Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Justinralphman888 (talk | contribs) at 08:56, 12 March 2013 (→‎putting pics in article: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


    March 9

    What should I do if I doubt whether a source relates to a claim?

    Just asked a question about francium in WP:RD/S; I would like to how to deal with that kind of problem, since there would be a number of non-free resources which only shows me an abstract and not explicitly explaining how it relates to the claim.--Inspector (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The resource exchange at WP:LIB can hook you up with editors who have access to paid sources. RudolfRed (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Curation Toolbar

    For some reason, the curation toolbar isn't showing up in the new pages feed. Please help. Revolution1221 (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I can see:
    • Go to the new pages feed
    • Click on an article in the queue
    • A "curate this article" link will then appear at the bottom of the "Toolbox" menu over on the left hand side.
    • Click on the "curate this article" link, and the toolbar will pop up.
    --Shirt58 (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reducing a non free image without messing it up!

    Hi all!
    This picture is at 96 dpi, as is its source.
    It's claimed as fair use, but it would appear to me that the resolution may infringe policy.
    I'd reduce the image resolution myself, but I'm not terribly good with image manipulation. Could someone possibly see if they can reduce the resolution down as low as possible without losing the nice "glorious technicolor" look the pic currently has? Thanks!
    Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    360 × 270 seems to be a routine size for screenshots. No need to reduce. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    pronunciation audio files

    hen I click on the > on the box for the pronunciation of a word in the Wikidictionary, it doesn't speak (no audio) and a black line is slashed across the audio box. Why doesn't the audio work and what does this "slash" mean?

    Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.202.228 (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. Your question seems to be related to Wiktionary. Wiktionary is a sister project of Wikipedia which is run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, not Wiktionary and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using Wikipedia. The best course of action may be to seek help at the English Wiktionary's Information desk which is the equivalent to Wikipedia's Help desk. To answer your question, I think you might have disabled the plugins in your web browser and this might be the problem. Please check whether plugins have been enabled on your browser. To get a better answer I recommend you to ask your question at the Wiktionary's Information desk. --Ushau97 talk contribs 09:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiktionary doesn't appear to use audio files. Do you mean Wikipedia articles like Westerveld with a speaker icon linking to File:037 Westerveld.ogg? See Wikipedia:Media help (Ogg). What is your operating system and browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like a problem on your computer not on wiktionary. It sounds like you are missing the program to play th particular format that was used bu ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing and they can probably give you more advice. RJFJR (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Wiktionary does use audio templates. And the inquirer might have problems with his/her plugin. Maybe it's not the latest version or the web browser does not support it. Thanks. --Ushau97 talk contribs 05:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The poster didn't give an example and I couldn't find one in my searches. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    If there is a university article on wikipedia, can I add references from its own website?Farhajking (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but only to support uncontroversial factual information. Secondary (independent) sources are preferable, and are required if there is anything in any way evaluative in the text they are being used to support. Also, not everything that appears in the university's own website is encyclopaedic. See WP:PRIMARY --ColinFine (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright problem

    What is the correct advice to give an editor who is reusing text here on WP that he originally created for a website? I don't know yet if the editor owns the website concerned or not - if that makes any difference. Is there a specific help desk where he can be assisted to legalise the copyvio without getting branded as a "wiki-criminal" and having his work summarily burnt to the ground? Roger (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    How about WP:IOWN? RJFJR (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues with a BLP

    I have been editing a BLP for and added a story about a fine received from the court. This has been properly referenced from a reliable source. It is my belief the subject has deleted this twice now but I have reinstated it. I wondered if there was anything that could be done or an advice? The article already has a note about issues including being edited by subject or someone linked to him and it appears to me that anything negative is always removed. (Edinburgh loon (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

    Try the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. There may be valid reason for leaving it out as undue material. It is rather trivial and only covered locally by media. So the 'signifcant coverage' guideline may fail to keep it in the article. We aren't a tabloid.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Article classes and references

