XML comments?

Resolved

 – TN‑X-Man 15:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, how can I show xml comments in a wiki article? Thanks, Gil_mo (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Enclose it in <nowiki></nowiki> tags. Powers ^T 13:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was also given a better solution, using the <source> tag for xml. Gil_mo (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Quality

I feel that the article quality on the talk page of Poptropica no longer suits the article. I've tried leaving a note on the responsible WikiProject, but they never answered. Vltava 68 12:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, simply make the change yourself. If you've tried to solicit responses, and no one cares, go ahead and fix the article quality note on the talk page to the appropriate level. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you improved the article yourself though, it is best to ask someone else to review it. Chamal ^talk 13:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Discontinued product

Is there any way to tag an article that is about or contains information about a discontinued product, service, etc? Proud Gamer (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neckername (talk • contribs) 14:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a template to use, but you can note within the article itself that the product is discontinued. Be sure to cite a reliable source that supports the claim. TN‑X-Man 14:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Such articles don't need tagging. Tags are generally for material that needs fixing or deletion. A product being discontinued should have no effect on its inclusion, so mentioning this fact in the article prose is enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Discontinued software can be placed in Category:Discontinued software by adding [[Category:Discontinued software]] at the bottom of the article. There is also Category:Discontinued products but it only has two articles. It should probably either be deleted or greatly expanded. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Link Wikipedia to Wictionary

Is there a way I can link a word in a Wikipedia article to the entry in Witionary?Hammerdrill (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is. Link the word like so: [[wikt:word|word]]. This produces word. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 14:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And, in appropriate circumstances, there is the {{wikt}} template. – ukexpat (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

how to uninstall wikipedia

I installed wikipedia the other day but would now like to uninstall it..Please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.244.139.196 (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a website. You cannot install it on your hard drive. You could have downloaded a database dump, but that doesn't seem likely. What is it that is leading you to conclude that you have installed Wikipedia? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you install MediaWiki, the software behind Wikipedia? Hermione1980 15:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Or did you install a browser toolbar? You uninstall those like any other computer program. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine it is the browser (Google toolbar incorporates a Wikipedia search now). You can hide it in Internet Explorer using by selecting "view" then "toolbars" and unchecking it. To actually remove it fully you need ot unistall. Pedro :  Chat  16:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of asterisk

I want to use an asterisk in an article. I type it in edit mode, and it works well when I place it following a word. However, when I type its mate lower on the page and then SAVE PAGE, I get a solid, square mark in the saved version. Is there a way to use asterisks in Wikipedia?Hammerdrill (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You can put the asterisk between nowiki tags or use &#42; as a code to generate the asterisk. Otherwise it will be interpreted by the MediaWiki software as the beginning of a list. Emil76 (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Using nowiki is longer, but simpler and is sometimes more obvious in the page source for other editors - <nowiki>*</nowiki> is the syntax and as you see gives an asterix. Pedro :  Chat  16:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you using the asterisk for? If it's to mark a footnote, we have far better ways of doing that. Algebraist 16:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

<source> tag - from which version in MediaWiki?

Hi, the MediaWiki software I installed in my office does not recognize the <source> tag. What version of MediaWiki do I need? Do I need some add on for that?

Thanks, Gil_mo (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't remember seeing a source tag anywhere. Are you sure you don't mean <ref> and </ref>? - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The <source> is provided by mw:Extension:SyntaxHighlight GeSHi. You can find out this sort of information yourself by looking at Special:Version. Algebraist 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This Help desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. You are more likely to get a reply about the Mediawiki software at the MediaWiki Support desk. – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

don't find links

I have a departmental promotion offertunity, The exam for this consist management ability test, management decesion meking test. can i download such type of sample question paper ?. if possible send me link, i will greatly oblised to Gurukul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.6.165 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Algebraist 16:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you are looking for the answers to the Unicru employment test. These have been removed. [2] --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of a template after permission ticket number (OTRS) given for an image

