Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2006 November 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Help desk
< November 21 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 23 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

November 22[edit]

Help Me!![edit]

How accurate is the info rmation provided?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia in general is edited by people like you and me worldwide. So it is not exactly easy to say that all articles on Wikipedia contain 100% accurracy. You can tell if an article is not completely accurate if:

  1. If it lists few or no references/external links.
  2. If there is a tag at the top of the article describing that it is poorly sourced or does not reflect accurate information.
  3. If the information provided sounds strange or out-of-place to begin with.

Those are generally the guidelines.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak on anything other than an informal basis, but I know of at least two independent studies which speak of Wikipedia as just as accurate or even more accurate (i.e., less errors per page) than Brittanica. Especially accurate are some of the more scientific articles, in my opinion, because experts in the field can contribute to them, and there's no need to embellish facts. Please see WP:V for our policy on this.Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

adding current events for foreign wikipedia[edit]


I decided to finally speak up. I believe that it is unfair that english-speaking people have access to all current events in the world, while others have very few events a year on their language wikipedia website. I know the users of wikipedia are multilingual people, and would be able to help out if asked. Even i dont mind posting some events from english wikipedia onto russian in russian language (i am not a professor, and english is my second language, so dont expect much).

Please, do something about it. Also, please let me know if i would be able to do that. I know you have the add-welcome policy for regular articles, but im not so sure about russian current events.

Thank you.

Regards, Pitabread.

What would you propose be done? If you think there's too much of a slant to English-speaking countries, add some from other countries. I would also advise saying something at WP:VPP, as this is a help desk, not a policy forum. However, you might want to make it clear exactly what you think should change. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be more English speaking editors of Wikipedia willing to do this work. There isn't much that they could do for the Russian Wikipedia. If you want to see more work in the Russian Wikipedia, you'll need to encourage Russian speakers to join and participate. It isn't always fair, but what would you like to see: ban most of the English speakers so that the English Wikipedia is reduced to the same level? See Harrison Bergeron. Please be sure you understand that everything in Wikipedia is created by volunteers; nobody is paid to put news in the English wikipedia or any other. Notinasnaid 08:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Israhel van Meckenam[edit]

This is a new article tonight, but I have messed up the name in the title; it should be: Israhel van Meckenem - "em" at end not "am". No one else has touched it; I think someone can quickly rename, yes?

Thanks Johnbod 02:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and move the page to correct the title. --ElKevbo 04:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Contacting other users[edit]

If someone has been nice enough to pay us a compliment, how do we contact them if they didn't leave an E-mail address?

Their talk page... click their signature and you should get to their page and then click talk (whatever form it is in) in the top tab. Then you can hit the "+" tab and post a message. Cbrown1023 02:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If this letter in the title , if don't appear in the TOC[edit]

  • HI

I installed wiki 1.68 ( arabic version ) , and when I am editing the arabic wiki , if the letter "H" in arabic appears in the titles , it won't display it in the TOC ? I tested it using IE 7 and firefox 2.0. However , a friend of mine installed wiki and there was no problem , he used version 1.68. The arabic wikipedia have the same problem to me ? a sample of the image which shows empty lines in IE 7

I would advise you to ask this question on the Arabic Wikipedia, as not many people on this one will have installed this software. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thanks , but I didn't find a help section there ?
Right; you might want to wait for someone else to see if they know the answer, or try WP:VPT. But gosh, I read as much Arabic as I do Japanese, so you'd be much better at finding it then I. I'm sure they have some forum. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You could also try to find the author's of the software, and explain the problem, as it sounds likely that it's a software problem. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I get new results ! I check the software today on another PC and all the 3 wikis shows the letter with no errors ? I checked my PC for the encoding , and it is same to that PC ?