    Dear editors: I was reading this article: Roots revival, and I saw that it had no references or citations. It's been tagged this way since 2007. When I read the article's talk page, I was surprised to see that it was rated as a B-class article. I then checked the following article: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and was further surprised to see that having any references or citations wasn't listed in the requirements for a B class article. I must be misunderstanding the purpose of the rating system. Shouldn't an article with no references be at best Start-class and at worst be considered for deletion? It contains a lot of what seems to me to be unsubstantiated opinion. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You can always change an article's rating (except FA, FL and GA) if you feel that it is inadequate. Actually this article lists its sources but without inline citations. Ruslik_Zero 17:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia, all articles are expected to be adequately sourced. Also, if you look at the more detailed B-class criteria, suitable referencing is one of the requirements. That said, the article class is not always an accurate measure of an article's quality, until you get to Good Article quality or higher. Rating articles is the responsibility of the relevant Wikiprojects, and is done individually by many editors (including beginners). The rating requirements may also differ from Wikiproject to Wikiproject (for example, WP:MILHIST, one of our biggest Wikiprojects, checks B-class requirements relatively more stringently, while some other Wikiprojects may be more lax). Because of this, there are even times when two Wikiprojects may rate the same article into two different classes. There are also plenty of instances where an article is rated incorrectly (for example, a Start-class rated B-class and vice versa). Chamal T•C 18:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to decide what to do about Roots revival, I thought I would check to see if anyone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Roots music was reviewing pages. I found this "bot" embedded in the project page: User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Roots music. It has exactly the same figures as it had a year ago. Does this bot run automatically, or does someone have to start it up manually? Even if no one at all is reviewing, there should be an increase in unreviewed pages, so I'm assuming it's not doing its job. How can I get up-to-date figures so that I can see if pages are being reviewed at the project? The talk page isn't very active. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That bot is used for updating the rating tables throughout Wikipedia, and you can find a link to manually start it up on its userpage. Seems to be working alright; it's making a lot of edits all over the place today as well. Judging by the history of User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Roots music, it has last updated the table on 8th March so it looks like somebody has reviewed or added a couple of articles. Chamal T•C 03:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I learned something about the way bots operate. No matter how far back I looked in the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Roots music/Assessment, the numbers in the table were always the same, because the table is being transcluded into the page as the page is displayed, so it always shows the current figures, even if the rest of the page is from last year. I had already figured out how to start it up manually, but I was looking in the wrong place to see previous data. Thanks for pointing out the correct place to look. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Pop-up ads and intrusive code

    Help! It seems that Wikipedia has been kidnapped by advertisers and is being held for ransom. Did the last fundraising drive fail to keep the wolf from the door? Those nasty double-underlined words that trigger a pop-up ad are driving me away from Wikipedia. How much money do you need, to make them go away? Here is my serious question: Now, whenever I edit and attempt to save, I get a message that there is extraneous code (some gibberish containing the word "javascript") in the source text, and it takes me some time to clean it out. Is this phenomenon related to the pop-up ads? I am becoming disinclined to continue being a Wikipedia editor, since this problem slows down my work drastically. What do you advise? Kotabatubara (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not doing this; I'm afraid your browser has picked up some malware. There's some discussion in this Village Pump archive. Try disabling your browser extensions one at a time to see if you can work out which one is causing the problem. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To add a little detail to that, Wikipedia does not use any such ads in any of the pages. In fact, Wikipedia has been ad-free so far (apart from the fund raiser banners etc - see Wikipedia:Advertisements for more details). You also should not see any Javascript code in the wiki-editor when you're editing in the article namespace. Like John said, the problem is almost certainly on your end, and such issues are often caused by a recent addition like a browser plug-in. If you want to make sure, try editing with a different browser/computer and see if the issue persists. Chamal T•C 17:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been some recent "critical" Java issues relating to security. You might also want to Verify Java Version to see if it is up-to-date. ~And run a trusted anti-malware program. ~:( 17:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC) - [modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)]:~[reply]
    And be sure you are actually at http://en.wikipedia.org/ not a mirror or fork site (see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks), many of which do have advertizing. - Arjayay (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an update, since I posted the original problem. Short version: The problem is gone, and I don't know why! My browser was (and is) Firefox. I downloaded Chrome and when I used it, there were no pop-up ads or double underlining. But recently I accidentally went into Wikipedia through Firefox, and now found no double underline or pop-ups in it either. Thanks, all, for your efforts! Kotabatubara (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Eastern lightning

    In the article about eastern lightning religion it is described as "an offshoot of Christianity". It may pull some tho some words, names, or stories from It, but it is in NO WAY an offshoot of Christianity. Please reword this.

    Kera Latterell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keralatterell (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming you mean Eastern Lightning, it appears to me to be well explained in the article. Rmhermen (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Table wizard required!

    Hi all, please see this article List of World Heritage Sites in the Arab States. The table has been messed up at image no.7 scrolling down, the columns need putting back in place (4 missing) and someone has placed one entry for Tunisia in the middle of the Libyan sites, so this would need moving down the list to the correct place. Cheers! CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, I hope. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, good job. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    New paragraph difficulty

    I've just edited the Parterre article, and can't work out why a new paragraph in the edit window isn't translated as a new paragraph on the saved article page - it just continues as running text. The text in question is within the "History" section of the article, and begins "Parterre gardening fell out of favour in the 18th century....". I'm a fairly experienced editor and can't work out why it won't translate - am I missing something obvious? Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure why this worked, but I managed to fix it by moving the </blockquote> tag to a new line. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So I see - thanks! (If anyone else can explain why that worked, I'd be curious to know, for future reference!) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    March 10

    Latin translation

    what is the meaning of the phrase "inter primos" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.137.28 (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see it in our List of Latin phrases or in the wiktionary so it may not be a common phrase. Posting this question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language will bring it to the language lovers at the reference desk who may be able to help you. RJFJR (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The querent may mean primus inter pares. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As a former Latin scholar, I have this one: among the first.--ukexpat (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Infobox issue

