Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 April 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Help desk
< April 22 << Mar | April | May >> April 24 >
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.

April 23[edit]

Rename two ogg samples?[edit]

How can I get two ogg samples renamed? I uploaded them under an incorrect file (artist) name. File:Drunkenmunkey - E.ogg File:Drunkenmunkey - Yeah!.ogg. Should be 'drunkenmunky' without the second 'e.' Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by X1987x (talkcontribs) 00:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Oops, went to re-edit my signature in, sorry rushed :P thanks!--x1987x(talk) 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You have to upload them again under the correct name, and then tag the old ones with {{Badname}}. FrancoGG ( talk ) 00:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
How long will it take to get trashed? Thanks --x1987x(talk) 02:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Probably within a day or two, definitely not longer than a week. It depends how long it takes for an administrator to get to them. I wouldn't worry about it. Hersfold (talk/work) 02:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I've got similar problems: what if I uploaded some .ogg into commons and I want to overwrite it? --Zslevi 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Click on the "upload a new version of this file" link, in the file history. Repaxan 00:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

POV in AfD debates?[edit]

If there is obvious POV in the comments of editors on one side or another of an AfD debate (e.g. calling the subject of the article an "idiot" or a "nutjob") is there anyway their votes can be nullified, or is that just the way the cookie crumbles? I'm referencing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Max_Karson. -- Craigtalbert 01:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD debates are not votes, they are discussions to gain concensus. If the closing admin sees that the "votes" (often termed "!votes" or "not votes" here) are in violation of WP:NPOV, they should not allow them to affect the concensus. Mike Dillon 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks for explaining. -- Craigtalbert 03:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I could use some help[edit]


I would like to contribute an article about a local official that I know something about. Right now there is no page for him but I would like to add something. I have written something already

Is there anyone who might be willing to help me a little. I don't want to break any rules or customs here and I don't want to be accused of vandalism. I would like to show what I have written to an experienced patient Wikipedia user/contributor in order to make sure that I am doing things correctly. Is there someone out there like that?

One specific question I have is: Is it ok to use a direct quote from a newspaper article using quotation marks if I cite it?

Any assistance would be very appreciated--BigKnish 03:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You're probably OK if you create the page now (just keep in mind WP:V, WP:N, and WP:OR), but the best way to do this is by creating a subpage in your userspace (for example, User:BigKnish/testarticle). Then, you can create the article in the main Wikipedia space when you're happy with it. You can use direct quotes with quotation marks if cited, yes. -Wooty Woot? contribs 04:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess it's going to take a little while for me to figure out how this all works--BigKnish 05:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You can use direct quotes, cited in quotation marks, but it is best to do this sparingly. The fair use law allows you to quote reasonable amounts only. Some articles, which have been almost all quotes, have gone outside that. It is often better to paraphrase: This newspaper stated that he had been ...(reference here). The exception is where the exact form of words is important. Notinasnaid 06:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


hope i did this right, hope this is the right place

i was wondering if it'd be a possible to have a link for each article, right beside where discussion, edit this page, etc... are, where people could discuss the subject of the article. If i'm not mistaken, the "discussion" link is not for this purpose, it's for discussing the formatting of the page.

An example would be for Toronto Maple Leafs, people could discuss who the team should keep, or whatever. Of course anything hurtful/harmful (personal attacks etc) would be deleted.

Sound like an idea?

Jrugordon 05:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Read up on WP:NOT--$UIT 05:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

alright, good enough for me, thanks. Jrugordon 05:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


Very difficult to understand and use! Dissappointed.  :(

This is a very difficult procedure to understand. It seems that only nerdy brainiacs are meant to contribute to this online resource. 06:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlagelfarken (talkcontribs)

