Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive L

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Wikifying a contributed entry[edit]

From new entrant to Wikipedia (Media attention recently focused on the resource prompted me to check it out):

I have contributed a write-up on the third leading American jet ace of the Korean War, Pete Fernandez. Curiously, there were existing biographies on the first, second and fourth leading U.S. aces, but nothing had yet been contributed on the third. As I happen to be writing a biography of the guy, it seemed like a niche I could fill for you. (My write-up is a bit longer than for the other three, but I hope I wasn't too windy... If so, folks can edit me to fit, based on your protocol.) At any rate, here's the problem: I need to "wikify" the article, but I don't know how to go about it. I also notice that the biographies of the other three Korean War aces are handsomely laid out with a photo, etc. Does that come with wikifying, or is that a seperate process? Bueno, any help to get me started would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roblurton (talkcontribs)

Hello. First off, Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for creating this article and filling this gap in Wikipedia's coverage. Getting the text there is the first, and most important thing. Formatting and layout is also important, but without text there's nothing to format.
You asked about Wikifying. Here's a definition of wikifying from Wikipedia's glossery;

To format using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and add internal links to material, incorporating it into the whole of Wikipedia. Noun: Wikification. Sometimes shortened to wfy.

It takes time to learn wiki markup, and the best way to do that is by pushing the "edit" button on some of our existing articles, and comparing what you see in the box to what you see in the article. That's how I learned to make internal links like this; Nepal, or piped links like this, or bold text, or italic text, ect.
As for images, they don't automatically come with wikifying. If you have a photo of the person that you would like to have in the article, there are many people (myself included if I'm around at the time) who would be happy to help you determine if it can be uploaded under wikipedia's copywrite rules and help you with the technical details of uploading it.
Take a look around, explore the help pages, and feel free to ask if you have additional questions. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 13:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Whilst adding a few references for the article as a starter I noticed a picture of Fernandez here:, does that mean its American Army and therefore public domain and therefore OK for the wiki? Cheers SeanMack 16:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Jew discussion page is messy-anic[edit]

Is there a protocol to trim down a discussion page that's gotten too big? Maybe it could use a fresh start? TRWBW 03:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Garion96 (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


A [] is vandalizing and removing the members of categories of Atheists and American Anti Iraq War Activists. Just letting you know!Qrc2006 21:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename Article[edit]

I want to rename U.S. Maritime Administration as United States Maritime Administration, to make the style of its name parallel to those of several related agencies. I've renamed articles before, but none with this number of other articles linked to it. I need somebody to either A) do the rename, or B) give me some help with double redirects (I don't quite understand them) or other complications that might arise. Lou Sander 00:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Take a look at WP:2R - basically you need to go to 'what links here' and edit all of the redirect pages to go to the new title. I also check 'what links here' of each of the redirect pages to ensure no doubles. Cheers Natgoo 10:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear power as a renewable energy source[edit]

Last year, there was a huge talk page debate about whether nuclear power counted as a renewable energy source. (A number of people from various backgrounds consider it to be renewable, such as physicist Bernard Cohen, George W. Bush, and the UK's Science and Innovation Minister David Sainsbury.)

At some point, someone remembered the neutral point of view, and, rather than trying to claim that it is or is not, the consensus was to include a section in the article explaining who claims what and why, and leave it at that. Everyone was happy with the decision and the discussion was archived.

I came back to the article months later and the section had been deleted. Now I'm trying to convince the anti-nuclear folks to leave it in the article as per the consensus, but they don't want to listen and keep deleting or biasing it. Can we get some more (neutral, third-party) opinions on the talk page to break the stalemate?

(And I'm not asking to prolong the debate even further. That would be pointless; everything you could argue one way or the other has already been said. We just need some input on what should be included in the relevant section.) -- Omegatron 21:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

