Help desk
< December 26	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 28 >

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.

December 27

Citing a reference's author

When using {{cite-web}}, I was citing News: April Fools: The British own deviantART.com and the author of that news article is a user on deviantART named kronix, who has a page at http://kronix.deviantart.com. He isn't officially employed by deviantART, so I can't put deviantART as the author. So for cases like this, would I simply cite the author as "kronix" if his full name is not known? --Dan Leveille^TALK 02:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan. Citation templates are completely optional. If the format of the template doesn't work for a particular thing you are citing, you can just format the reference directly (in fact some editors don't like citation templates because they feel they make the text harder to read in edit mode and therefore harder to edit). See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full reference templates. To cite an author you can say something like "<ref>Copyright holder (200?). [http://www.URL name of article]. ''John Doe at deviantART''. Retrieved on date"</ref>; whatever makes the citation the most transparent. The problem is that blog posts generally are not reliable sources and shouldn't be cited at all. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper). There are some exceptions to this general rule but without knowing the context of the citation (a quick look at your contributions did not reveal it) I can't weigh in on whether any would apply here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTIC-FM Article Update Question

76.118.247.91 (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the section of the WTIC-FM article to include information on their "Wayback Weekend". To cite proof of the existence of this radio program, I direct to the page on the WTIC-FM website that describes this "Wayback Weekend". These updates are particularly present in the final paragraph of the WTIC-FM article. Unless physically checked by a Wikipedian, the WTIC-FM article might not entirely pass the non-opinionated presentation test. In other words, I got sort of excited about the material and it might be appearing a little like an advertisement. For that reason, a person should read the article and scan for the "Wayback Weekend" and see if it passes the test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.247.91 (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good of you to point that out. I edited the page a bit. I removed "widely-recognized and ever-growing" because it does sound rather like an ad, besides not having any reliable third-party source to verify that information. I also removed the links from "Wayback Weekend", because the same link is listed in the External Links section. You only need each link to appear once in an article, and external links are usually only at the end. (See WP:EL). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppertwig (talk • contribs) 03:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

capitalism

what is capitalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.154.33 (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click me.--Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 03:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that this page is for using Wikipedia. Thank you. Rt . 17:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

usability from the "secure" wikipedia

First of all, I'd like to say the "secure" wikipedia page is great; I actually wish HTTPS/SLL was used for logins to Wikipedia by default, since people logging in from internet cafes, public libraries, or other public access terminals could be displaying their credentials to other members of their network. But anyways, I was wondering if the Administrators or sysadmin know of the "You have requested an encrypted page that contains some unencrypted information. Information that you see or enter on this page could easily be read by a third party." pop up that occurs when browsing wikipedia with Wikipedia in the "secure" mode with Firefox. Sure, there is a "toggle switch" to turn off those errors, but I'd prefer to leave them on, so I know when I am on a truly secure (or unsecure) page. As a side-note, this is not a Firefox-only error; it's simply displayed differently under IE7. With IE7 a dialog box pops up asking "This page contains both secure and nonsecure items. Do you want to display the nonsecure items?" - upon hitting No (do not display nonsecure items) - the only "change" I notice, is that it appears the images within the MainPage are not linked to a secure SSL (HTTPS) page, so they are deemed "unsecure". Just thought I would bring this to attention. Sorry if this is the wrong place. --adamh 04:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that SSL encryption takes a lot of extra server effort and can't be cached effectively by Wikipedia's servers or at all by intermediate proxies. Therefore to save a huge amount of work for the servers, article images which come from the upload.wikimedia.org server go over ordinary HTTP, and HTTPS isn't available. Same limitation for images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. It's a shame but I'm not aware of a workaround, except to dismiss the warning or turn off images completely. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 00:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auto marking as patrolled