Why is "db" the code for "speedy delete" tags? Do the letters "db" stand for anything? Newyorkbrad 03:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought of it as delete because. DVD+ R/W 03:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought the same thing. ViridaeTalk 03:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The actual template is {{deletebecause}}. db's just the shortcut. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That was quick. Thanks to all. Newyorkbrad 03:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The WP:HD Rapid response force strikes again! ViridaeTalk 03:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Consultation regarding genealogy policy in Wikipedia[edit]

Dear colleagues of Wikipedia: Is there any policy in Wikipedia prohibiting a person to write the history/biography of his own family and surname? (genealogy) (not his own history, CV, work, etc, but of his family, surname, noteworthy members, and ancestors). I am asking this since in Wikipedia in Spanish I am being severely criticized (almost humiliated) for that reason, in a call to delete my work (and now, they are after all the work that I wrote, including an article regarding Academic freedom (Spanish)). I would prefer not to have the same very unpleasant experience again; for this reason, I prefer to ask first. Few minutes ago, I was blocked in the Wikipedia (Spanish)(page Santa Coloma (apellido) (Spanish), User Tasc), by a sysop that was a part in the conflict (directly involved in the procedure to delete the page and clearly manifesting that he disliked the article when he voted; so, he was a Judge, a part interested in the result, and a executioner, at the same time). And he blocked my account just because I was complaining regarding an user involved in the discussion, that abusing of the anonymous condition of his name, started to insult myself (real name) and my family with adjectives of any kind, instead of analyzing the content of the article to improve it. And these discussions are public, as you know. Perhaps the main argument that they use is that, since I am writing regarding my ancestors, this is a vanity page, own research (although it has multiple references, perhaps more than any other article in wikipedia), etc. These accusations are vague and broadly made. When I ask for precisions as to indicate exactly in which paragraph and lines they find the supposed violations to the Wikipedia policies, I got no specific answers. I have already deleted almost 50% of the article, and they insist with deletion of the entire article, with general arguments, without being explicit.