    Can someone explain why designer field doesn't show in the infobox on BMW F30 page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homebass (talk • contribs) 07:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Infobox automobile platform currently does not support a designer field. So you can't add it. I have removed the designer field. --Ushau97 talk contribs 07:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! . To put it another way, there is
    |manufacturer =
    |production =
    |predecessor =
    |successor =
    and so on, but no
    |designer =
    Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The BMW 3 Series (F30) article uses {{Infobox automobile platform}} since that article is about a series of vehicles and not a specific model. Since such articles usually cover a number of models designed by different designers/design teams, it's not possible to indicate a designer in the infobox. Only the infoboxes used for articles on specific models like {{Infobox automobile}} and {{Infobox electric vehicle}} support the "designer" parameter. Chamal T•C 08:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mistakes

    I had made many mistakes in the past when I was new to Wikipedia like leaving edit summary empty, experimental editing on articles , uploading copyrighted images that gets deleted after sometime by commons delinker. But now, I am well familiar with the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Does these types of mistakes affect my account reputation. Farhajking (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If your current editing activity is ok nobody will worry about past mistakes. Everyone starts out making newbie mistakes. I'm trying to understand you apparent obession with "reputation" as indicated by your recent quetions here - why are you so worried about the "reputations" of editors, articles and even (bizzarely) subjects? Roger (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Lawyer on demand

    Dear Madam, dear Sir,

    I am writing to you because of a recurring problem on the Wikipedia page "Lawyers on demand". I am running a lawyers on demand service in Germany and Switzerland, Xenion Legal (www.xenionlaw.com). A competing firm in the UK is repeatingly deleting the information on our company from the page (please see "history"). I am not touching or diminishing their content. As I believe Wikipedia is about free and democratic information, I find the firm's aggressive actions inappropriate.

    Can you help?

    If there are any questions, please contact me.

    Best regards, Carsten Reimann

    (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.229.45 (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed your contact information as it appears that it is an advertisement for you firm. Now to your question. The article you are talking about, Lawyers on Demand is an article about a specific company. We do not take and make hybrid articles about two companies within one page as you have attempted. If your company meets our notability guidelines then it can have its own article. You or anyone connected to the company should not write it. You have a conflict of interest and writing about yourself or your company is highly discouraged here. GB fan 13:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lawyers on Demand is the correct link to the article concerned. I am busy cleaning it up. Roger (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Madam, dear Sir,

    Referring to my message earlier today, this is to add that the person deleting correct information from the "lawyer on demand" website is calling himself "Dodger67" on a Wikipedia talk page. He is wrongfully claiming that the "Lawyers on demand" page is for a particular firm rather than decribing a general concept. I have checked this. "Lawyers on demand" is a general concept not protected by any copyright. Thus the site shoud be free to mention anyone seriously using this concept.

    I have no problem with several firms mentioned on this page. This should apply for everybody else.

    Can you please intervene to protect Wikipedia freedom?

    Many thanks.

    Best regards, Carsten Reimann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.229.45 (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Once again, the correct link is Lawyers on Demand. I have requested page protection. Roger (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this completely unjusfied fallacious accusation going to be allowed to remain unanswered as a black mark against my reputation? Roger (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have explained on his IP talk page that this is a specific company and what his options are, but to not readd the info to Lawyers on Demand. GB fan 16:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr. Reimann: As written above, the article Lawyers on Demand is solely about the UK firm by that name. It doesn't mention any other firms (other than its parent, BLP), AFAICT, nor is it designed to. It seems to survive the notability requirements by being written about by multiple independent sources. If your firm is similarly notable, you could ask for someone to write about it if you really insist, but a general article on the subject would be much better.
    I doubt an article for Lawyers on demand (note un-capitalization) would be allowed to remain under that title, if only because of confusion over the significance of the minor change in capitalization. On-demand legal services would probably be a better choice for a general article covering the range of such services available across this growing segment of legal practice, and I think it would be good for WP to have it. Much more than just another firm trying to advertise itself for free.
    @Dodger67: This is no place to set up your argument for a libel claim. It's a simple misunderstanding.
    All IMO as a volunteer contributor, of course. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the right to defend my reputation as an editor in good standing (with a track record of over 20 000 edits over almost seven years) when I am unjustly accused of acting in bad faith. I don't see how my post can be interpreted as a legal threat in any way. I didn't even ask for a retraction from the OP, only that someone, anyone, would support my position and acknowlege that I am not in the wrong - which User:GB fan promptly did, thanks. Roger (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And seconded. Your record is unbesmirched (despite Firefox not recognizing that as a real word!)--ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed – the claim was clearly specious and based on a misunderstanding, which is why I didn't think it needed a specific retraction. Sorry if my lawyer-dar is overly-sensitive. Maybe there's a sunspot flare. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the article is about lawyers so... (Never knew lawyers and sunspots are a bad combination) Roger (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    IAAL so no lawyer jokes please!--ukexpat (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    a using wikipedia question...