I often patrol the new pages special page. If a page is marked CSD, then can the wiki software automatically mark it as patrolled? peterl (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, often is the case where editors who place speedy deletion tags don't "patrol" the page. It's normal to do it if you wish. Rt . 17:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

infobox for "pronunciation" and "also called"

how do i add a little box on the right side where I can put the pronunciation as well as a list of all the "also called", to remove them form the flow of the first sentence to restore the flow? in an article like this Asperger syndrome. if such a box does not exist, we should seiously consider inventing one. It would clean up the article and separate the "name" info and lists form the actual prose.--Sonjaaa (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any such boxes exist. You can make suggestions such as this at the proposals section of the village pump or, since this is currently very entrenched, quasi-policy, the policy section might be the right place. Personally, I think pronunciation and alternate names go nowhere else but right up front in the prose. They are exactly what I would expect to find in the first sentence of an encyclopedia and I would oppose making them less integrated but others might have a different take.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

system security scanner

I need a information regarding system security scanner using port numbers,as im doing a project based on this topic i need a keen information the project im doing is based on java so kindly give the information regarding this topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.135.129.13 (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. Happy New Year! The Helpful One ^(Talk)^{(Contributions)} 11:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about where to do the content editing?

Here are the titles and URLS of two related pages:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Metalworking/Main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Metalworking/Main_page

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

I want to fix this page by editing what is present and extending the information. I am uncertain about how these two pages relate to one another. I looked in help and found that blue background pages were ABOUT Wikipedia. So, I suspect that I have been editing the wrong page. Could I get an explanation of these two pages. What is their relationship? function? If I wish to improve the WP content, which do I edit?

Thanks in advance. 24.15.33.131 (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome :)

The first link you supplied was a wikiproject. Basically a wikiproject exists as a sort of "centre" for organising and improving a group of related articles- in this case, articles to do with metalworking.

Users will use the wikiproject page as a place to organise their edits, suggest changes that can affect many of the metalworking pages, and lists things to do that can be done to protect the page.

It seems to me that the first link you supplied was the beginning of a re-written version of the second link you listed.

The second link you listed was in the wikipedia mainspace, and that is the page you would edit to improve wikipedia content.

You aren't required to join or really take any notice of the wikiproject if you don't want to. It's just there as a sort of editing tool, I suppose.

I hope that answered your question- if not, please feel free to ask. Cheers- CattleGirl ^talk 06:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For more information, see: What is an article? and WikiProject Council/Guide. The English Wikipedia (what you are viewing now) has about 6,928,437 articles, and a very large set of additional non-article pages that help the 48,446,419 registered users (and a comparable number of unregistered users) coordinate their editing efforts. Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia in history, and probably the largest collaborative editing project as well, so the organization here is very complex. To get an awe-inspiring taste of just how complex Wikipedia is, check out the Editor's index. --Teratornis (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at what I have done on these pages:

My edits go down to History. History begins old stuff that I have not touched. Metalworking

Here's what I had to say on the discussion page. I assume that is the talk page. Talk:Metalworking —Preceding unsigned comment added by Begs (talk • contribs) 06:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Account appears to be linked to a single language

I've been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, mostly without signing in because most of the times that I tried to sign in, I would be told that there was no such user. I have 'discovered' what is going on: I am fluent in a number of language and - as a translator - I often read the same article in more than one language to see if in the text I find a word that I might be looking for. In the process, I notice small (or not) errors and when I try to log in I am told there is no such (me!) user.

The riddle has been solved - I can sign in on the English version of the article and can move to other pages etc, but the moment I switch to another language, I am no longer a registerd user!

It that deliberate or a small gremlin/ oversight?

Best regards,

Rui Gabriel Correia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui Gabriel Correia (talk • contribs) 10:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each language of Wikipedia is a separate project, with different policies, content, and users. You need to create an account (or edit as an I.P.) for each language (and each project - i.e. Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc.). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal to solve this problem: meta:Help:Unified login., but I can't see any indication of when it's likely to be put into operation.--Kateshort forbob 11:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least registering is very fast! No legal mumbo-jumbo requiring you to agree to take full responsibility if someone else does something wrong, etc. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proofreading

Does Wikipedia not support any proofreading sofware?