We do not have in wikipedia in Spanish an instance to appeal the decisions of any sysop yet. So, these potential violations to academic freedom a freedom of speech are unavoidable right now in our Spanish Wikipedia. I would really appreciate any feedback in this issue. Regards, --Tasc1 04:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a conflict of interest to write an article about your own family. It is also probably original research unless your family history has been extensively published or written about in notable, reliable sources. Finally, academic freedom and freedom of speech are not policies in Wikipedia. They're certainly good ideas but they're not necessarily directly applicable in an encyclopedia. Our core policies are verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. As to the specifics of your situation, I'm sorry that I can't offer any specific comments or suggestions as my Spanish is quite bad. --ElKevbo 04:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I personally don't think it's a conflict of interest, as long as it's a notable family (on this Wikipedia, we're as concerned with notability as much as anything). You will probably be OK, as long as you provide sources, preferrably verifiable ones that exist on the internet (providing it from a geneological paper only available to you won't do much help). Also, because I don't have time to read up on your situation, I can't say definitely that there won't be issues (you may be familiar with the saying, "the first person to come along always sounds right, until you hear his adversary"). Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - it may or may not be a conflict of interest. I think there's a greater chance in this case but it's certainly not inevitable. --ElKevbo 04:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The first in my family came in 1786, and he was at the time the most important merchant in the Rio de la Plata (Gaspar de Santa Coloma). There is a book from a recognized biographer, expert in history, regarding his memories (Enrique de Gandía, in "Buenos Aires Colonial"). Even the Residential hose for the President was donated by members of my family. And the history extends from the independence war (Colonel Brandsen and others) to the fait for the Reconquest from the morocco’s in Spain, by the year 844. Also, Bonifusus de Sancta Columba (all version of the last name), was the first person in having a Patent granted (XIII century) by Henry III. And the musician Sainte Colombe of France, is very will know. I could continue for pages, but it is not the issue here. Thanks a lot for the fit back. Perhaps I should write it in English (probably there are still some "de Sancta Columba" in UK), but I would like to avoid the same problem and have to erase everything after so much work. In addition, I would need your help fox to improve the grammar and style, if you are willing to help in such a long history, that even is related to Nessie and Arthur (indirectly). Kind regards, Tomás Santa Coloma.--Tasc1 05:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you ElKevbo for your rapid and kind response. Yes, it can be a conflict of interest. But who can right a genealogy article better than a person who knows his family history with details? Actually, the article references several books, articles and also pages in Internet. So, I think that the issue should not be if I am a relative of any personality, but how objective I was in writing about them. In other words, which is important is if I can complain objectively with the policies of neutral point of view and original research. Of course, some parts were difficult, because in my situation is sometimes hard to be objective. But if the article has some parts that might not be justified, they can always be corrected. From my modest point of view, there is no reason to erase the entire work. Don’t you agree?
Besides, the attitude of the sysop, being a Judge, a person with interest in the results, also indicating that he dislike the work, and then blocking myself in the middle of the voting process, is at least a non-ethical behavior (I might be wrong, of course). Do you know if Wikipedia has some appeal instance that can act over Wikipedias in other languages when the administrators abuse of they power? I would really appreciate any help in this issue. I worked very hard in that page (197 kb and now I was forced to reduce it to 120 kb). Something else, one administrator said that independently of the results of the voting process, he will erase the page anyway, arguing that it does not complain with the wiki policies (without specifying which paragraphs do not). Regards. --Tasc1 04:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it perhaps an issue of noteability? I can imagine that other users may nominate or support deleting a geneological article if the family is perceived not to be noteable. If that is the case, then the best way to answer that challenge is with reliable, published sources. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to copy the article into Talk space and work on it there for a while. Once it's in really good shape with lots of fantastic references you might be in a better position to update the article with your new version. --ElKevbo 05:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflicts) As Kev and Pat suggest, one's writing an autobiography or biography of a relative here is generally disfavored (toward which, see, e.g., WP:AUTO and WP:COI), principally because it is not unlikely that one, in writing apropos of him/herself or of an individual or group with whom or which he/she is intimately familiar, might (especially avolitionally) contravene our policies and produce an article that suffers encyclopedic deficencies. There are, to be sure, editors who have created or edited articles about themselves or members of their families and done so quite well and successfully, so WP:AUTO and WP:COI are not really construed here as ex ante proscriptions; they do, though, counsel that autobiographical editing be avoided, that an autobiographical editor review his/her work stringently in order to ensure that it well comports with encyclopedic standards, and that he/she refrain from editing autobiographically where another editor has expressed concern about his/her introducing information that is unencyclopedic. In general, I think it might safely be said that if edits properly an article about himself or a family member, the fact of his being (or being related to) the subject will not be plain. All that, though, as you seem well to appreciate, is relative to the English Wikipedia. Whilst each Wikipedia maintains standards as regards content and whilst those standards are often similar across languages, the intricacies of any single Wikipedia may be qualitatively different from those here. You might have success querying one or more of the editors listed at Category:Contributors to the Spanish Wikipedia, who are ostensibly acquainted with policies at both Wikipedias; Buchanan-Hermit and Titoxd, to name two, are admins here who are also active on the Spanish language version. Joe 05:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Titoxd, that was a great idea. Who can be in a better position than someone that is familiar with both wikipedias. I’ll try to contact them. Thanks, regards, Tomás.