--Michael Van Locke 03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)I myself am a professor at a prominent university(for security reasons I will not say which)In the past decade I have developed a nuculear power cell that in theory will solve all of our energy problems, however I need funding. The governemnt ignores my consistent pleas for finnacial help. Undoubtfully, they wish to remain welathy oil owners. Bush and his administration have fasitically tried to silence me. They have even deleted my essays that I have posted on Wikipedia. I wish to share my knowledge and inventions with thepublic, but I need money and protection. If you can supply either, please respond. if not good luck to your children and their children. I am old and weak, it is time for me to pass the secret of nuclear power sources on to another person or hopefully company. PLEASE HELP. --Michael Van Locke 03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a small contribution to firmly establish the Nuclear power issue in the Renewable_energy article, according to the outcome of the previous Great Nuclear Debate: Renewable, as a term, was coined to exclude nuclear power. I find this "final argument" most appropriate to conclude the debate at this location. Merits and demerits of each type of energy source may be discussed elsewhere. MGTom 12:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, this particular debate will continue in Wikipedia for some time! Thanks for your input.
I haven't been monitoring these particular articles lately, and suggest that if you do (and I hope you will), you take Wikibreaks from them from time to time, and contribute less controversial stuff. This will help your own perspective and motivation. Wikipedia is a community thing, and if you ever feel that a battle will be lost without you, then walk away and lose it without further damage. It's already lost.
The sad fact is that POV material is quite deliberately and unapologetically posted on Wikipedia from time to time, more regularly in some articles than others, and always will be. Saving the world takes priority over other people's ideals (;-> every day. The wonderful thing is, the postmodern generations know all about critical reading, and aren't as easily fooled as mine was, so it doesn't in the long term matter very much at all. Which is why they love Wikipedia so much I think.
And I think these articles have improved a great deal in my absence. Which is a relief in some ways, but shouldn't surprise me. Andrewa 21:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you move your comments to the talk page so the other editors see them? -- Omegatron 17:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of this is already in the archives of that page, in some form or other. But I'll see whether I think it will help to repeat any of it there. If others are reinventing the wheel, it's sometimes useful to answer them. Andrewa 15:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Can anybody give me a likely explanation of the the meaning of the last sentence in this paragraph:


Khazar warrior with captive, based on reconstruction by Norman Finkelshteyn of image from an 8th-century ewer found in Romania (original at [1])

Khazar armies were led by the Khagan Bek and commanded by subordinate officers known as tarkhans. A famous tarkhan referred to in Arab sources as Ras or As Tarkhan led an invasion of Armenia in 758. The army included regiments of Muslim auxiliaries known as Arsiyah, of Khwarezmian or Alan extraction, who were quite influential. These regiments were exempt from campaigning against their fellow Muslims. Early Russian sources sometimes referred to the city of Khazaran (across the Volga River from Atil) as Khvalisy and the Khazar (Caspian) sea as Khvaliskoye. According to some scholars such as Omeljan Pritsak, these terms were East Slavic versions of "Khwarezmian" and referred to these mercenaries.

--Frode Inge Helland 22:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Tillamook Treasure[edit]

This is probably a fine movie but the article is a propaganda magnet. Before I commit 3RR in my zeal, can someone help me figure out how to keep the film fest links out of the external link section besides what I have done already? Katr67 21:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps another editor doing the same thing will help be more persuasive. I trimmed a little PR-ish copy and the list at the end. - DavidWBrooks 21:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
That's kind of what I was thinking. Thanks for your help. BTW, is there a better place to run for help in situations like this, or is the Village pump just fine? Katr67 21:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Not that I know of, but perhaps others could suggest something. - DavidWBrooks 21:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this is the right place, Jimbo Wales made a similar request at #Gracenote Tra (Talk) 22:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A little help here......[edit]

Hi, I'm new, so I need some help. When making an article, how do I type it in the format of other articles? I mean, what do I set it to? TIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForteDeath (talkcontribs)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. The best place to start to learn how to write articles properly is Wikipedia's "manual of style", designed to help you write articles in a good format. Oh, and don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages, by adding ~~~~ to the end of your post. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 12:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick translation needed[edit]

While on RC patrol I came accross this edit. The person reverted it themselves moments later, so I put Template:test-self-n on their talk page, but I was wondering if anyone could translate that template into whatever language that is (Spanish? I'm not sure) in case they don't know English. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs)

I'm pretty sure it's either Spanish or Portugese...not sure exactly which. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 12:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I used Google Translate on the test template and pasted the Spanish and Portugese translations of the template on their talk page. I was hoping some human would respond by translating it for me though. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The word for human waste is pretty similar in all Romance languages. Durova 15:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please fill out the questions about Wikipedia to help me on my College paper about Wikipedia[edit]

Interviewee Sheet
Hello, my name is Sarah. I am doing a paper for my English 1301 class. In my paper I have to have an interview. So If you could answer the questions below. I will check my post daily. Thank You -- 19:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Sarah

  1. Can any one edit anything on wikipedia, what are the limitations and the securities they apply to keep Wikipedia credible?
  2. How long have you used Wikipedia, and What programs have you found useful and why?
  3. What do you think about the controversy about Wikipedia's crediability?
  4. Is there anything on Wikipedia that could be useful for a College Student?