File:Conceptioncap.JPG needed a permission ticket number (OTRS). I have obtained the number and included it on the page and now need to remove the templated error message:

"This image or media is missing evidence of permission. It is sourced to someone other than the uploader and while a copyright tag has been applied, there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license. Unless a link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided, or an email from the copyright owner is sent or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, the image will be deleted after Wednesday, 11 February 2009. Please remove this template if a link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided, or a tag with an OTRS ticket number has been added"

I need to resolve this prior to 2-11-09 so that the image doesn't get deleted. Slynn3 (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• An editor with OTRS access needs to review the ticket and change the template to confirm it all checks out. You can't do that yourself as far as I know. Try leaving a message on the related talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

editing a stub

Hi, I need to edit the 'Duke University' stub that appears on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_School_of_the_Environment It references the 'Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences' which is no longer the name of the school. I've successfully edited the template for the stub that I found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Duke_University but it has not updated the stub on the Nicholas School page. Can you all please help?

Thank-you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.128.75 (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, when changing a template, it takes a moment for the change to propagate down to the articles in which the template is listed. If you try pressing Ctrl+Shift+R, the page should load directly from the Wikipedia server and bypass your cache. Hopefully, that should update it. TN‑X-Man 21:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

org name change

Resolved

 – Done. _Gb^T/c 22:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

an organization legally changed part of their name: from 'election' to 'electoral' -- how would i make that change? Demfoundation08 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC) demfoundation08

The process is to move the article to the new name. However your account must be autoconfirmed (10 edits and least 4 days old) before you can move articles. Let us know which article you are referring to an someone will move it for you. – ukexpat (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I found it at International Foundation for Election Systems. Should the title be International Foundation for Electoral Systems - that page is currently a redirect back to International Foundation for Election Systems and will require admin assistance to move over that redirect.  – ukexpat (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

According to their website they identify themselves as IFES - the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. I've moved it back over the redirect and updated the disambiguation page at IFES. _Gb^T/c 22:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Category mystery

I am at a loss to figure out how Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_28 is ending up in the category for unassessed Eurovision articles. Could someone please take a look and fix it if they find out what is wrong? Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a common problem when the job queue's long. When someone removes a template that includes a category, the article doesn't get removed from the category immediately; the removal is put on the job queue instead. Thus it will be done as soon as the servers finish processing the 1.4 million things already on the job queue. If necessary, a null edit will fix the problem immediately (I have just applied one here). Algebraist 22:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I had tried purging both pages, but that didn't work. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

General tip: if purging fails, try a null edit. If that fails, head to WP:VPT. Algebraist 02:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk vs. Discussion

This is more of a general query than need of assistance. I've always wondered why all the talk pages we have use the word "Talk" in their titles, but the tag at the top of the articles is "Discussion". Is there any reason why they're not both "Talk", or not both "Discussion"? Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I have been able to determine, this is a highly visible instance of synonym disease on Wikipedia (actually in the underlying MediaWiki software). "Synonym disease" is a term I have used for years to describe the tendency of computer systems to collect multiple words that mean the same thing. It occurs because programmers get lazy and do not look up the canonical terms before using terms extemporaneously to label various user interface elements. For example, if a function or feature appears in more than one place in a program, it should appear under the same name every time. If it appears under different names, this usually means different programmers developed different parts of the program at different times, without checking the rest of the program to make sure they were using consistent terms. Synonym disease is something you don't want to see in a program or system for two reasons:

• It unnecessarily confuses new users, who naturally tend to think if two things have different names, they must not be exactly the same.
• It indicates poor coordination between the various developers who worked on different parts of the system (or if there was only one developer, then he or she has poor coordination within his or her mind). It suggests nobody was taking a global view of the development project to insure consistency between all the parts. If we see inconsistency in the visible portion of a system, we have to wonder what inconsistencies lurk in the parts we cannot see.