ElKevbo, I am doing something like this in the main page, indicating in an index the progress in the corrections, section by section. But now that I was blocked for one day, it is really discouraging to know that one of the Administrators said that he will erase the article no matter what. Unbelievable to me.--Tasc1 05:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC).
Unfortunately, I can't spend as much time as I would like to investigating this, because I'm extremely busy this time of the year. However, the two Wikipedias are independent of each other; what happens there is not necessarily what is going to happen here. The Spanish Wikipedia has much stricter notability standards, while here, as long as an article meets the three content policies of verifiability, no original research, and neutrality, it has a significant chance of staying. You also need to take into account which sources are considered reliable, and cite them copiously, if possible. It is probably exceedingly difficult to be neutral when writing about a family genealogy (and some may argue that it should be left for some other site), just as it happens with academic boosterism. That page should have a few tips to maintain an encyclopedic tone and adequate style.
Then, it would be a good idea to try to see where other users are coming from. As for the "free speech" and "academic freedom" defenses, I'm afraid they just aren't very convincing; particularly the "academic freedom" defense, as our purpose here is not to make new interpretations of events, but rather to report what already has been reported. Wikiversity, on the other hand, accepts original research to a degree. As to free speech, it is covered by WP:NOT.
Finally, you were blocked for a violation of WP:NSW (which is basically WP:POINT here), it appears due to you taking offense at someone's sarcastic remark. I'd advise you to read WP:COOL for future reference, and to try to source the article in the Spanish Wikipedia with almost FA's strict citation requirements. Titoxd(?!?) 06:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that few people are better placed to write about a notable family than a family member, but there is something to be very careful of. You have books, but you also know the history. In order that your article is verifiable, it needs to have no more information than a stranger might write given the same books and public sources. I suppose what I am saying is that you may need to reread information you already know in these books to be sure that the only information you include is what is there. Notinasnaid 09:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

One caution though. Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical information. The info you want to add must meet all the relevant notability and verifiability guidelines in order to be included. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 10:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Tasc Thank you all for the numerous comments and advices. I really appreciate your enormous help. Now, a mediation process was established (fortunately), and one of the administrators will hear each party arguments and decide what should stay and what not. This should have be done from the beginning, instead of adding a label for deletion, since I was always willing to listen any criticisms and correct the article. I am afraid that know the article will be to schematic and lose its "magic", but I cannot to much more.

Now, I found a perfect site for my work. I will include a complete version of the article in, where they not have any problems with some original research that might be in my article, since they goal are the history of the families, independently of their relevance. I will translate it to English when I finish the Spanish translations. So, if any Santa Coloma, Sancta Columba, Santa Coloma, Sainte Colombe, Columbus, Santacoloma, Santacolomba, ore any other form of this last name read this, they are all invited to contribute to the article. Of course, also any of you in you find anything related to Saint Columba or Saint Colomban, Coulum Cille, etc.

On the other hand, we are now we another user thinking in establishing a project to redefine and limit the privileges of the administrators to avoid abuse in the disputes. For example, a good idea will be not to allow them to vote and act as administrators at the same time (Judge and Party). Also, not to discuss with other administrator (by IRC or email) regarding articles in which they are directly involved, etc., etc. Also, it would be a good idea to establish an instance for appeals (we do not have any in w:es) and to have the possibility of some external and independent tribunal to appeal when all the instance are over within the wikipedia:es. Also, I think that the administrators should validate their positions after a period of time with a new election (for example, after two o three years). Only after several years, they might become “Tenure Administrators”, for life. These are just some ideas to improve Wikipedia.

Finally, I understand that academic freedom does not strictly apply to Wikipedia, but many of their principles can be used, since they are universal rights. Perhaps in the future the peer review process could be again implemented, and have Wikipedia a section for original research. That would be great, I think, to improve the quality of the articles. In that case, we will be closer to the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech.

By now, thanks a lot for the inputs as how to deal with this article. Kind regards from Argentina to all of you.--Tasc1 21:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Email Notification[edit]

How user who want to answer for some question come to know that question is posted in wiki? Is their any kind of email-notification or something else? 05:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no other notification for this page other than checking back here. However, every user has a talk page (yours is here). When a user posts a message to your talk page, which is the normal method of contacting specific users, you will get a bright orange bar at the top of your page which states that you have new messages. Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Its strange that the inventors of wikipedia didnt think of adding a notification by email or some such feature. Would have been very useful, rather than logging in here and checking.
They did, but it's done through an RSS feed. See WP:RSS. I'm sure there's an elaborate system somewhere to hook up an RSS to your inbox; but it would probably just be easier to check this page. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 05:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
There actually is one, only it is disabled. You can imagine the amount of emails some users would receive, and you don't want to kill the server. It's enabled on Meta, though. Titoxd(?!?) 08:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Active Wikipedia users login regularly and check their watch list for vandalism and other things. So e-mail is unnecessary. For this page it would be especially useless, since it might have about 200 changes in a day, and that's just one page. I think if you find this puzzling, you just need to spend more time on Wikipedia, and especially work with a watch list. Notinasnaid 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User Page Creation[edit]

Hi All...