Rui Gabriel Correia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui Gabriel Correia (talk • contribs) 10:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikEd is an editor designed for use on Wikipedia. It has features that aid in proofreading, like search and replace. Then there's Lupin's Anti-vandal Tool, which checks for spelling errors, swear words, etc. Firefox has a spelling checker built-in. There's no grammar checker that I know of that works in Wikipedia's edit window. But there's a free web-based grammar checker named SpellCheckPlus.com that you can cut and paste up to 3000 words into. Language Tool is a free open source program you can load on your computer - use it on files, then cut & past the files into Wikipedia. I have no idea how they treat wikisyntax. The Transhumanist 11:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mozilla Firefox browser has an option "check my spelling as I type" under Tools-->Options-->Advanced. It underlines misspelled words in the edit window. (At least, misspelled words get underlined on one computer I'm using but doesn't seem to work on another one -- maybe it's underlining in the same colour as the background.) --Coppertwig (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what you mean by "proofreading software," some bots may qualify. See: WP:EIW#Bot. It's possible for someone with programming skills to run any sort of external text processing program on a Wikipedia page's text by using a bot (you could run any sort of spell check program, grammar and style checker, etc. that you can run on a text file, although the program would need to know how to ignore wikitext markup). In the unlikely event that you are an Emacs expert, you can probably use Emacs as an external editor for Wikipedia pages and do all sorts of things. (Probably an Emacs expert would not be asking a question like this on the Help desk; an Emacs expert would probably be sitting off somewhere feeling smugly superior to hoi polloi like the rest of us who labor with tools that are underpowered enough to be just comprehensible, Emacs being very much the opposite on both accounts.) --Teratornis (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currency standards used by Wikipedia

Hi

I see that country GDPs, per capita incomes etc are expressed in US dollars. It would be easy to create a 'neutral' currency (WiCU - Wikipedia Currency Unit) made up of a combination of global median benchmarks based on inflation, GDP, etc. This master/ neutral currency would then be linked to a conversion engine such as Bloomberg's, Oanda or Wikipedia's own currency conversion software. On hovering over - for example - Spain, GDP = WiCU 785 billion, the cursor would bring up a window with a table: 1 WiCU = 1,2 USD 1 WiCU = 0,9 EUR 1 WiCU = xxx JPY etc etc [WiKU??? 'Kurrency'???]

Alternatively, pages could have a "Change currency for amounts on this page" feature, linked to an existing currency conversion engine.

Rui Gabriel Correia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui Gabriel Correia (talk • contribs) 11:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would violate Wikipedia:No original research. Existing conversion systems use major currencies, such as the US dollar, as a benchmark. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia generally follows what everyone else does. As most economists and researchers use USD, Wikipedia does the same. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia we have (or should have) some sort of written guideline for everything we do more than once. In this case the guidelines for currencies are in WP:$ on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) page. I looked that up by consulting the Editor's index: WP:EIW#Money. --Teratornis (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that if you believe you have a way to improve an existing guideline, you can discuss it on the corresponding talk page, which in this case looks like it would be: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). But before suggesting any new guidelines, first read the corresponding talk page and any archived talk pages, to make sure you are not rehashing something that was already beat to death and settled. Wikipedia runs by WP:CONSENSUS, in theory at least, so you can be pretty sure that whatever appears in lots of Wikipedia articles has probably been agreed upon by lots of people. Getting them all to agree on something else can be like turning a battleship. Not impossible, but not necessarily easy for one guy in a rowboat. --Teratornis (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might further add that being new to Wikipedia editing lowers the probability of one's suggestions getting very far here. Wikipedia has a number of features that tend to seem strange at first to new users (see: WP:REP). Before suggesting changes to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, one should have enough constructive edits to gain credibility (the magic threshold seems to be an edit count in the 1000 range, even though lots of Wikipedians claim not to consider edit count to be a valid measure of anything), and one should also be familiar with the major arguments for and against the existing policy or guideline before rekindling the debate. Obviously to get something changed, one must have new arguments that are more persuasive and compelling than the old arguments that led to the current scheme, and not just persuasive to oneself, but to all the people who may have a vested interest in the status quo. All I can say is, good luck with that. If you can change long-standing Wikipedia guidelines, you can probably also solve world hunger and bring democracy to Cuba. --Teratornis (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ministers of pakistan

i want to know the names of all ministers of pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.146.172 (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See List_of_Chief_Ministers_of_Pakistan for the list of chief ministers. Please remember this desk is for using Wikipedia. Any other questions should be directed to the reference desk. Thank you. Happy New Year! The Helpful One ^(Talk)^{(Contributions)} 11:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marking patrolled

How do you mark something "patroled" (I'm noticing that non-admins can do it too: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Hencetalk). And what does it accomplish? The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"[Mark this page as patrolled]" is a clickable link on the bottom righthand corner of new pages when you visit them from Special:Newpages. The link will not be displayed if you find your way to a new page in a different way. If you go to newpages you should see that certain pages are highlighted in yellow while others are not. The yellow articles have not been mark as patrolled thus providing you with information on what has been looked at already by others. For more information, please see Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to currencies

Hi

So my question was only half-answered: must everything always be denoted in USD, or can other major currencies be used?