One user's terse responses[edit]

  1. Yes, with certain exceptions. Wikipedia's verifiability policy is key here; it requires that information must be sourced from reliable sources, which should be cited.
  2. I've edited Wikipedia for a bit over two years. I don't really end up using much beyond my web browser and (occasionally) a plain text editor; however, some users find tools such as AutoWikiBrowser handy for certain tasks.
  3. I personally think that most of the controversy is bunk; the verifiability policy more or less covers that. Occasionally, some incorrect or biased information will slip in, but it's usually corrected - especially when it's on a topic that matters, as those tend to be more closely watched.
  4. Yes, there is quite a bit. A lot of the science and math pages can serve as an excellent quick reference, for example, and a lot of the historical articles (biographies in particular) can work as a nice jumping-off point for more in-depth research. If you're trying to do in-depth research, Wikipedia definitely shouldn't be your only source of information, but it can still work as a good starting point for further investigation.

Best of luck on your paper. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Response from Durova[edit]

1. I suppose this question is intended to mean Since anyone can edit anything on Wikipedia, what limitations and security measures protect Wikipedia's credibility? Wikipedia has several policies and guidelines. Most problem behavior falls into two categories. One is people who experiment just to see if they can edit a page by typing something inane such as, "Josh loves Callie." That sort of edit gets reverted pretty quickly, often by automatic bot. Users sometimes do this a couple of times before becoming productive editors, so other editors usually hand out warnings and encourage useful contributions. An editor who persists in vandalizing pages can get blocked, and in some cases gets blocked indefinitely. The other common problem is when people create pages that don't fit within Wikipedia's mission - one recurrent example is garage bands. Regular editors nominate these pages for deletion, often shortly after they're created. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution exists for the more complex problems that crop up from time to time.

2. I made my first edit in October 2005. I don't really use bots or programs to edit or use Wikipedia.

3. Wikipedia is only five years old and the majority of its user accounts have been registered within the last twelve months - so it isn't reasonable to expect perfection. On the positive side, Wikipedia's best articles are impressive. Compare the featured article Pericles to the comparable article at The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition and Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia's article is far more detailed and contains 162 line citations, while neither of the others have line citations at all. Unlike those other sites, visitors can read Wikipedia's article without popups, banner ads, or subscription fees. Wikipedia's size and flexibility make it a repository for referenced information that may not be covered in a comprehensive manner elsewhere. One such example, which is currently receiving unanimous support as a featured list candidate, is List of HIV-positive people. Now this sort of quality does not extend throughout the project. One example of a page I regard as unreliable is Cattle mutilation. The article talk page, where I responded to a request for comment last month, details some of the problems.

4. There's quite a bit on Wikipedia that could be useful for a college student. Yet I'd caution per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation that there are very few situations where a college student should quote Wikipedia in a term paper. This exercise, where Wikipedia itself is the subject, is one of those exceptions. In most situations Wikipedia is a good first stop for research - but only as a launching point for further research that eventually references other sources. Durova 21:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

User:tjstrf's reply[edit]

1. Yes, anyone can edit anything... almost. The defenses against inaccuracy in Wikipedia are threefold:

  • On the ideological level, we have content policies which dictate coverage must be neutral and verifiable. Most disputes over content between editors can be solved through the application of these policies.
  • On the software level, we protect a few pages that have severe disputes taking place over their content from editing by anyone but administrators. We also semi-protect some of our more high-traffic pages, a system that makes them uneditable by anonymous users. (Similarly, many of our template pages --pages which are used to format other pages-- are protected or semi-protected since unnecessary changes to them would result in thousands and thousands of pages being effected.)
  • On the personal level, since any editor can change any page, additions of blatant inaccuracy, nonsense, or libel can be promptly dealt with. This is the most important safeguard of all to Wikipedia's accuracy.