Have been wanting to create my own user page, so have been checking out other members pages.

What I wanted to know was, is it check out how other users have constructed their pages, by clicking on the edit page button, or does that make me a vandal?



Please feel absolutely free to look at the wikisource for any page. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ranten. First off, as I see you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's mechanisms, could I ask you to please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ afterwards? That works much better than just typing off your name.
Secondly, there is absolutely no problem looking at another person's userpage; everything on this site is GFDL, which means it's free to be copied (as long as you don't make money off of it - or do it to be a pest). For help, see WP:U, or look at my page. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 05:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact you can even make money out of it. Great! yandman 15:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey Patstuart..thanks for that info bout checking the code. Err about typing the still not sure how it works...but i tried that in my post about the Vanishing Image somewhere above and the result was something like 123.123.123Ranten. Anyway lemme try it again now. Thanks a tone mate...appreciate your patience towards newbies. 06:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Ranten

  • You're only a vandal if you actually make edits to the page (and then only if those edits are annoying or mean-spirited). Watching the source is totally fine. It appears you were not logged in when you posted this. That's why the numbers appear. If you're logged in, an automated signature appears. - 08:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Domestic roofing materials and design at the turn of the 19th century[edit]

Where can I find historical reference to the type of farm building's (House/barn/etc) roofing material and style used(construction) in rural south Kentucky during the period 1880-1920?? Primarily by the farmer/tennant, rather than a 'contracter'. Like wood shake shingles(what size?)? Sod? Tar and gravel? (ever?) Over lapping rough cut boards? (caulked with some kind of moisture barrier?) Tar paper? etc?

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. -- Lost(talk) 07:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


How exactly do you add an image to your user page? Is there a special code or something? --Littleghostboo[ talk ] 06:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Image tutorial. Fair use images are not allowed on userpages so be careful about that. -- Lost(talk) 07:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If you find copyright hard, here's a simple, but oversimplified rule: do not use pictures you found on the internet or elsewhere in Wikipedia. Use only photographs you took yourself, but not photographs of things like art. Notinasnaid 08:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Littleghostboo[ talk ] 05:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't find edit this page[edit]

I know it says "Selected anniversaries" on the "Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 23" page, but seeing so Doctor Who is the centre of my universe, can we put it as starting on that date as a "Selected anniversary"? I can't find the "Edit this page" button anywhere, and I can see why too.Lupus Deus Est 09:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I suspect you can't edit it because it's on the main page. In the past vandals targeted templates transcluded on the main page to get their vandalism in a highly visible area. Try reading the info at the top of Talk:Main Page and take it from there. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks um yeah... I'm new. ish. New to editing anyway. Thank you!Lupus Deus Est 09:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Invisible Changes[edit]

I amde some additions to the end of "Constitution Project" (two additional sections, notes and a category) and they're not showing up; it's like th bottom has been chopped off the article. When I go to edit to put the missing parts back in, I see them already there in the edit screen, but they don't show up when I view the page. I tired clearing the cache, but it didn't help. Help! Thanks, Hickoryhillster 11:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That happens to me sometimes on, but clearing the cache always works. What page is it? Anchoress 11:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Visit the page and put '?action=purge' on the end of the URL, then bypass your cache (Ctrl-F5 on many browsers). If that doesn't work, report the problem at the technical village pump. --ais523 11:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You made a mistake when you added some notes. You didn't close a reference tag properly. That's what made everything after it invisible. I fixed it here. Could you also make those notes links a bit more descriptive, so it's easy to see what they're about? - Mgm|(talk) 11:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Yes, I'll claarify the notes.

Hickoryhillster 11:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I've dropped in some reference formatting and left Hickory a note. - Mgm|(talk) 12:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


where will i get defaultsettings.php file?