When reviewing code written by other programmers, I have seen examples such as when a single programmer wrote five instances of the same error message which could occur in different parts of the program, and he worded it differently each time. Of course he should have only written the error message once and stored it in a global variable, but even if he needed to use five copies of it, he should have been aware that he had written it already. Incidentally, these types of inconsistencies are more likely when programmers do not document their own work. Then it falls to the documenter to find all these irritating inconsistencies and try to persuade the apathetic programmers to fix them. That in turn requires convincing programmers that consistency matters, and good luck with that. --Teratornis (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Rather than talking about the article topic, talk pages are to discuss writing the article. Using the word discussion on the tabs brings that across better. The pages are nevertheless called talk because it's easier and faster to type. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for both those perspectives. The latter explanation makes a lot of sense (not that the former one doesn't, and I agree 1000% about consistent terminology). When I was a complete newbie, this confused the hell out of me, I must say. I'd read all the general instructions and guidelines, and would read about "Talk pages", but there was nothing anywhere on an article page that used the word "Talk". I quickly twigged that "Discussion" must be the right tab, but I am exceptionally intelligent :), and maybe others are not so blessed. Maybe somewhere in the "How to ..." pages, this could be made a little more explicit, rather than making the newbies have to work it out for themselves. (Or perhaps that's been attended to since I last visited them.) Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it makes you feel better, you can change that 'discussion' tab into 'talk' in your preferences :) Chamal ^talk 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is that in prefs? It's easy to do with custom javascript, of course (cf. User:Algebraist/monobook.js, penultimate function). Algebraist 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Weird... I can't find it now. But I know I have it enabled because it always shows the link as 'talk', and I don't have your script installed either. Maybe the option to make the new section tab into '+' does that? Chamal ^talk 00:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that Friendly/Twinkle? Mine displays as "talk" and "+", and I have both scripts installed. Hermione1980 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's in Friendly. (User:Ioeth/friendlytabs.js) Algebraist 12:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's all fine for those conversant in such software. I don't think there should be a general assumption that users either have those applications, or have even ever heard of them. Or would be interested in using them once they've heard of them. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Logged In...

why does this page say only this, and then link to a page asking you to log in?

don't waste your bandwidth, wikipedia! put a login form on the Not Logged In page!! - Foofighter20x 131.252.195.19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

Because you're not logged in, I suppose. And anyone can edit Wikipedia without logging in, so there's no need to 'force' them to do it. Chamal ^talk 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

February 6

QUESTIONS

HOW DO I "SEND" THIS QUESTION  ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wishtoknow (talk • contribs) 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just the way you did. You successfully sent the question. —teb728 t c 00:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But next time don't use BLOCK CAPITALS. Algebraist 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotation templates

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for the big, blue quotation mark templates. Where do I go? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean {{Cquote}} and {{Rquote}}? We have a whole category of them if that's not what you're after. Algebraist 00:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Complaint

I just discovered that my son was reading this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegging_(sexual_practice)

He claims that he selected a random article and got this one. Is this the sort of information that a child should be randomly exposed to on your site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBeelam (talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the site disclaimers, which include the Content disclaimer. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 01:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to question whether your son really did "randomly" select the article. The random article feature isn't as random as you might think. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt he landed upon that article randomly, but its possible. Besides, children might be exposed to porn pics on this site even if they are viewing the Tin Tin article (as articles are vandalized often, and vandals generally use bad words and images to degrade articles). See Wikipedia:Advice for parents. –Capricorn42 (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You may find this useful too: Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection. --Teratornis (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• This might be the right moment that have an age-appropriate discussion with your son about what you consider normal sexual behavior and what you expect of him based on your family values. If you have a open discussion about it now instead of trying to hide information about sex from him, he's more likely to ask for your opinion on other matters in the future. It's all about trust. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good advice, but I think that's about as far as we should go with the family counselling. – ukexpat (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

backgrounds and graphics

I cannot see my graphics or background colors! What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.232.45 (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Try switching browsers and see if this helps any. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifying

I have just edited my first article, about Mayapple Press. I have two questions:

1. I believe that the Speedy Deletion tag has been removed, because I added appropriate supporting materials, but I am not sure. Can you confirm?