We also are considering the implementation of some sort of "stable version" system, in which articles which have reached a decent level of quality will have a selected revision displayed by default to users who are not logged in.

2. I've edited Wikipedia for approximately 1 year. The only tool I regularly use is a javascript add-on to the Wiki software called popups, which allows one to preview an article by hovering the mouse over a link to that article. Another group of tools which I do not personally use but appreciate greatly are the various "anti-vandal bots", a group of automated and semi-automated programs which revert most cases of simple vandalism (e.g. someone replacing a page with 425 repetitions of the word fuck.) within seconds of their entry.

3. Mostly overblown. There are always a few pages where a particularly extremist editor may attempt to control an article, but these are few and far between and quickly dealt with once brought to the attention of the wider community. The other much lambasted characteristic of wikipedia, biography pages with unsourced negative information on them, is being actively dealt with by new policies which require much tighter standards of verifiability on biography pages than other articles.

4. Very much so. Many of our foreign history articles, for instance, benefit from the open-source nature of Wikipedia and contain a more globalized view than a traditional encyclopedia would. In general, Wikipedia makes an excellent starting point for research, though you should be cautious about using it as a citation in a paper. In my own experiences, I have had two college professors who allowed and promoted the use of Wikipedia as a reference, and one who refused to allow internet references of any sort that were not simple republications of offline works, so I would definitely recommend you ask your instructor before attempting to cite Wikipedia in a project.

Best of luck to you,

--tjstrf 23:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A non-reply[edit]

This threatens to become a large and unwieldy chunk of a page that is not primarily intended for a purpose such as this. So I'm sorry if I seem to be a spoilsport but I'm not going to respond to your questions here. I suggest that you get a username for yourself (very easy), post your questionnaire on your talk page, and post a note here saying that you have done this. When I see that note, I'll go to your talk page and answer your questions there. -- Hoary 00:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Creating your own username[edit]

I support Hoary's suggestion to create your own username. You also can check out the introduction for more help. Good luck. Rfrisbietalk 02:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also would (and did on the talk page for your IP address) recomend that you get a username, and I will gladly respond to your questions on your new talk page when you do. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 03:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Utestudent/Survey has perhaps the widest participation of these sorts of questions I've seen, and its relevant to the sorts of questions being asked. - BanyanTree 14:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

warning anon users[edit]

Hey, new here so this is very likely a newbie question, normally I'd wander about till I found an answer, but it has to do with vandalism that's happening right now on JFK. How do I warn IP-address users about vandalism, and if in future they're just really persistent, where should I go for help banning them? many thanks --User24 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:VAND tells you how to deal with them and, after you have sent out the full set of warning templates, they can be reported at WP:AIV. Tra (Talk) 22:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thanks, appreciated. --User24 22:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


This diff illustrates an ongoing controversy on the Gracenote article. The problem here appears to me, on first reading, to be a couple of POV pushers who hate Gracenote edit warring with Steve Scherf, the founder of Gracenote. The fight is unseemly, and the parties do not seem to be in a mood to compromise with each other.

The details of the dispute are complex, and though I am studying it myself, the article needs serious attention from editors who are not particularly partisan in this debate. There are particularly problems with the characterization of various legal cases which are a bit tough to parse. It is very interesting reading, I can guarantee that, and I hope some good people will come into the page and help make it NPOV and achieve a balanced compromise between the parties involved.--Jimbo Wales 19:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Uploading new versions of the same image...[edit]

I've been told that I can do this. However, whenever I try I get a message stating that I may not overwrite an existing image. What's up? -SharkD 14:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You can get rid of the warning message by ticking 'Ignore any warnings' before you upload the file. Tra (Talk) 18:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be automatic when you upload a new version? — Omegatron 18:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason it's not automatic is to stop you accidentally overwriting another file unintentionally (For example, a person might upload an image and name it 'Cow.jpg' not knowing that there already is an Image:Cow.jpg). You can still overwrite the image if you do see the warning message, by saying that you are sure you want to overwrite it. Tra (Talk) 19:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I just tried it again, and I still get this message: "A file with this name exists already, and cannot be overwritten. Please go back and upload this file under a new name." Checking the 'ignore warnings' box makes no difference. -SharkD 23:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
What are you trying to name the file? It could be that the existing file has been protected. Tra (Talk) 23:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to name it "RGBCube b.svg". Another person was able to overwrite the image, though. -SharkD 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The image might have been protected. The other user may have sufficient permissions to overwrite the image. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
How do you upload images so that they aren't protected? Also, how does one go about getting these permissions? -SharkD 10:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. It seems to be working now. I don't know why it didn't earlier. ~----