  • Please provide some context. I have no idea what you're talking about. - Mgm|(talk) 13:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Defaultsettings.php is a part of the MediaWiki installation; it should be included by default in your download of the software. If you are experiencing difficulty with a non-Wikimedia installation of MediaWiki, you can find help on the mediawiki-l mailing list. Essjay (Talk) 09:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

University of Bedfordshire Arguments[edit]

This page is increasingly becoming a review and a place for an ex-staff member to air personal grievances. I am relavivtly new and would appreciate some help in tidying up the article from experianced editors. Also what is the policy in terms of this type of issue?

Many thanksGazMan7 13:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is probably a good idea. Have you asked said editor to stop his behavior? Side note: make sure you check your spelling when you write articles. There's at least 2 typos in that question. - Mgm|(talk) 13:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Notes Section(s)[edit]

I am about to review an article titled Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 2001-2003. The article continues on another page. Do I place notes at the bottom of the first page and the second page? or do I place notes ONLY at the bottom of the second page? If only at the bottom of the second page, how can I do this? I experiemented to see if I could do it, but failed on this.

Regards, LarryBH

You meant Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 2001-2003 and 2003 Iraq war timeline, right? These count as two separate articles. You should add the references at the bottom of both pages. Joshua Chiew 11:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote templates[edit]

At the article A Darkling Plain, I've tried to put a quote box (or whatever it's called) around the quote of a poem from which the title is taken, in the section. Explanation of the Novel's Title. Check out the article and you should see what's gone wrong. Little help? Battle Ape 14:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the quote box is a terrible template. I changed it to a quotation template and I think it looks much better. --Kainaw (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. 17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

HMS. Bulwark. R08. ( Commando Assault Carrier. )[edit]

—This ship was not nicknamed the " Rusty B " in the late 1970's. It already had this name in the early to mid '60s. This was not due to this reason either, as it was given it's name by the embarked forces during this time. The Royal Marines Commandos. We had to work at ' Chippin & paintin ' most of the time on board to remove the rust. Also The A.&.S.H. were not the embarked forces to cover the withdrawl from Aden, it was 3rd.Cdo.Bdg.RM. In 1967 40.Cdo.RM. Left Singapore for the Yemen area. This was rotated with 42.Cdo.RM. & HMS Albion her sister ship. This is correct as far as I can remember, as I was a member of 'Charlie' Coy. 40.Cdo. RM. at the time. Each Cdo. did two tours of duty to effect this during 1967 - 1968, as 45 Cdo. was in Aden at the time.

[ Please can someone make these changes for me, as were not all Com'p Geeks, and I found negotiating the web labarinth somewhat tiring...]RattlerC73 14:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Rattler.

I think it would be best if someone walked you through how to update a page on the #wikipedia-bootcamp IRC channel. Click here to be connected instantly! (Type in your name and select the "The channel for new IRC/Wikipedia users (#wikipedia-bootcamp) " and click on "Login". --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I placed your comment on the article's talk page so that people interested in the article can discuss the changes. As for making the changes yourself, it is no different than posting a question here. You click "edit this page" on the article, make changes, and click "Save page". If things get real messed up for any reason, it is very easy to undo the changes and try again. --Kainaw (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a list of the redirects to any given article?[edit]

Is there a way to generate a list of those search terms which redirect to any given article? I want to know what redirects to the article on which I'm working. Thanks, Wikipedians! Joie de Vivre 15:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There's "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of screen; after you select it, you have to search for "redirect" manually through that page. Additionally, select "500" articles on the page if there are many incoming links. Duja 15:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