replied on user's talk page. Calliopejen1 06:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with that. It is, for the most part, not difficult; it just requires some reading, learning and patience. Every facet of Wikipedia's system is there for a good reason, but the basic minimum knowledge can be achieved by reading maybe around ten pages of guidelines and know-how. Adrian M. H. 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is like the Blind Men and an Elephant. It's a fantastically huge and complex system, overwhelmingly greater than any new user (or even an experienced editor) can comprehend completely. This creates many possibilities for bewilderment, especially when a new user approaches Wikipedia with pre-conceived notions about what he or she intends to do, and how Wikipedia "should" work. That sort of "faith-based" (or magical thinking) approach tends not to work very well here - assuming how Wikipedia works instead of learning how it actually works usually leads to anguish. That's because Wikipedia is very different than anything most people are likely to have experienced before, and therefore most naive guesses about Wikipedia are going be somewhere from subtly wrong to catastrophically wrong. Instead, new users should take an empirical approach, watching and learning and trying small things first, before trying to execute those grandiose arbitrary plans that, unfortunately, seem to be a very common motivation for new users to join. That is, many people learn a tiny bit about Wikipedia (like the proverbial blind man who feels one part of the elephant, concluding that's what the elephant is all about) and instantly leap to the conclusion that they can do X with Wikipedia, only to discover that Wikipedia frowns on X.
Also, I would assert that even if just ten pages of guidelines would suffice for most people, there wouldn't be hundreds of other pages of guidelines and clarifications and interpretations if all those other exceptions and contingencies did not affect lots of people (that is, the complement of "most" could still be "many"). Furthermore, how many people are even going to read and fully grasp ten lengthy detailed pages before diving in and trying what they assume should work? Most people have been indoctrinated since early childhood to set aside critical thinking; many religions even go so far as to equate critical thinking with blasphemy, training people instead to evaluate truth according to what feels right to them. So it's no wonder many people aren't equipped to figure out what's going on here. --Teratornis 19:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Converting a redirect into an article[edit]

How do you create an article on a subject that currently has a redirect associated with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosslett (talkcontribs)

  • When you are forwarded to the article a redirect points to, there's a small link at the top of the article saying "redirected from ...". Click the link in there, and you will be able to replace the redirect with an article. - Mgm|(talk) 08:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Cosslett 08:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

FA Stabilization[edit]

I was not sure exactly who to address this to so here it goes. Is there any system in place to protect articles from being changed for the worse once they have achieved that status? if no, then why not? If yes, what is that policy? Thanks and could you please respond on my user page. Cronholm144 09:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The basic Wikimedia Foundation policy is that whenever possible articles should stay editable. While they may be the best work Wikipedia has to show (per FA guidelines), it won't mean the article is perfect. The best way to avoid FA status articles from getting worse is dilligent watching and jumping in to incorporate any useful new material that comes in so it fits. - Mgm|(talk) 12:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Also see WP:WIF#Maintenance of standards. At the moment, Wikipedia lacks an efficient mechanism for insuring that edits to an article are at least of the same quality as the existing article. The overwhelming majority of articles on Wikipedia are below featured article quality, which suggests that the overwhelming majority of edits on Wikipedia are also below featured article quality. Thus when someone edits a featured article, there is a pretty good chance that the edit will not improve the article. Imagine if an art museum laid out paints and brushes and allowed any visitor to "improve" the masterpieces. Most edits would not be improvements. There might only be a handful of highly skilled artists who could actually improve a painting which is already a masterpiece. It would be difficult for a few experts to defend the masterpieces against the unskilled attempts of hoi polloi. This is merely my opinion, but I suspect that if Wikipedia is to attain its stated goal of producing an encyclopedia of the highest quality (which would mean having hundreds of thousands of articles of featured quality, instead of the current number which is around 1% of that), it will need to come up with some sort of formal mechanism for rating its editors, and insuring that all edits to an article of a given quality have been reviewed by editors rated for that quality level, before those edits get streamed into the main branch of an article. (Currently MediaWiki's built-in revision control system does not support branches - there is only one current revision of an article, so there is no mechanism for quarantining edits to an article which is already of high quality, and flagging the edits for review by editors with sufficient rating.) However, the early history of Wikipedia has probably led to a lot of institutional resistance to the idea of a system of edit review, because that was tried with Nupedia and it proved to be too cumbersome at the time. There wasn't a large enough user community to make it work back then. --Teratornis 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

international finance[edit]

1.what roles do multinational corporation play in the global economic activity? do they face the challenges in the world? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, they don't answer homework questions..... Adrian M. H. 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure they would for the right price. After all, corporations exist for one reason: to earn profits. A word of advice for our resourceful student: if you learn to be really good at finding answers, plenty of multinational corporations will be glad to hire you. So learn to use tools like Wikipedia, Google Search, search engines, and vertical search to find your own answers without having to ask a human. You should only bother other people when you have exhausted all the ways to find answers on your own. Why? Because asking for help consumes someone else's time, and diverts them from productive work. Corporations, which are all about profit, don't like it when they hire people who reduce the output of other people they hired. In the current case, you could read multinational corporation, global economy, and international finance. Did you read the obvious articles before asking here? --Teratornis 18:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Forwarding a site[edit]

I have found one of your sites on Lake Charles, Louisiana that I would like to forward to a friend in France.

How do I do it?