AfD or Speedy[edit]

Could someone please tell me if this is still a CSD A7 case, or now (since edits by the original author, who is btw the subject of the article) AfD? Bubba hotep 13:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If the speedy is contested (with a good reason), its better to take it to afd -- Lost(talk) 13:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Bubba hotep 13:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Actually, I still thinks it meets CSD A7 because the reason given on the talk page is insufficient, but I will hang fire. It's not really a job I wanted to take on in the first place! Bubba hotep 13:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone's class assignment[edit]

I don't even know where to ask about this. I have a user who is editing and begging us not to change anything because it is for a university class. I reverted changes or tagged with various cleanup messages here, here, and here, and left a message on the user's talkpage with this response. If I assume good faith (that this person is telling the truth), I really want to have a chat with this teacher about this assignment. Does someone more experienced with Wikipedia than me care to drop a note to this person or help me with what I can say? Has this come up before? It's bad enough when elementary school kids are all told to look up Oregon Trail or whatever and a rash of vandalism has to be reverted, without well-meaning college instructors adding to the mess... Thanks and happy editing, Katr67 10:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ask them how long they need the information to remain on Wikipedia. In addition, suggest that their teacher check the page history. Perhaps they could do it in front of their teacher? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
And let's hope the next assignment doesn't involve public graffiti ... "Officer, we need to leave it on the side of the building long enough for my teacher to see." I've left another note on the Talk page, talking about "history" pages, and reverted the Corvalis mess, as you did earlier. The Astoria additions weren't so bad; I did some preliminary cleanup to the golf courses. - DavidWBrooks 11:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
LOL Thanks for your help--it all looks good. (Though I'm not sure we need *any* info on golf courses, but since I know I'm biased, I'll leave it alone.) Katr67 12:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If a teacher needs to see what a particular student added to Wikipedia, they can look at the diffs. The article can still be edited as normal after that. Tra (Talk) 13:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Eviction - don't know what to do next[edit]

The Eviction article contains a whole load of material related to the U.S. legal process of Eviction. I believe that such material has no home anywhere on Wikipedia. A description of eviction, perhaps a non-country-specific overview of the process etc should be there.

I deleted the legal stuff with a comment on the talk page only to have it consistently reverted (returned). The argument they give was first of all 'don't delete a lot of content', then 'I think it is encyclopedic' and now 'it should be moved, not deleted'. No arguments have been given for the case of keeping it on Wikipedia - other than 'it's well written and has diagrams'. But I don't think its appropriate at all! I was under the impression that if the content shouldn't be there and no-one defends it's right to be on Wikipedia, my deletes should stay in place.

What are my options? Is there some process I can start off? All I can see is the same user(s) reverting my deletes because they have an interest in the process of eviction in California (I'm not kidding).

Please, I'd appreciate any advice Kierenj 09:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution gives a step by step process on how disputes can be resolved -- Lost(talk) 13:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple namespace search page...?[edit]

Apologies if the following has already been answered elsewhere; any pointers appreciated.

When a search from the search box fails, a "special page" with the bold statement "No page with that title exists." is shown. At the bottom of that page there's a string of tickboxes preceded by "Seach in namespace:" and followed by another (shorter) search box. Is there a standalone search page with these tickboxes to which I may link...?  Hoping I haven't missed anything obvious, David Kernow (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
PS Suggest (vertically) grouping/aligning those tickboxes in some way to improve their appearance/user-friendliness.