    Hi, I'm a new user... What if parts of an article I'm reading make no sense : if a sentence is really not clear, or given information contradicts itself? I'm not really looking to contribute, just asking for (grammatical/contextual) clarification or point out obvious logical errors... How does that work? In order to navigate to this page I had to leave the articles that were confusing me, so i can't give you their exact titles... (I'm not good at this - one was regarding when the Empress Matilda married Geoffrey of Anjou and the other concerned the Clarendon Chronicles...) but maybe you can tell me how to ask my questions specifically when I'm in an article.' Thanks very much. This is all pretty cool. Alienor of angely (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)MM[reply]

    You place a clarify tag {{clarify}} at the end of the problematic sentence or phrase, like this.[clarification needed] Then you explain why in the "Summary" box below the editing window before you save the edit. Roger (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Hello, the basic answer to your question is "You can't", that is to say you can't ask questions or point out logical errors directly in the article itself. However, let's say you were reading about Empress Matilda's second marriage, and wanted to point out some inconsistencies, then you just have to go to the talk page of the article in question (click on the tab just next to the article tab at the top left of the page) and click the new section tab, give it a heading and voice your concerns. Does this help? CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unless you use tags as Roger explains above, whereas on the talk page you can have discussions with other editors to explain your point of view. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    reviews

    does this website have blind peer reviews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamadad1978 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I know any Wikipedia peer reviews are open to all and not anonymous. RudolfRed (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Linking an image to my article

    I have managed to upload an image to Wikimedia (not Commons) but cannot find how to insert it into my article (Harold Mockford)Augustine3 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Does Help:File help? What have you tried so far, and what is the name of the file you uploaded? RudolfRed (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw File:Goodbye - Death of My Father by Harold Mockford (1977).jpg in Augustine3's contribution list and have corrected the syntax at the top of the Harold Mockford article. You were nearly there! -- John of Reading (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comprehensive Peace Agreement - Contains My Little Pony References

    The article on the peace agreement between North and South Sudan contains the following sentence, which is obviously incorrect:

    "The final, comprehensive agreement was signed on the moon by RainbowDash and Princess Luna and marked the commencement of implementation activities." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.72.125 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've fixed it. Thanks for reporting this vandalism. Roger (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Starting Subject

    How would I start a page about myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Coxx (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't - please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If you are genuinely notable someone else, not connected to you in any way, might write an article about you. Roger (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Don't. See WP:AUTOBIO. If you are notable you can suggest an article at WP:RA. RudolfRed (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    New members "characters"

    • Hi. I just joined and had to enter in the information about the characters that determine that you aren't a computer (you know the stuff for spam). Well, the picture didn't show up the first like 20 times I refreshed the page and really got frustrating. Just thought I'd let you know you. Sort it out. Dell table (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That might have happened because your internet connection is slow and your browser timed-out. Most web browsers have a timeout period of 1 or 2 minutes. Or there might be a bug. The latter is very unlikely since I haven't come across any new user who have been complaining about this issue yet. --Ushau97 talk contribs 08:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also can someone explain to me why you have to "sign" your posts using Dell table (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC) every time?? cant you just design the website to do it automatically like? Surely its not very hard?[reply]
    Signing your posts on talk pages, both for the articles (not the article itself, but its talk page) and non-articles, is good practice, and facilitates discussion by helping identify the author of a particular comment. Other users can then navigate to a talk page and address their comments to the specific, relevant user(s). Discussion is an important part of collaborative editing, because it helps all users to understand the progress and evolution of a work. Comments posted on user talk pages, article talk pages and other discussion pages should be properly signed and you should not sign articles. Sometimes the SineBot, which is a robot automatically signs your posts if you haven't signed, but this does not happen always. And when SineBot signs it uses this : Preceding unsigned comment added by User:example (talk • contribs) which is not very nice. And it's very easy to sign. Just type in ~~~~ or just click the link at the bottom of the edit box --Ushau97 talk contribs 08:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and completely automating signatures would be more difficult than you think because (a) edits to some pages (e.g. articles, your user page) are never signed and (b) even on talk pages, some edits are not signed (e.g. you want to amend a previous post you made, or change a sub-heading). The simplest way for an automatic signature mechanism to distinguish between these cases would be to have some special symbol in the edit that the editor uses to say "I want this edit to be signed" - and this is what happens already. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While it isn't trivial, we have bots that do much harder things. (and, I note, we have a bot that signs if you forget, so someone has figured it out). It is one of my pet peeves that we ask new users to do something so odd. I've pushed for this before, and been rebuffed, so don't expect it to change, but it is very off-putting to new editors. Not signing in solidarity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs)
    Well said Spilbrick. Couldn't have put it better myself. It really can be a hindrance for new users, and seems in this day and age entirely unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dell_table (talk • contribs)

    Wrapping a caption in a template

     Fixed

    Is it possible to modify Portal:Statistics/Selected biography/Layout so that the caption wraps without needing a <br /> as in Portal:Statistics/Selected article/7 Thanks, Illia Connell (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have rewritten Portal:Statistics/Selected biography/Layout and at present there is no need for the <br/>. Cheers! --Ushau97 talk contribs 05:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Very cool! - thank you Illia Connell (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    buffer between table and text