2. I have formatted the source page so that the news citations are much easier to read. I do not have time or patience to read all the endless documentation, since I don't expect to write a lot of articles - from time to time in the past I have corrected something written by someone else, and I didn't go into the source code level to do that. I have a modest amount of experience with HTML from about 10 years ago, so I was able to figure out the news cite format by looking at an existing page. Today I looked at a more professional page to figure out at least a little of what wikifying might entail. Would you look to see whether there's anything else I need to do to meet Wiki standards? It's quite a simple article, and I don't expect to make it much more complicated.

A little hand-holding would be much appreciated and might result in my being a more active Wiki member. Since I corrected factual errors in two previous articles, I think I could be of use.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerman45 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

1. An administrator removed the speedy tag with this comment: indicates at least some importance, so not a speedy.
2. I think it meets the basic formatting standards.

One concern, though, is that you appear to have a WP:COI with the subject; so please read the conflict of interest guidelines. Thanks for your other contributions as well, I see the {{welcome}} template is already on your talk page :) –Capricorn42 (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

bingo rule

Does the first person to meet the complrtion of the current game being played and saying "bingo" win the game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.19.220 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the miscellaneous section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And see buzzword bingo. --Teratornis (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I remove an image I uploaded to Wikipedia?

I have duplicate images that I uploaded to Wikipedia? How do I delete one? It makes no sense having the two there.

Also, can there be lesser numebr of things (and links) to do when contributing/searching/questioning in Wikipedia? For example, just to post this question required extensive search for the link where questions could be posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saildew (talk • contribs) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Go to the File page that you want deleted and add {{db-g7}} at the top; an admin will delete it. –Capricorn42 (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the duplicate image as requested. About your search for where to post a question, once you click on "Help" in the sidebar on the left of every page it says down the bottom "Help desk – questions on how to use Wikipedia" - could you elaborate on your problem on finding the Help desk?--Commander Keane (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is extremely large and complicated, with many thousands of distinct operations and features a random visitor might want to use. Making Wikipedia "easier" really means making it easier for one specific user, by moving the features that user happens to want to the top of the pile, and then burying the thousands of other features that user does not need. However, if we optimize Wikipedia for one user, it will not be optimal for lots of other users. Wikipedia has 47,428,849 registered user accounts, people from all around the world of every age and background. I am pretty sure no one layout for Wikipedia could be exactly what all of them want, since all of them want to do different things. Instead, Wikipedia has the arrangement that satisfies the people who have the capability to arrange Wikipedia. Since the people who design Wikipedia are experts at using Wikipedia, Wikipedia's design tends to cater to experts. I've thought it might be interesting to try to design a Skin for new users, but that might need more customizability than what MediaWiki's skin feature provides. If we want computers to be truly beginner-friendly, we'll just have to wait for computers to pass the Turing test, which will give them fluency in the user's idiolect (did you know each person speaks their own unique language, which is slightly different than anyone else's?). You need a computer that can figure out what you are trying to do, based on whichever way you describe it, and then the computer can translate that into the incantations necessary to get the job done. At the moment, the only way to get that level of service is to hire a human expert to serve you (and they tend to charge consulting fees of $100/hour and up). In the meantime, you can create your own set of useful links on your User page. Lots of Wikipedia users do that, because there usually won't be one standard page on Wikipedia that lists everything you need in just the way you like. To get the list you want, you have to write it yourself. --Teratornis (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Same List