How do we revert this vandalism? – Apnavana 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Click on the "history" tab at the top of the page, click on the date of the edit you want to go back to, then click "edit" and save it. yandman 15:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. One of the easiest ways to revert vandalism is to click on the History tab, then click on the last timestamp before the vandalism. Click "edit" on that version of the page, and then save directly (or make any valid changes you need to). The old version will automatically overwrite the vandalism as the current page version! Remember to leave an edit summary explaining that you were reverting vandalism, or whatever it is you did.
Sometimes it's easier to edit the current version and remove the offending text, but the way above makes it easier to avoid missing anything sneaky that was done. This vandal made it easy for us by leaving a good edit summary. :D -- nae'blis 15:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. I was stunned when I saw the whole page had vanished! – Apnavana 15:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Those 'replacing page with' summaries are automatic now. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, snap! Just caught two vandals on recent changes that way... -- nae'blis 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

vandalisin on the Cat page[edit]

hi I am new to this and was searching for info on cats. when the page loaded there is a problem with the first line and I do not know how to edit it. Please help before some child reads it. thank you

It seems to have already been reverted. If you want to revert vandalism yourself, please see WP:REVERT. —The Great Llama moo? 17:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


I am trying to expand a stub page and want to include a template with parameters. I have typed in the template name plus a list of parameters in the form |xx= yyy but it only generates a list of the parameters. If I put in the template name alone, with appropriate brackets, I get the blank template without the parameters. What am I doing wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Have you made sure to use {{}} ← curly brackets? You need to use curly brackets for templates if you want them to work, like this: {{example}}. Try that :) Nihiltres 17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Assuming you're talking about Williton, I've fixed it with this edit. In the future, it would be easier for folks to help you if you include a link to what you're working on. You can sign and date your comments by typing four tildes (e.g. ~~~~). You might want to consider registering a username as well (see Help:Logging in). Thanks very much for working on a stub! -- Rick Block (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How do I report a 3RR violation?[edit]

Trosk 18:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Go to WP:AN/3RR. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
TY, also, if someone threatens one with a police call, is it a legal threat? I spotted one a minute ago. Trosk 18:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Very likely, though you'd need to post the diff of the threat for me to be certain. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


Sorry for mentioning something that probably gets a lot of reports here, (and there's probably a better page to put this on)....

I don't have a Wikipedia account, and I am clueless about editing--I'm just someone who reads articles. I noticed vandalism on a page and I've spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how to report the vandalism, and I can't find where to do it, so I'm writing about it here in the hopes that someone will fix the page. It's the article titled "Male". Some loser wrote this:

Secondary sex characteristics Main article: Secondary sex characteristic In those species with separate sexes, males may differ from females in ways other than production of baby butter. Males are generally smaller than females in seed plants (the pollen grain is the male plant) and many fishes and birds, but larger in many mammals, including humans. In birds, the male often exhibits a colourful plumage which is used to attract females.Males have penis' and black males tend to be big in the pants.

I hope someone makes the appropriate changes--my apologies that I'm not experienced with computers to do the changes myself.

  • Repairing the damage is no harder than posting this message here. If you're worried, use the Show preview button. Feel free to experiment in the WP:Sandbox WilyD 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Unless the vandal has also deleted information, which they almost always do. Thank you for bringing it to our attention - these things are usually caught fairly quickly, this one just hung around for longer than usual. For detailed information on how to remove vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism and Help:Reverting. Ziggurat 19:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Court of California Template[edit]

I haven't done this before, but I am stuck. I want to add to the Perez v Sharp article, I studied this case extensively. However all I can find is a Supreme Court of the United States template. Is there a template like the US Supreme Court for the California Supreme Court? If not is there someone who will help me make one? I tried to study the template making pages, but it is a bit advanced for my level. Thanks. Ratherhaveaheart 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the articles in Category:California state case law, a few (e.g. California v. Anderson California v. Freeman and Randall v. Orange County Council) use an inline table which I suspect is close to what you're looking for. It would not be terribly difficult to turn this into a template, but you could use an line table as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I looked for a California Case but I am still too new to be very effective at those kinds of searches Ratherhaveaheart 20:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

CURRENTWEEK template[edit]

If using the {{CURRENTWEEK}} template/variable:

  1. When does the week change? Sunday or Monday? Midnight? EST or GMT? Or every 7 days after jan 1st?
  2. There are 52 and a bit weeks in a year... what happens in the "bit"? Is it week 53? Or does week 52 go on for extra day or two?
  3. In the opening part of the year, will it return two-digit numbers (e.g. 01) or single digit numbers?