    Resolved

    Could some show me how to modify the table "Number of examinees" in AP Statistics so that there is a slight space between the right edge of the table and the text outside the table. Thanks, Illia Connell (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have changed it. In the table properties, you just need to add a margin to the right (eg: style="margin-right:1em;"). Chamal T•C 02:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Illia Connell (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    March 11

    report of events still in the future

    Dear Editors: I was reviewing an article about a new television station Mathrubhumi News. I started removing the promotional stuff, but then I came to a section that is about parts of a planned network that don't exist yet. However, the company has announced on television that it is about to build them. Should information about not-yet-existing things be in the article? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    sure. why not? Dell table (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:CRYSTALBALL for guidance on what future events should be included. RudolfRed (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So far it's only the announcement that has actually happened, so only the announcement as such can be included. Roger (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    it it for school

    it this website safe for kids at school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.244.238 (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Remember that Wikipedia is not censored, so depending on what you consider "safe" and the age of the child, you might want to provide supervised browsing. RudolfRed (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AFP offers a brief introduction to Wikipedia for parents and legal guardians. Wikipedia contains an awful lot of information, including a small amount of content which may not be suitable for kids. You may also be interested in another independent project, the Schools' Wikipedia — a specific selection of about 5,500 articles from the English Wikipedia, suitable for school children, which has been checked and edited for this audience. It contains about the equivalent content of a 20-volume encyclopedia organized around school curriculum subjects, and is available online and as a free download. The articles were manually sorted for relevance to children, and adult topics were removed. Thanks --Ushau97 talk contribs 04:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    When someone writes on my talk page where do I respond so that the person will see it?

    When someone writes on my talk page where do I respond so that the person will see it? If I answer on my talk page then how does the person know it is there?billdakelski (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors differ on this one. I prefer to answer on my talk page, immediately below the question, so that the conversation is all in one place and easy to understand later. If you think that the other person might not see your answer, you can leave a {{talkback}} template on the other person's talk page to alert them. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reference (section)

    Hello I am new in wikipedia. I haved learned how to use and edit all of my articles but i don't now how to use references.pls help me to this kind of stuff and now how to use this.justinralphman888 (Talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinralphman888 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This might help; it's an essay I wrote for new editors in your position. Hope it's useful. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you can sign your edits by typing ~~~~ (there's a shortcut to do this at the bottom of the edit window), you don't have to type out your username. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like the inquirer was referring to the Em-Amen page. I have done some general cleanup and requested a template for deletion which Justinralphman888 created only for the purpose of using in that page (probably). Ushau97 talk contribs 10:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done some more clean-up, and deleted the long lists of countries and cities in which Em-Amen sells telephones. There isn't much left. Maproom (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Help:Introduction to referencing --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    using portal

    hello i am new in wikipedia. all i dont now how to make a "portalbox"pls help me.justinralphman888 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinralphman888 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you mean by portalbox. Please clarify. Ushau97 talk contribs 10:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    oh sorry i ment infobox.I now how to use a infobox but every time i make a new sentence in it, it do not show up when i save it,pls help me.justinralphman888 (talk) ( Justinralphman888 (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinralphman888 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 11 March 2013[reply]

    I guess you refer to the infobox in Em-Amen. The code starts {{Infobox company so the documentation is at Template:Infobox company. You can only use the documented parameter names. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have corrected 2 of the parameter names & one of the values, but there are others which need correcting. As well as getting the right parameter names (and the name includes getting the case correct), you need to look in Template:Infobox company to see what the parameter values should be. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot

    Danish, wiki has just gone into the project to remove the iw and replace with wikidata. There is only one bot in charge of the task so it is very slow process. Is it possible that some will make a bot available in Danish wikipedia, so we get phased wiki data faster? --89.249.2.53 (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Launchball

    Before I go ahead and edit it, is there anything wrong with me editing the article Launchball?--Launchballer 11:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There is nothing wrong with you editing this article. Ruslik_Zero 12:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But "Launchballer" comes very close to being a promotional name. Maproom (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    2013 Holidays

    The calendar for holidays says it is 2013 but is showing 2012 days, i.e. showing Feb 29 which doesn't appear in 2013. Whole calendar needs to be updated for 2013 or marked as 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EKemargo (talk • contribs) 11:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Which Wikipedia page are you looking at? There isn't a page called 2013 Holidays. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Portal:Holidays/Calendar. Like the rest of Wikipedia, portals rely on volunteer effort to keep them up to date. It appears that no-one is very interested in maintaining this page. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed Portal:Holidays/Calendar to say which year is actually displayed now: 2012 for January-February, and 2011 for March-December.[1] I'm not planning on spending time updating the months to 2013. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    How far can Wikipedia go?