List of companies of Taiwan and List of companies of Republic of China are almost the exact same list. What do I do? Should I delete one of them??? impactF=_{check this} 04:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge List of companies of Republic of China (which has the shorter edit history) into List of companies of Taiwan, then turn List of companies of Republic of China into a redirect to List of companies of Taiwan. – ukexpat (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Be aware that this could spark a row over whether Taiwan is a part of China. I would request outright deletion of the shorter entry (because it's duplicating material) and replace it with a list of companies on mainland China. (or delete only the duplicating entries from the list if it leaves you with something, the remaining ones should be checked) - Mgm|^(talk) 05:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Translation please

can someone translate 'enahe ke tavale' to english.. i dont have any idea which language it is. I guess its dhivehi.. language of maldives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.13.139 (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You could ask on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Also see Wikipedia:Language recognition chart. --Teratornis (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Embedded links leading away from an article:

Hello, on the article titled List of ambient artists, there are two links that seem as though they should not be there... all other highlighted links lead to wikipedia articles, but these seem to be acting as spam to lead to personal websites. Would it be acceptable to delete these? They are:

33Dollars + An On Bast

Thanks, Canadian Girl Scout (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing the links would be best, since external links are not normally placed in the body of the article. If it is necessary, include them under an "External links" section. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 11:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria says:

• Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.

I agree that the external links mixed in with the article links is kind of ugly. A better solution would be to create new articles for the two artists, if they meet the notability requirements for musicians. But that would be some work, and the new articles might not stick. Someone evidently took the easy way out by externally linking them. That's kind of troubling, because it tends to mask the need to create proper articles on Wikipedia, which red links would indicate. But some users hate red links too. If these two artist entries are not notable enough for their own articles, I guess we'll have to remove them. The inclusionist (i.e. pack rat) in me hates to delete information, even crufty information, so I sympathize with the pain of the user who added those links, when he or she discovers they went poof. --Teratornis (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The external links can be placed within HTML comments, and the corresponding name be made a placeholder for a future article. Jay (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

file wont upload or search

user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChiangMai2552

my upload page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChiangMai2552

I am not very familiar with Wikipedia and simply want to upload a text file.

I have created and formatted the page to my satisfaction. I also went through the procedure for upload, and Submit, and it said it would be visible immediately.

Th problem is that when I search for the title name or any page with the title name, I get a page saying there is no page in Wikipedia.

The search term I am using is 'Futronix' but it says there are listings only for 'Futruno'.

Can someone help me to make this page findable

ChiangMai2552 (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's not showing up in a search because it's on your userpage and I recommend you keep it there for now, because it doesn't follow various key rules. Articles are supposed to be verifiable with references to reliable sources and you should take care to write from a neutral point of view. More specifically, the one link you provided is to a text that doesn't cover all of the material you put in the article. Instead of saying it has links to other articles you should specifically mention them all. - 131.211.211.53 (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• By the way User:ChiangMai2552 is your userpage, the upload page is at Special:Upload, but it is not supposed to be used for uploading articles. Articles are written by writing directly into a text box or copy-pasting a pre-written text, not through uploading. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unlike anything most people have used before. If you are not very familiar with Wikipedia, it can be perilous to assume it should work the way your experience with other computer systems causes you to expect. (Wikipedia can be sort of the antithesis of the principle of least astonishment; sometimes it seems we strive for the most astonishment.) The key difference is that in most systems, there is a clear concept of authorship. For example, when you write a document with a text editor program on your computer, the computer will normally save your document when you give the "save" command, and your document will stay on your computer until you decide to change it. On Wikipedia, the "Save page" command does not quite mean the same thing. It really means to save your contributions to Wikipedia's revision control system, but any other user can edit your contributions, making your work unrecognizable in the latest revision of a page, and administrators can delete pages altogether. Wikipedia deletes thousands of new articles by new users for failing to comply with our complex and largely unguessable policies and guidelines. A very common incorrect assumption about Wikipedia is that it should be simple to create a new article - that's what I thought too. But it is not simple. There are many things you need to know before you can write new articles that have a good chance to stick. Learning all these things requires a lot of work, which may be hard to justify if you only want to create one article. Wikipedia works better for people who want to spend a lot of time here, read lots of our manuals, and make lots of edits to lots of articles. I'm sorry this is not a very easy answer, but that's the way it is. A simpler way to get started on Wikipedia is to make small edits to existing articles, and then watch what other editors do to your edits. In addition to the links given by the helpers above, you should read WP:LAYOUT, WP:COI, WP:CORP, and WP:BFAQ, and take the WP:TUTORIAL. Reading the manuals is key to working productively on Wikipedia, because the manuals help us predict what the other users will do. While Wikipedia has users at every level of experience, the users who effectively control Wikipedia are extremely familiar with the manuals, so if you follow what the manuals say, you are more likely to succeed here. --Teratornis (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Newbies don't need to learn all the rules to create an article. For example, formatting is something anyone can later fix for you. What you should do, is read Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes And Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. If you know those, the chance of the article sticking is already a lot better. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Shouldn't Special:Upload give an error on attempting to upload a .TXT file? As per the original post, the upload went fine. Jay (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello please read