Usually there is a place to "email this page"... however, I do not see one on this particular site. ow Thank you, 13:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC) BSD

  • As with any site, simply copy and paste the URL into an e-mail. The URL is that stuff at the top of the browser which starts http:// ... Notinasnaid 13:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
What you call a "site" we call an article. You can also get the URL of an article by right-clicking on a link to it (in this case, you would right-click on this: Lake Charles, Louisiana), and select "Copy Link Location" from the context menu. Then you can paste the URL to an e-mail message, for example:
To my dear friend in France,

See this article:

Sincerely yours,
If your Web browser is too lame to have a "Copy Link Location" option in the context menu, get Firefox. --Teratornis 18:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
In Internet Explorer it's called "Copy Shortcut". - Mgm|(talk) 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Special Table Format[edit]

I am looking for a new, special table format to possibly implement in List of best-selling video games. On that list we have the total sales for a particular game, and then the breakdown of sales by region for many games. What I am looking for (if it is even possible) is a way for it to just show the worldwide total, and then if the user wants a breakdown of sales by region they simply click a button to display that information underneath. I'm not sure if this is possible on Wikipedia (or if what I just said even makes sense), but any help would be appreciated. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'll be checking this post often. Zomic_13 13:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You probably need one of the collapsible tocframe classes, specifically the one that always starts collapsed even if it is the only frame on the page. See John Tomac for an example of its use. There are also hide/show classes for use in divs - called NavFrame - but they need three or more uses on one page before they load in a collapsed state. Adrian M. H. 14:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly what I was looking for! Thanks! Zomic_13 16:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

watch list[edit]

how do i add to my watch list —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acatperson (talkcontribs) 15:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

There is a link at the top: watch - which you click to add to your watchlist. You unwatch in the same way. See WP:WATCHLIST. x42bn6 Talk 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Click on an article's Watch tab. Posted simultaneously. Adrian M. H. 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

article change[edit]

if information about a article is changed, is there a way that I will be notified ?

15:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Acatperson 15:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See above. If you watch the article, and it is edited, it will show up near the top. So it's not a notification as such - you have to keep watching - but it's the closest it gets to one. x42bn6 Talk 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Also see: WP:RSS. --Teratornis 15:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

figures on any wikipedia page not showing?[edit]


For some reason, no figures show up when I use wikipedia on my computer. I just get a red x.

All other websites work normally, except wikipedia.

Any advice on what I should do?

Thanks in advance for any help. 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of WP:VPT. These entries might apply to your situation:
  • If something looks wrong, purge the server's cache, then bypass your browser's cache. That solves most issues.
  • Some ad blockers, proxies, or firewalls block URLs containing /ad/ or ending in common executable suffixes. This can cause some images or articles to not appear. Also, it's surprisingly common for people to accidentally block the image server ( on Firefox.
If those entries do not apply to you, search the Help desk archive for "image red x" and see what others have done for this problem in the past. --Teratornis 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


I have confirmed an article on Golden Child (rapper) to have been plagiarized from [1]. What action should be taken on this matter?

Curran (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed that text which has been copied or write the copied text in your own words. Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The link to that website was actually removed, see here--User:Rock2e Talk - Contribs 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Tagged for speedy delete as a copyvio. DES (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearing Wikipedia Search History[edit]

How can I clear the search history on the Wikipedia site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

That's down to your browser, not the sites that you view. Methods for clearing browser history are browser-dependent. Adrian M. H. 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Asking my browser to clear a cache takes care of the history shown on that browser's toolbar but doesn't do anything about the history displayed in the Wikipedia "Search" box to the left of this screen.

This question has been asked before. See what others have done. --Teratornis 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That is because it is not about the cache, per se; it is form history. Adrian M. H. 21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Stagecraft Models[edit]

I am the Country Manager for Stagecraft Models in India. My name is Saleem Shirazi. I am a model with Stagecraft Models and also manage their Indian operations. We have a staff of 24 persons in India.

It was brought to my notice by one of our Indian models about some references to Stagecraft Models at Wikipedia. I checked out the entry and it was a malicious entry with only one objective: making scurrilous remarks about Kim Singh who is the President of Stagecraft may contact Mr.Kim Singh on +919987821640,+919820168350,

It is sad that people, just about anyone can use a prestigious site such as Wikipedia to sully the good name of an individual or a company.

I have made the necessary editing to remove the negative remarks. But I am sure that the original author will try to re-edit the entry on Stagecraft Models to again make negative and false claims.

I have witnessed such battles going on at Wikipedia in the past. It is really unfortunate that Wikipedia has allowed its fair name to be hijacked by personal intent on using this wonderful platform to settle personal scores and agendas.

I would urge you to try to identify the individual who wrote the first entry on Stagecraft models. This is the same person who created the user ID stagecraftmods. He or she has no right to create an ID posing to be Stagecraft Models. Then he has proceeded to ridicule and malign our advertising and talent agency.