    There is this article called Bestgore.com, most of the content and the logo is by a user called JunoBeach. Apart from the fact that the article is obviously no article (advertising, no relevance, no article), the logo of this website which was also uploaded to wikipedia and which is visible in the article is showing an incredible violent picture of a dead woman. Such content is not appropriate for wikipedia. Also the article, which is called like the domain of the website, and not "Bestgore" is pure advertising. What do you guys think about that? Would a new deletion process for the article and especially for the logo make sense? Participate! Incarus (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that content is violent doesn't necessarily disqualify the article, since there are articles here about all sorts of things, including violent ones. The relevant criterion in this case would be whether the site is notable enough to deserve an article, not whether the content is disgusting to you. As for it being "advertising", one should look at the general tone, and make sure it is encyclopedic instead of reading like an ad or marketing brochure; if there are problems in that regard, they might be solved by rewording rather than necessarily deleting the whole thing. One might also look into conflicts-of-interest if it turns out that most of the writing/editing has been done by somebody associated with the site itself (I have no idea whether this is true in this case), though this can get bizarrely tricky given that we also have strict, draconian policies against "outing" the real identity of a pseudonymous contributor, which can make it pretty darned hard to talk about any possible connection they have to subjects being written about. And where the logo is concerned, policies regarding copyrighted images would apply, meaning that any use of it would have to follow our fair-use guidelines, which have all sorts of hoops the image uploader has to go through like providing a valid rationale. If this hasn't been done, the image is subject to deletion. I believe use of a logo of a site in the article about the site is considered valid fair use, though. And regarding whether the .com should be part of the title or not, the standard here is generally to use the form of a name most commonly used and recognized; do users of that site mostly speak about it with or without the suffix? My personal aesthetic preference is to leave out ".com" suffixes unless absolutely necessary to disambiguate (e.g., distinguishing amazon.com from the Amazon river and rain forest), but that's just me. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you are not taking it down if the girl's family feels offended by the picture, and coming with a legal threat? Im, not saying just saying. --89.249.2.53 (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are personal-privacy and legal issues involved, the Wikimedia office might have to get involved, which changes the whole situation. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No i dont know anybody from the family, it was just a tip to incarus if he wanna be sure, about what the think. --109.232.72.49 (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally disagree to you, not every relevant topic is worth an article. Also there are other factors which make it clear, that this special topic is not worth an article: the article is pretty much from only one person, maybe with financial interests. There are pretty much no other edits by this user so the user serves a single purpose. Also there are no interwikilinks, just because on other wikipedias, articles like that will never exist. Beside of that, we still have the violent picture, which could even be a legal issue. One have to check if this might violate local laws and/or laws about the youth protection. Incarus (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Once it now worry so much maybe you should write an email to her family and ask if they mind the image of her hanging. --89.249.2.53 (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you represent the family involved? They might have standing to make a formal request through proper channels if there are legal/privacy issues involved, but anonymous commenters unconnected with the family wouldn't. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    JunoBeach has made many other, unrelated, contributions to Wikipedia. I see no reason to suspect financial interests. Maproom (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The suitability of the article is entirely dependent on WP:V and its subsidiary policies. Not whether things are offensive/appalling/violent. On the legal issue, please see WP:LAWSUIT. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)* Hello, sorry but the article is not promotional in tone or advertising spam, actually the site has a fairly wide notability due to their posting of the Luka Magnotta alleged icepick murders, I read about it frequently during this case and I'm in Europe. The article is referenced, encyclopaedic in tone and not unduly shocking or gory, in fact it's not either of those at all. Apparently you object to the use of the image, you should take that up with the site owner himself as Wikipedia is just a reflection of what's out there.

    Also, concerning the girl's family (?), please see no legal threats.

    Finally, if Wikipedia were to begin to delete articles that some people took offense to then we should probably get rid of just about everything, asides obvious "shocking" material such as coprophilia, torture or Human Centipede, all articles about religious subjects would have to go as they would offend atheists or agnostics or just people from the other faiths; all articles about politics, philosophy, belief systems etc. would have to go to as, for example, the concepts of Scientology or Neuro-linguistic programming tend to offend a lot of people (not necessarily the same people of course), capitalists probably find articles about Communism or Socialism offensive to some degree and vice-versa. And so on and so on. CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, sorry it was not meaning like a legal threat, from me i swear i just wanna give incarus a tip, what he could do, just to get it resolved quickly and easily. Please, do not to ban my ip address forever. To be enough to apologize if it is to be, it was not meant so I just wanted to make a friendly advice to incarus ): 109.232.72.49 (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replied at my talk page, no threat perceived, no worries. CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You guys still don't get the problem. I'm pretty sure that the following picture from the article violates local laws and/or laws about youth protection (also mention that sites like that are hosted abroad due to legal issues, wikipedia isn't and doesn't have any youth protection measures): File:Bestgore.com-LOGO.jpg
    Incarus (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not going to take part in this discussion, but the above image is copyrighted and therefore cannot be shown here. I have turned it into a link. Chamal T•C 14:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also looked into this, please take note of the following and do not delete the image, thanks. {{Non-free logo|image has rationale=yes}}
    CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Chamal_N (talk · contribs)'s point was that the image cannot be displayed here, at this help desk. It's correctly tagged for use in the article. I've added "nowiki" tags to your post so that the template doesn't add inappropriate categories to this page. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh fine, didn't realize the tag would add categories to this page, but upon reflection I guess those bots get everywhere. I understood (and still believe) that Chamal's point is that the image is copyright and by wikilinking to WP:NFC believes that it has no place on WP at all. Anyway, as you say, it's correctly tagged over there, under fair use rationale, thanks for the <nowiki></nowiki> tags. Cheers! CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to explain a little more, images uploaded pursuant to the non-free content criteria can be used only in the article mainspace.--ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "picture from the article violates local laws and/or laws about youth protection" What local laws do you think the picture violates and what makes you think it is a "youth protection" issue? --Dweller (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    At least it is a violation of German laws [2], I'm not sure which laws applies here. Beside from international laws, there are server in Tampa, Florida and Amsterdam[3]. I haven't looked up the youth protection laws of Florida, but I'm sure there are also laws against such things. Incarus (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The law which applies here is Wikipedia is not censored. Why don't we discuss the more substantive issue of whether the website is notable? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Italcising article titles