hello i didn't mean to edit the paul o,grady page it was and accident what will happen im realy scard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riuh2 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you were the unregistered editor who edited Paul O'Grady today then just stop making such inappropriate edits and nothing further will happen. BT Public Internet Service will not be contacted about those edits. In case you don't know what the edits did, see the page history [3] and click "prev" next to the edits. They removed a lot of information and added some things inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition, everything that someone does can be removed or reversed, through the use of a few tools available in the page's history (undo link, for most cases). Don't be scared to try out editing, but keep in mind that vandalism or test edits on the mainspace is not welcome. Use the sandbox for test edits. Cheers. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 18:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of lists?

I have a trivial question that I can't find an answer to in the Manual of Style. Should items in a bulleted list (such as a "See also" section) be capitalized or not? Gnome de plume (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would venture that ordinary rules of English-language capitalization should be used; i.e., only capitalize the proper nouns. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:List#Bulleted_lists, "As a matter of style, list items should start with a capital letter." Jay (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's just the kind of clear statement I was looking for. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Errors on page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map13.jpg

1. Pertinent page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map13.jpg

2. The problem is that this map is NOT a work of the United States Federal Government. It is a work of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

3. What is now on the page, under Licensing

Licensing

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. See Copyright. Note: This only applies to works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision. This template also does not apply to postage stamp designs published by the United States Postal Service since 1978. (See 206.02(b) of Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices).

4. What should be on the page, under Licensing

Licensing

This work is not under copyright. However, when using or reproducing the map, please credit as follows: Sevon, W. D., compiler, 2000, Physiographic provinces of Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., Map 13, scale 1:2,000,000.

5. Verification: web page of the Pennsylvania Geological Survey at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/

6. Category at bottom of page is wrong (NOT United States Government maps)

Platystrophia (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've listed it here. However, can you explain what you mean when you say that it it "not under copyright"? I don't see anything on the website to that effect. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't yet know how to respond to a previous posting, so here's a new one. The map under consideration is not copyrighted; it is in the public domain. However, we do ask that credit be given when the map is used, and that is what I provided in my previous post. There is also a higher-quality version of the map at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/maps/map13.pdf Platystrophia (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

To respond to an existing post, just click the "edit" button next to the section heading. By what virtue is it in the public domain? Does Pennsylvania automatically release its work into the PD, as the federal government does? Or was it actually released as such at some point? It's certainly eligible for copyright, and its copyright doesn't appear to have lapsed. Sorry about all the questions; I just want to make sure we get it right this time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A Pennsylvania legislative act removed copyright from publications of the Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey (Pennsylvania Geological Survey). It is the act of June 25, 1997, P.L. 347, No. 39 (71 P.S. Sections 954.1-954.4). It is on the web at http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/bill_history.cfm?syear=1997&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=924 Platystrophia (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've amended the image's page. Have a look and tell me what you think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks good, although I did a little bit of editing. Thanks for the speed at which all of this was done!