You do not need to disclose the identity of the perpetrator. But I would urge you to identify the person as they have used Wikipedia as a platform to launch an unjustified and libelous attack on our President Kim Singh and on the agency Stagecraft Models.

Stagecraft Models has sent the original article to our attorneys. They are formulating a legal response. This would include legal action against Wikipedia. Just because the format and business model of Wikipedia allows users to write anything that may so chose, that model does not absolve Wikipedia from the legal ramifications and responsibility of any and all content that this portal carries. This business model can ruin the reputation of individuals and companies.

I am sure this is not the first time you have heard from an aggrieved and inured party. I am confident you will work with us and our legal representatives to apprehend the culprit in this case.


Saleem Shirazi Stagecraft Models

---User Comment---
Is it you? Otisville?
Please contact me if so.

Eddie Rooney

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Artsonline (talkcontribs) 17:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Note that the "article" involved was actually the user page at User:Stagecraftmods. However this "user page" was written as if it were an article. the recent edit has converted it from a description of what is alleged to be a scam, to a descrption of what is alleged to be a legit buisness. Neither is well sourced. Note also our policy No legal threats DES (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked this account and deleted the userpage as being blatant spam; no versions were found that weren't either attack or spam. Veinor (talk to me) 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Table Formatting Help[edit]

I need a little help formatting a table (which can be found on my sandbox page. Right now I have three separate tables which can be expanded to show video game sales by region. What I really want to do is make them all part of the same table, but still be able to expand each individual section. Does anyone know how I can do this? Zomic_13 17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it. Probably best in a div; you can nest tables in Wikipedia, but the resulting markup, like all nested HTML tables, is messy and not very semantic. Adrian M. H. 19:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I've played around with it a bit, but for now, I have just removed the margin to bring the tables closer together. I think it looks fine like that. You could bring them together in a surrounding table or styled div, but I don't think you need to. see Help:Table for some info. Adrian M. H. 19:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Link request[edit]

We are Harvard Business Services, Inc. Regarding your post of information " Series LLC" - we note that you are allowing commercial links such as and as well as - we would like to add the following link You may respond to <e-mail removed for privacy>

Sorry, Wikipedia is not a commercial link directory. Each link must be directly relevant to the article and meet the requirements of Wikipedia:External links. In the article Series LLC you will see that the various links are used as citations to support the article. Notinasnaid 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Non engagement[edit]

Suppose one wonders whether an editor is making a series of changes across articles based on guidelines or on personal preferences. (Changes that would be valid either way, but which might be said to reflect a particular viewpoint.) And suppose you ask that editor, but they won't engage in conversation on the subject. (1) Is there anything wrong with an editor doing this, in the absence of specific guidelines? How about if editors on a particular article disagree with this editor's changes? (2) Is there some path of escalation if an editor persists in making such changes, not accounting for them or engaging in discussion, but not breaching 3RR? Notinasnaid 18:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, I find your question rather difficult to understand when phrased as a hypothetical case. Could you point to the specific issue? Failing that, you might also try an WP:RFC on the issue, to get the opinion of other editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer to keep it hypothetical for now. So let's ask a more straightforward case. If an editor is making changes which don't seem to proceed from a policy I know about, and the editor won't answer my questions and keeps reverting, what should I do? Notinasnaid 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You say the edits "don't proceed from a policy." Are they blatant violations? (ie. adding something like "this person is on heroin" to an article about a living person). If they are, and the user is ignoring messages, report it to on eof the noticeboards. WP:AN for general, WP:ANI for immediate, WP:AIV for vandalism, and WP:BLPN for BLP issues. Without more details I can't offer much more advice. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No, the changes themselves don't violate any policy I know about; they represent two different ways to classify something. My issue is that (a) an editor is changing a wide variety of articles (to which they have no other edits) to their favoured representation (sometimes repeatedly, despite other editors disagreeing, but never 3RR) (b) no policy seems to apply to favour one representation (c) the editor sometimes asserts in edit summaries that they are acting on the basis of policy, long established convntion or similar and (d) the editor will not respond to questions about this. It seems to me that if one had an agenda this would be the perfect way to apply it: not breaching policy, claiming to be acting in accord with policy or convention, and never, ever, discussing it. I don't mind which representation is used, but I do see other editors with the opposite view, so things can go back and forth and this doesn't seem good for the project. Notinasnaid 07:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Alfred Adler[edit]

Hi there,

I am having difficuly uploading a public domain photo of Alfred Adler to the Wikipedia entry: Alfred Adler When I try to do it I get this message: The file has no extension (like ".jpg"). I changed the extension to .jpg but to no avail. The photo is from :

Any help at all will be gratefully appreciated!