    Articles that are about and named for species, e.g. Narcissus cyclamineus, have, or should have, their titles in italics. But I have failed to find out how this is achieved. Can someone please explain? Maproom (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Italicizing the article can be done by using the template {{Italic title}}. However in the example you have given, this functionality is implemented in the taxobox template {{Speciesbox}} itself, which is used in the article. Chamal T•C 16:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Maproom (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection

    I am editing an article titled Petar II Petrović Njegoš and I wish to see it semi-protected due to persistent vandalism relating to the subject's ethnicity. How do I do this since I do not have administrative powers? 23 editor (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You can place your request at WP:RFPP and an admin will review it. 18:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you! 23 editor (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What I see in the history of that page is not vandalism. Articles about the Balkans can arouse strong feelings regarding ethnicity, and some of the edits have been unhelpful, but they are not vandalism, and describing them as vandalism to those responsible will not make your task easier. Maproom (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of inference as a reference

    I'm, at the moment, having a dispute with another editor about putting in some information about Beyoncé's pregnancy. Jennie x keeps wanting to cut out [a legitimate source http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beyoncé_Knowles&oldid=543468345] saying that the sources themselves does not explicitly say that she was using a surrogate so they are not relevant, but I wanted to show readers that a star in the end of their supposed first trimester performing in ways that would risk an actual pregnancy. Is inference not allowed on Wikipedia? thanks--Aichik (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IMHO, no, because inference is a form of original research in that you are drawing your own conclusions from a set of facts. Now if a reliable source draws those conclusions it may be appropriate to report them, assuming that WP:BLP is not violated.--ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See also: WP:synthesis (as well as WP:original research). —74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Solar System Ambassadors Program and notability

    Resolved
     – Wikipedia:COI self-promoting bio deleted by User:OrangeMike. CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Editors: I started to review a new page, Gregory McCartney, which would need to be totally rewritten to be acceptable (external links, excessive detail, etc,). The creator is actively working on this page, and is the subject of the article. Of all of the items on the page, only two could possibly be notable. One is his "Stars Above Hawaii" show and program for amateur astronomers, and the other is his membership in the NASA Solar System Ambassadors Program. I would like to request that someone more experienced take a look at this. The Ambassadors program is notable, but how far does this rub off on an individual member? This page needs to be tackled one way or the other, and I'm not sure I'm up to it. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks —Anne Delong (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    March 12

    Horrie the Wog Dog

    The wikipedia information you have for Horrie is not accurate. He was my father James Bell Moody's dog and it has never been proven categoricaly that what Jim told a reporter friend was the truth. His own obiturary stated he was a great "story teller" and their are members of his immediate family who were alive in 1945 and some alive now, who do not believe that another dog was substituted for Horrie. The author who first publicly printed this story made no attempt at contacting other members of Jim's family for verification. Horrie was also not shot. Correspondence between the various government agencies involved in his destruction are available from the National Archives that categorically refute this emotionally charged statement. As Jims daughter I request you to please correct this article to reflect that it is alleged he was substituted it is not fact. Alsoplease correct the fact that the dog was euthanised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.107.13 (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Article createdby me: Hellenoturkism

    I have finished creating the article under the title Hellenoturkism which is not my first article. I have already some experience. But, my text is now stuck in the page titled: Wikipedia talk: articles for creation/Hellenoturkism. What do I have to do to have it published?--Appenzeller (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The draft has been submitted to the Articles for Creation review process. The review process is however severely backlogged so it may take some time before a review is done. I have cleaned up a few small problems - such as the duplicated draft submission box. Roger (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Stadium name change