Now how do I reply to you on your page?

Platystrophia (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Click the "talk" in my signature. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Can it be considered spam?

Hello,

I've just noticed that a user has been adding hundreds of articles about various radio programs, with links to his website where he sells recording of these programs. It's clear he's doing that as a form of advertisment. However, since the articles are reasonably well written and sourced, I suppose they can't just be deleted.

What's the policy in that case? i.e. in the case where somebody adds hundreds of links to his website but yet provide apparently useful articles? Can the links be deleted? Should the articles be reviewed for their notability?

Any suggestion would be welcome.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent1979 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would consider that spam. The best place to report widespread spamming like this is WP:ANI. If you do report it there, please provide links to some of the relevant articles. – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Strip the articles of any spamlinks and template the spammer. Nominate any articles you consider non-notable in the normal manner; tag the others for proper sourcing, POV or other problems. The programs don't become non-notable just because of spammer involvement. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

more racism on wikipedia

someone renamed southarfrica to Niger. Someone has to deal with these vandals. And we should fund a project to sue each and everyone of them. That will teach them not to mess around on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.233.71 (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? I am usually prepared to assume good faith but I don't think anyone will rise to this troll-bait. – ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just signed on! New to asll these things,althow I am old.

I was looking for a couple of Solitair games, Klondike and Spider, Windows is supposed to include them with all computers. While checking Windows the reference to Wikipedia came up. I still want to dpwnload these two games if you have them. I sure can't find them except to pay 20 or 30 $ for them . I thought this was one of your items. Gosh you are to big for me, you got everything.. 1024outthedoor16:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1024outthedoor (talk • contribs)

Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a host for games. We are an encyclopedia. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is any Alert ir a change were made in my article

How can I restrict the article content? Or if is not possible, there is any way to alert if a change were made in my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcccc19853 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's very easy to get alerts when the article is edited - simply click the "Watch" tab at the top of the article, and it will be added to your watchlist. "Restrict the article content"? Nope, sorry. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit (with the rare exception of protected pages) - and you can't "own" articles as such anyway. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) No you cannot prevent changes to articles you have written as you do not own them. However, in limited circumstances Admins can protect pages for a limited time as described here. You can add any article to your watchlist to keep abreast of changes made to it. – ukexpat (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

fresh start

I would like to start under a fresh username, but I think that if I create a new account, I will be tracked down by an admin and indefintley blocked for socking. 82.26.190.247 (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish someone would reply. 82.26.190.247 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that it's good for an IP to join, because many editors don't trust an IP. I think that if you join, it'll be OK as long as you don't use your IP for vandalism. Queenie ^Talk 21:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. 82.26.190.247 (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you previously had a Wikipedia username but wish to start anew, please read this. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 21:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WIKI BIO of JOHN ORDRONAUX

Hello. I have just registered with Wiki to add content and edit the above bio.

Two questions;

1. Why are most of the paragraph spacings missing, although these show up in the editorial amendment box?

2. I have added four primary source references but do not know how to make them conform with your system. They appear as a continuation of the main text.

Thanks, William (WFM495) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfm495 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at John Ordronaux:

1. Instead of the <br />s, just press enter twice.
2. See Wikipedia:Footnotes.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

username

i need to change my username. i didnt realize that it would be the name of the page i would like to build. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusiccircusMelodytent (talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CHU. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Article names are not related to your user name. User:MusiccircusMelodytent is your user page and not a part of the encyclopedia. You can use the page for a draft but a user subpage like User:MusiccircusMelodytent/Sandbox may be better for that purpose. If you want to write an article then see Wikipedia:Your first article, but also see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations if it's about an organization you are connected with. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, you can create pages with different names to your username. Type the name of the page you'd like to create in the search box to the left of the page, then click on Go. You'll see a link that you can click to create the page. Regards, Matt (Talk) 02:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Science

When uploading pictures to this, do they have to be photos, drawings or can they be either? Queenie ^Talk 21:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