Tompw 20:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

m:Help:Magic words defines it as "Number of the current week (1-53) according to ISO 8601 with no leading zero.", so according to that and the linked article I guess the answer is:
  1. The week starts on a Monday; week 1 of a year is the week that contains 4 January.
  2. A week 53 is added if after 52 weeks the first week of the next year hasn't started.
  3. There isn't a leading 0 added before a one-digit week.
Hope that helps. --ais523 09:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks :-) Tompw 12:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia for mobile devices[edit]

Is there a version of Wikipedia that is formatted for viewing on mobile devices (e.g., cell phones, PDAs)?

I asked this in September, and got some good answers here. Since then, I also installed the Opera Mini browser on my Treo. It works on a number of mobile devices and is compatible with Wikipedia. Hope this helps. --MCB 21:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
To make this more useful to others, I'll republish the links here as well:
--MCB 21:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Only I can see the changes I have made[edit]

I edited the article on "Visual Basic .NET" by adding two new paragraphs under the subtitle "2.2 Controversy." However, only I can see the changes. If I access the article from any other computer, the changes are not there, even though they are recorded in the history. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpastor (talkcontribs)

Look at the history in-between your edits. The first time, FayssalF removed both paragraphs completely; in his summary he said "rev[ert] vanity edits (advertizing)". The second time he edited the wording of the two paragraphs you added and removed the external link, saying it was "spam" in his summary. If you believe that your additions were not spam or advertising (see WP:COI, if applicable) then contact him with your reasons, or post them on the article talk page. Thanks. Trebor 21:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. My question is specifically regarding the edits he made the second time around to the paragraphs I added. Those are the ones I can see but no one else can.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpastor (talkcontribs)

Well, I can see the edits...if it shows up in the history, but not on the article page, try clearing your cache. Trebor 22:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not the chache. I tried it. For some reason, the last revision won't show up in the article page. I tried this from a completely different location on a computer which had never even visited wikipedia. When i view the history, the last edits are there, but once i search again, I get the same old version. What's going on?

Where do deleted articles go?[edit]

I recently had an article deleted but wish to appeal. In order to do this I need to reference the deleted article. How can I get a link to the deleted article?Dgray xplane 23:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Link it as you would any article; the link will appear red, but people will still be able to click that link and access the logs from the "Wikipedia has no article" message, and admins will be able to look at the deleted edits. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Sam: The logs are blank. Somehow when the admin deleted the article he seems to have deleted the history as well.Dgray xplane 01:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
If you're filing in a deletion review thing, i'm quite certain you can request for the article to be restored temporarily if people need to see it before making their judgements about it. Why don't you ask on the deletion review page? --`/aksha 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I imagine that this is with respect to XPLANE, which, according to its deletion log, was deleted by proto consistent with the article's AfD. Whilst the history of the deleted page will not appear in the history of the new XPLANE page, such history should not actually be deleted and should be available in order that an admin might access it. Although one should not, absent a change in circumstance or the evolution of a consensus, recreate an article the content of which will be substantially similar to that of an article that has been deleted, it might be alright for you to recreate the article should the company's notability become verifiable; should you want access to the deleted content in order that you might work on a new article that should be encyclopedic, you may query one of the admins listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, who will almost surely provide you with a copy of the deleted material. Joe 07:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

userfying articles[edit]

If I userfy a page created in article space (ie. moving Joe Smith to User:JoeSmith) do I need to speedy tag the cross namespace redirect? I thought that I did, but sometimes I end up creating a page called something like "Joe Smith redirect NO" when I speedy the redirect, which makes me think that frankly, I'm doing something wrong here. Cheers. Dina 23:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I just figured out the answer to my question -- I should tag it with {{db-rediruser}}. I still love the fact that the help desk exists! Dina 23:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)