    Hello all. I have been trying to get the name for Bernie Robbins Stadium to get changed. The stadium officially changed its name in 2009, and again last year. I should point out the corporate deal between the business, Bernie Robbins, and the stadium, has long passed. There was an event hosted on the grounds of this baseball field last year. For some reason, and I'm a little confused as to why, I have been unable to convince enough people to believe the name of this place has changed, even though there are news articles circulating across the internet saying that the new name is Surf Stadium. I'm not sure how to handle this situation, or to find a way to get the name changed. If anyone has advise or could help out in any way, please let me know, but don't make it too complicated. Thank you. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As another editor has pointed out at the move discussions on Talk:Bernie Robbins Stadium, the argument against the move is that we don't always use official names for article titles when something is more commonly known by another name (which means more people will be looking for the subject by the common name and not the official name). In other words, we don't rename an article simply because the subject's official name changed. The details are at WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME, please read them. Chamal T•C 03:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Radiokid1010 - you've provided one of the main reasons for not changing the stadium name in our articles when you say "The stadium officially changed its name in 2009, and again last year." Better we stick to non-sponsored names when we can, simply because they DON'T change. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'm really confused right now. I mean, how did New Meadowlands Stadium become MetLife Stadium? --Radiokid1010 (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, since policy should reflect practice, the standard at Wikipedia for the bulk of stadium article names is to use the official name of the stadium especially if current reliable, independent sources also use it. Just find current or very recent reliable sources that talk about the stadium, if those source use the official name, you have a good case to make. Consider that nearly all Wikipedia articles on stadia use the most current name, even if many people still in casual conversation use the old name. See O.co Coliseum (b.k.a. Oakland Coliseum), Qualcomm Stadium (b.k.a. Jack Murphy Stadium), etc. There are many stadiums which have frequently changed names, even in just the last few years (see the convoluted history behind Sun Life Stadium which has had 5 different names over the life of Wikipedia, not counting the two it had before Wikipedia came around); and the Wikipedia article name has changed to reflect the official name changes each time, because reliable sources generally did the same; i.e. when it changed from Dolphin Stadium to Sun Life Stadium, the reliable sources started calling it that as well. The issue is not what fans think of the stadium's name, it's what the preponderance of recent reliable sources do. If those sources are consistently use the newest name, Wikipedia articles should as well. --Jayron32 06:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ouabi; Or the Virtues of Nature: An Indian Tale in Four Cantos

    Dear editors: I've been reading an interesting article called Ouabi; Or the Virtues of Nature: An Indian Tale in Four Cantos about a fictional work. The last section of the article is called "Analysis", and it seems to me that it isn't right for Wikipedia as it is (no essays of original research). The section does have some sources, though. Would I be correct in suggesting to the article author that any ideas which were original should be left out, and that those which were put forth by a recognized expert could be left in, but it should be stated explicitly in the text who said what? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Normally I would say yes. But this article was done as a student project and it's not clear to me if they are held to the same rules as other articles. See the header on the talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes sense if the student is going to be graded. However, once that's done, the article becomes part of the encyclopedia and the student moves on. Is there any process in place to tell ordinary editors when not to interfere? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at WP:School and university projects, you'll find a list of current (and past) projects. If the article is part of a current project please discuss your concerns on the project's talk page. If the project has already ended feel free to edit the article in accordance with the "normal" rules and standards. Roger (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Readability for visually challenged folks

    i am visually challenged, but use Wikipedia a lot. Even using n iPad horizontally, I find the font too small to read without expanding the font size. This forces a lot of scrolling back and forth along the lines of text. It would be much more readable if the articles were formatted in columns, limiting the width so that a moderately expanded font would not require left-right scrolling on each line of test.

    Again, love the content and concept! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.87.253 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, there is an iOS Wikipedia App, which you may find easier to use than accessing Wikipedia through your iPad browser. There is also a mobile version of Wikipedia, which you can find here. Please see here for more information and links to the mobile apps. Chamal T•C 04:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The mobile rendition is "read only", If the iOs app doesn't allow editing it would probably also be useless to the OP. Roger (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The folks at WP:WikiProject Accessibility would probably be able to help you. Roger (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello 68.150.87.253 at the top left of articles there is a tab called Print/export - if you click on "Print version" a new page will load that does not have all the internal links and a few other things but when you use "ctrl +" you will not need to side scroll and by default the text is bigger.Moxy (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Kelly Carrinton

    Has no public relations degree or education fron university of Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.205.191 (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Kelly Carrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    I have removed one sentence from the article, and have explained my reasoning on the talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    RE: Company Write Up

    Dear Sir/Mdm

    I am interested in posting an article about my company onto Wikipedia. May I know what the steps to do that and any restrictions that I need to take note of? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.75.202.66 (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The pages you will need to read - very carefully - are WP:CORP, which details the inclusion requirements for companies (if your organisation doesn't meet them, you won't be able to create an article about it) and WP:COI and WP:BESTCOI, which explain conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia. Basically, you are strongly discouraged from writing about your company here; the most appropriate thing to do if you'd like to see an article about it would be to request one so that a neutral editor can do the actual construction work. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    putting pics in article

    hello may you help me.I have a picture but i dont now how to put it in an article.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=543589839"