They can be anything as long as they're i. useful and ii. released under a free license or into the public domain. To meet the latter requirement, they must be free for any person to reuse for any purpose, with only the requirement of attribution retained. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

quick question on core policy

Hi. Apologies if this question is answered somewhere else, I've been looking for ages. If an article goes against the core policies, where minority point of view takes precedence despite long discussions on the talk page and inability to refute any claims of core policy breach, what can be done? I've read about mediation, but it seems to suggest being about getting people to reach agreement (which has sofar failed), rather than an independent administrator having a look, seeing the core policy breaches, and ammending as neccesary. My question is, if core policies are being breached, should resolving this take precedence, or should reaching an all-party agreement take precedence at the expense of the core polices being diminished? --Razorlax (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are escalating levels of dispute resolution: WP:DR. – ukexpat (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Duplicating a German Wikipedia article in English

I am reasonably Web savvy but I have never published a Wikipedia article.

A German fellow I met traveling last year has contacted me and asked my help in creating a English version of his current German language Wikipedia article

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joscha_Remus

I would like to do this but before I start I would like to get some general advice before doing so.

I used Google Translate to translate his entire page and it came out pretty good. With just a little editing I think it would be fine for publication. It would seem that that would be a quick and easy way to publish an English version but I just don't know.

Please advise. Fatfenders (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to read German at all? I'd be leery of assuming that an edited Google translation was accurate unless I could at least read the source material. Other comments:

• make sure he passes our general notability guideline for inclusion before you create the article.
• if you create the article, make sure to include a mention in the edit summary that it was translated from the German article, along with a link to it (this is so the work of the German article's authors' is properly attributed per the license contributions are released under).
• the German article doesn't appear to be referenced. Try to reference all material in the English article (to German sources if necessary) per our policy on verifiability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but... If he already has an article at de.wikipedia, wouldn't it have already met any required criteria?

And again, can you give me any general guidelines for using the (Google) translated (and then edited) page as input to the English version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatfenders (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To your first question, not necessarily - Wikipedias in different languages have their own policies and guidelines, and I'm not sure what the German Wikipedia's inclusion rules look like. To your second question, I'm not precisely sure what kind of guideline you're looking for. I presume your first step well be to paste the edited Google translation into Joscha Remus. A good second step would be to add some citations to sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• To add to that: it's impossible for regular editors to check all incoming articles. It is quite possible for your German friend to have created something that should've been deleted under some policy, but hasn't been simply because the article hasn't been noticed yet. It sounds like you should read WP:BIO to make sure the person meets inclusion criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits like an essay

Hello, I wanted to ask advice on how to deal with this situation. One of the articles on my watchlist, History of early Christianity, has recently been edited by a new user, User:Simonxxxxxxx. I think he is editing in good faith but I think the edits read more like a personal essay or term paper. Is there some page to direct this user to for guidance? Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged the article accordingly. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dibble iceberg tongue

Hi, I was looking at recent changes. This article seems not right for Wikipedia. Not sure what to do, exactly. Dave Smith (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a redlink now (meaning it was deleted). WP:CSD has the information you're after. Hermione1980 01:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's now a redirect to Dibble Iceberg Tongue which seems to be a legitimate article. —teb728 t c 02:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this thread and had the vague idea that I had actually heard of it. So, I googled, and found it listed as a missing article in the Antarctica Wikiproject. Created the article, and the redirect, and all's well. DuncanHill (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Linking to earlier revisions of images

Is it possible to link to an earlier revision of a particular image, as opposed to the current one? Or do I have to have seperate uploads for each old version of every image? Thanks in advance. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In the file history table, click on the date link of the revision you want, which will take you to that earlier version of the image. You'll have to copy the URL and use it. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 02:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Words

How many words are added to Wikipedia in a given month? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.204 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say exactly, but maybe these two pages would interest you: Wikipedia:Statistics and Special:Statistics. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 02:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)