--198.54.202.166 (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes major currencies only, and it is dependant on the article that its used in.--Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this related discussion currently taking place: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Dollar versus Euro (permanent link; see bottom of page).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed my late long-winded replies to the original question, see WP:$ for the currency guidelines. --Teratornis (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot understand if the source is reliable in wikipedia

I want to use this source[1] as a reference for Crime in India article, but I am not sure if it can be regarded as reliable source or not. Please help.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reliable to me as a quick look over, let me dig deeper. Rt . 17:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah seems fine. Remember to use inline citations. Rt . 17:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such questions can also be asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing log in

After logging in, I click on "edit" and am sent to a page which informs me that I am not logged in. I log in again and the cycle repeats.

What is the solution?

Thanks

Please provide a link to the page. Happy New Year! The Helpful One ^(Talk)^{(Contributions)} 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you have cookies disabled. Wikipedia uses a log-in cookie to keep you logged in. To make sure cookies are enabled in Firefox, go to Tools -> Options -> Privacy tab -> Accept cookies from sites, and make sure the box is checked; for IE7, go to Tools -> Internet Options -> Privacy, and make sure the security level isn't set too high. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

citing info/sources

I edited an article about NPfIT and it en got it altered back by Wikipedia. I got a message stating "Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to National Programme for IT appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. --VinceBowdren (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I believe the points you were trying to make are valid; but they do need to be balanced, and backed up with citations - e.g. a newspaper report of a criticism issued by Liberty. Also, the introductory paragraph of the article is probably not the place for them - there is a paragraph dedicated to criticisms, which would be more appropriate. --VinceBowdren (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)".

Being new to this sort of thing I was hoping that someone could supply with some basic information.

How do I cite emails? Do I have to put them in the article? How do you point out basic facts without appearing non-neutral? Is it possible to list the uses as a bullet point list? The list might seem controversial, but does that make it non-neutral? If listing them is non neutral, then why is not listing them seen as neutral? How do I cite information from news articles etc? Where do I cite them? Do I put a link in right away, or put it at the end? How do I challenge what is already on the site to ensure it is factually correct and not 'dumbing down' to the point it is basically wrong? As it stands it is factually incorrect to the point is almost a deliberate deception. It seems odd that it is acceptable to say it is OK to say 30,000 GPs will have access in the introduction, whilst the full list is not appropriate. An example of it being wrong is that it is not 30,000 GPs and hospitals, it is 1.2 million staff including ) staff at out of hour services and NHS direct (the BBC updated its news web site after I made a formal complaint about them claiming it was just 30,000 GPs and 300 hospitals). I was going to re-do my edit to take some info out, but I don’t know what to put in it or how to re-write it without being accused of being non-netural.

Who started the article on NPfIT?

If asked to, I can supply the emails from the NHS (including very senior managers) backing up, but I just don’t know where on the site I would need to put these emails. Some links are listed bellow

http://www.e-health-insider.com/news/3216/government_rejects_consent_call_for_sus_use http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/nov/01/health.medicineandhealth1 http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/piag/piag140306mins.pdf http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=23&storycode=4115863&c=1 http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=35172&in_page_id=34 Medicalprivacy (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content must be verifiable, based on published reliable sources. Unpublished emails cannot be used as sources. In fact, a template to cite emails was deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 19#Template:Cite email because use of it would be against policy. I suggested the deletion and like the final comment by WilyD: "Flagrently unverifiable. Would not be opposed to salting the template, then rolling it up in a carpet, throwing the carpet off a bridge into a river, then launching the river into a star, which could then be chucked into a black hole. Hopefully the information about the template would be destroyed as it was converted into Hawking radiation."