Dr. Chris Shelley Vancouver, BC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cshelley (talkcontribs) 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure what the problem you were having was, but I uploaded it successfully to wikimedia commons at Image:Alfred Adler1.png. The commons also has Image:Alfred Adler.jpg, Image:Alfred Adler.png, and Image:Alfred Adler.gif if you prefer. Calliopejen1 18:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Login Problems[edit]

Pleasant greetings: Site WILL NOT accept my VALID login info. Thanks!

        Respectfully, me 19:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC) 19:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Logging in, which includes common login issues. Adrian M. H. 21:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Created article related to one that already exists[edit]

I probably should have followed the advice to do a search first when I saw there was no such article. I clicked on a red link in the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina radio template (see WKZQ-FM) and assumed, incorrectly, that no article had been done for WEGX. In fact, an article about WEGX-FM had been done, but the template does not link to it. The obvious solution would be to change the template so it links to WEGX-FM. I created a stub article with a few details I knew about WEGX, figuring the "experts" could build on that. I could have just moved my details to the other article, but right now that won't help anyone who uses the template. Besides, in my opinion, the WEGX-FM article is a holy mess. Much of what's there has nothing to do with the station currently using the letters.Vchimpanzee 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I merged the articles for you, by using a redirect (wp:redirect). The template now links to the correct article. You're welcome to do more cleanup of the content. Calliopejen1 21:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

speedy deletion[edit]

Does the article Bratfest at Tiffany's qualify for speedy deletion, and if so on what grounds? Mathew5000 20:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You could argue for G11 (blatant advertising). Prodego talk 21:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If you think that it may warrant deletion, AfD might be a better bet. Adrian M. H. 21:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it qualifies for deletion (speedy or AFD). It's a confirmed book by a well-known author. (Only books that have been confirmed by the publisher are listed on Amazon). If it qualifies at all it would be for lack of content and crystal ballery, but I don't know enough about the subject to figure out if there's any additional sources out there. - Mgm|(talk) 21:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I put a note about this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). --Mathew5000 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Since someone else asked a question with this name and I kept getting sent back here, I changed the heading so the link would be: 13:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

External links question[edit]

I am a journalist who has conducted many high profile interviews. I'd like to link those interviews to each person's Wikipedia page so Wiki users can find out more information about each person in the interview I did with them. My site is and I am not trying to spam Wikipedia. I am just trying to share my work as reference. Any advice on how I can link my articles into Wikipedia without them being removed? Can someone check why my stuff is being removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NewEra21 (talkcontribs) 21:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

You may not be TRYING to spam wikipedia, but it will still be seen as such. If the interview is notable enough, and provides enough context, other people may use it as a reference or add it as an external link. However if you add all interviews on your website to all those wikipedia articles, then people will see it as spam (and it is, regardless of the intentions). You could however go trough the various articles and look for "stated facts" that need a reference that could be provided trough one of your interviews. These things are often indicated by [citation needed]. You could use the {{cite interview}} template to references to your interviews for example. Though the reference system is usually a tad complicated for the more novice editors. Try experimenting with it in the Wikipedia:Sandbox --TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've found only one edit to an article under your username and that involved adding a link. If you want to avoid being accused of linkspamming, try offering the information as a source. Try adding some information you were told in the interview to the article and use the interview as a reference to back up the information you've added (see WP:CITE, WP:EL and WP:SPAM which are the most relevant policies). Seeing as you are linking to material you've created yourself, you are at risk of having a conflict of interest. If you discuss it with whoever is currently editing the article before adding it, you are much less likely to be accused of spamming. - Mgm|(talk) 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you learn how to use the template TheDJ mentioned together with the code in the Footnotes section of WP:CITE, you'll have mastered something a lot of people find complicated. - Mgm|(talk) 21:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


How long should one wait between MFDs? --Fredrick day 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What, between repeated nominations for a particular nominee, you mean? Have a look through, WP:DP and WP:GD. Hope that helps. Adrian M. H. 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, there's no specific rule about this. However, if you send the same page to deletion after a period of less than one month, I suppose the XfDs will usually be frown upon. PeaceNT 06:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think there's been rules made about that regarding AFD. I don't see why MFD would be any different. - Mgm|(talk) 07:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Hey, are you sure? PeaceNT 13:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently I'm seeing ghosts. I can't find a specific time limit anywhere, but PeaceNT is right. Generally speaking, renominating soon after the closed debate ends is a bad idea. - Mgm|(talk) 18:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)