You ask a lot of questions. These links may answer some of them: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Citing sources. article history. Changes to articles can be discussed on their talk page, in this case Talk:National Programme for IT. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I can not cite emails that were supplied by senior managers within Connecting for Health even though it would show the introduction on Wikipedia distorts the facts? The fact that the users put in 30,000 GPs is a deception and there is nothing anyone can do about it? A 'reliable souce' depands on where you get it from. I guess I will just have to assume info on Wikipedia is more a case of rummor than hard facts. Medicalprivacy (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, you cannot cite private emails. If Wikipedia allowed that then some people would make up mails or distort their true content beyond recognition. You should have a published reliable source to add content. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for our take on this. It goes both ways: It's allowed to tag (for example with {{fact}}) or sometimes remove unsourced claims. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. And see also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I have not evaluated this case, but if you make a radical edit like [2] without prior discussion then don't be suprised when somebody reverts it.

Wikipedia has problems with people who add false or unreliable information. See Wikipedia:General disclaimer. If the information is sourced then other people can check the source. By the way, sign your discussion posts with ~~~~ at the end, and don't sign edits to articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't assume wikipedia's content is only rumour and not hard fact. It is only because of these policies of verification that wikipedia continues to have such high-quality information at all, instead of unsubstantiated and unreliable heresay. You cite several respectable sources above (e-insider, the guardian, etc); if you add what they have to say to wikipedia with citations in place, we'd absolutely love to have these facts included in the relevant articles.

But, it is true that your unpublished sources - private emails from staff at CfH - could not be cited in wikipedia. It is only after a source has been publically cited in a reputable publication that an encyclopedia can include their information. I hope you see how this policy is designed to maintain the credibility of this website? --VinceBowdren (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I seem to be having is what is a credible source. For example the Foundation for information Policy Research ststed ".... will make everyone's health records available for browsing by a million NHS workers." http://www.fipr.org/press/071217insecure.html but some people do not see them as a credible source and are said to be impartial even though they gave writen evidence to an enquiry (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhealth/422/422we22.htm) The BBC website states "Eventually, around 1.2 million healthcare professionals could have access to some of the information on the system, including nurses, dentists and pharmacists" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6167924.stm. Another news article states "Last week Pulse revealed that three SUS users in every organisation within the NHS have been given access to patient-identifiable information contained with Commissioning Data Sets and Payment by Results data." [3] (Pulse is writen for doctors.

Where do you cite them (at the end or after each fact)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicalprivacy (talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the skin to default skin

I was exploring the different available skins in Wikipedia and changed to a skin other than the default, but then I changed my mind and wanted to revert back to the default skin, but then I noticed that the SAVE button was responding to my clicks. I even on RESET hoping that this buton to would reset my profile to default settings, but that didn't help either. I looked into your FAQ, but couldn't find a similar problem's resolution. Pls help me to revert back to the default skin view. - Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajjanj (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to my preferences and click on skins. You can change it back there -Brian Alexander (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant to say that the save button was not responding to your clicks. Use this link to change skin instead. Brian Alexander's link is the normal preferences link which probably doesn't work for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That only changes the skin of one page view.--Patrick (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link should keep you in MonoBook until you save a new skin or leave preferences. Everybody should be able to select and save another skin when they enter preferences that way. Sajjanj's problem was not being able to do that with the normal Special:Preferences link where you enter preferences in your current skin. This is a known problem with some skins. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks.--Patrick (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dowloading to make a time consuming edit off line

I wish to make a major format change to a table in an article. It would be easiest for everyone if I could download the table, make the changes on my home machine, and then upload as a paste/insert to the existing article.

Can this be done? Is it approved? Any problems to watch out for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.166.20 (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specify which article please. Happy New Year! The Helpful One ^(Talk)^{(Contributions)} 20:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can certainly be done. I don't know the circumstances but it can be a good idea to first suggest a major format change on the articles talk page and see if there are objections. Especially if it's a controversial table like in List of massacres which your IP address has worked on. There is a risk other editors will dislike your format and revert it. And it's possible somebody will edit the live table while you are working on an old copy. Then you should merge their changes into your revised table. You can reduce the risk of this by placing a template from Category:Under-construction templates when you download the table. Then others will know somebody is working on it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use your mouse to copy-and-paste the wikitext (i.e. the contents of the edit box; the stuff you want to edit) into your favourite text editor (or at least into one that allows copy/paste), work on it as much as you like, then when you're ready, copy-and-paste it back ... except that as PrimeHunter said, others might have edited it meanwhile and you shouldn't just discard their edits. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just to keep you in the loop, I have found a scannable list of over 4,000 massacres in a university library. Just thought I would try to make the list complete.Aaaronsmith (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you don't add copyright violations. And if you plan to add a large number of massacres then I strongly suggest discussing it on the talk page first. There is already discussion about which massacres to include. And "massacre" is so loosely defined that "complete" is very open to interpretation, but a thousand would certainly be way too many for a list with details about each. Also note that Wikipedia lists are often primarily or only intended for things already mentioned in other articles. Category:Massacres has plenty to pick from. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Search Log

Hi, I have been using a mobile portal of Wikipedia (wapedia.mobi) and I see they have a log of recent document searches - suffix URL is: /Special:Searchlog

This doesn't appear to be a special page on Wikipedia itself, I wonder if there is one hidden away somewhere?

Anyone know?

Cheers

R —Preceding unsigned comment added by TetsuoTheRob (talk • contribs) 21:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but if you go to User:Teratornis#Useful searches I have some search links you can click on to look for technical stuff like this in many of the places where people may have written about it. --Teratornis (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find my own questions; codes in different colour, please.

I've asked questions here before and now I can't find them to know if they've been answered or not. Can I be notified one way or the other--and be given links? Can you notify me in my Talk page and with a New Message notice?

My new question is can you please change the way all the edit boxes are displayed? When I am editing an article it's really hard because the text and the codes are all in the same colour and intensity. Elsewhere in the 1990s I used to see the text in light face and the codes in bold, or something like that. Even better might be a colour difference. Thanks! Korky Day (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Google search finds two old help desk pages with posts from you: [4] and [5]. In the second you also asked how to find old posts from you. Whenever somebody other than you edits your talk page, you should automatically get a new messages notice. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm continuing this on my help page because otherwise I'll lose track of it. Korky Day (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text protection

HI

Where can I learn about protection for the texts I include in Wikipedia, please?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by MireilleDubreuil (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of protection do you have in mind? Maybe one of these answers your question: Wikipedia:Protection policy (protection against vandalism and edit wars), Wikipedia:Deletion policy (limited protection against complete deletion), Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (protection - actually no protection - against changes by other editors), Wikipedia:Copyrights (limited protection against reuse of your text). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to place a Wikipedia listing

I represent a writer who should be listed on your site. How do I place a Wikipedia entry?

Thank You

Elena Karina Byrne 22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)~~

Please read WP:COI for Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest, and WP:BIO for the guideline on notability. Please make sure that your client meets those guidelines before beginning the article. Then read Wikipedia:Your first article. Corvus cornix_talk 22:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible Dream

Can you advise the original Singer of "Impossible Dream" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.226.206 (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question would be better answered at the Entertainment Reference Desk. Corvus cornix_talk 22:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the above holds true, The Impossible Dream (The Quest) may be what you are looking for. You can do searches yourself using the search field on the left hand side of the screen.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brights movement

Can somebody please fix the references on the Brights movement page? I don't undertand what the big red error messages are saying. Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 22:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was recently a software error for reference names containing digits. The software has been fixed so no edit is needed. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, it got fixed anyway. :) thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

consolidated in-line citations suddenly turn RED

RE: Daijō-kan, Gemmei, etc.

ALARM: Most of the citations in articles I've created over the past year seem to have suddenly turned RED ... not only in this specific article but in several others I quickly checked. What happened? I'm guessing that this appears to be a sudden systemic change -- an error not attributable to me? something bigger than me?

In each of the articles I have created, the consolidated in-line citations have been "named" with the first letter of the author's last name plus the relevant page number; ergo -- I've NOT created a name a mere integer ... and, although there has been no problem prior to 27 December 2007/17:00 (EST) ... everything has suddenly gone awry. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the section immediately above this. There was a software change that got reverted. :) Corvus cornix_talk 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a page hasn't fixed itself by now then purge it or make a null edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia on SmartPhone using Windows Mobile 6.0

How can I best use wikipedia on my SmartPhone using windows mobile 6.0? Using the desktop version is so slow on my phone. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paparomeroalpha (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the technology but try seeing Wikipedia:WAP access. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered the answer: http://en.wap.wikipedia.org/ Resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paparomeroalpha (talk • contribs) 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC) {Resolved|1=Paparomeroalpha (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)}[reply]