What you can do is link to Special:Search and check the appropriate namespaces to be searched in your preferences. Then the search engine will search only those namespaces. -- Lost(talk) 13:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a user script that adds a dropdown list of namespces to the search box. Tra (Talk) 13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories for deletion[edit]

Ok, not realising that WP:CFD existed, I listed a category under WP:MFD (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category:Former Muslims). What should be done about this error after the fact? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw from MfD and re-list on CfD. —Wrathchild (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Having trouble with a particular SVG image[edit]

I've uploaded an SVG image (check my user page), but WP makes it turn out all garbled. You'll notice that if you click through all the links until you view the image directly that there's nothing wrong with the image. I've run the image through the W3C validator without any errors. -SharkD 14:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The image server has been having problems for a while. It could be connected to that. The other possibility is that there's a nonportability in Wikipedia's handling of SVG, but I'd think that's unlikely. --ais523 15:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you know what software the image was made in? On a semi-related note, the image needs a copyright tag or else it'll just be deleted anyway. Tra (Talk) 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I created the file by hand in notepad. I may try to Inkscape at some time. (I'm on dialup so I'll have to reserve some time for the somewhat large download.) -SharkD 23:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem isn't just Wikipedia. The image appears garbled when I view it with Firefox on a Macintosh, too. Firefox and Wikipedia garble the image in different ways. When I comment out the <text> element for X, everything else appears normal in Firefox. Otherwise, most of the image is obscured by a field of black. Also, neither Y nor Z appears in the image. Based on the preview Wikipedia generates, it does seem like there's something wrong with the text anyway. Good luck. --Rob Kennedy 18:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried opening the image in Inkscape, which renders it (presumably) as intended, and resaving. That fixed some of the problems, but the text is still rendered wrong. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
For one, Wikipedia's servers don't have Bitstream Vera Sans. There's also something funky with the font size and placement, though. — Omegatron 20:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean when you mention Bitstream Vera Sans. I did not specify a font for the text, so whatever the default is should be the one that is used. Are you saying that the WP server doesn't have the default SVG font? The only other thing I can think of that may be causing problems is the fact that nearly all coordinates (as well as the font size) are between 0 and 1. I will try scaling all the sizes by 100 or so. Also, I looked at the source code of the Inkscape-saved version and noticed that the file size is nearly double what I had originally! -SharkD 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I added a unit of measurement after the font-size, and now the image renders OK in Firefox. Unfortunately, it still shows up as mostly black when uploading the image to wikipedia. -SharkD 08:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

marine navigation[edit]

here i'm seeking info with reference to any particular site where i could get instruction on line on marine navigation. all replies are welcome at......e-mail removed thanks so much


Try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk Tra (Talk) 21:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Europe#This and similar templates' names[edit]

More voices, please, in this dicussion that currently only has three!  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How to resize an image...[edit]

I want to resize an image on my user page (the Master of Puppets cover, namely). How do I do this? --SonicTailsKnuckles 02:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You can use the [[Image:Whatever.jpg|300px]] where 300px is the image size. However I should point out that WP:Fairuse images are only allowed in the article space - not in the user space (i.e. on your userpage). Megapixie 09:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with Userbox picture[edit]

Hey can anyone tell me how to put a picture in my Userbox?A7X 900 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of examples at Wikipedia:Userboxes Megapixie 08:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you but my problem is the size of my picture. Every time I get it in my Userbox it's huge, and not the right size. I really need some help with that.A7X 900 14:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You have to specify the number of pixels. 60 or 70 is a good bet, depending on your needs.. For example, {{Userbox|black|red|[[Image:Pirate Flag of Rack Rackham.svg|60px]]|This user is a '''[[pirate]]'''. <b>Arr, matey.</b>}} </br></br></br></br></br> Would produce a red, smallish userbox, which would show a 60 pixel image of the Pirate Flag of Rackham. Variations could change that smaller or larger to suit your needs. What image are you trying to use? Be sure that it isnt copyrighted either. --The Corsair. 09:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I see from your user talk page that you already got help on this. Best of luck to you! --The Corsair. 09:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we use the editing[edit]

I want to edit some of the pages on Wikipedia but i can't just because i am an AOL user and someone named Rick Farmborough has been Vandalising it .I think this is unfair and will i ever be able to edit those pages again.If i can when will i be able to start doing this.

Please see Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Pasting articles etc. into Word[edit]

Is it possible to remove the blue background behind text when quotes are pasted into Word? I need to know for my project. Any help would be gratefully recieved! Such a small thing is causing great trouble! --OP445 13:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In Word, go to Edit > Paste Special... > Unformatted Text > OK to paste the text in without formatting. Tra (Talk) 16:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


image for commons[edit]

Can somebody more familiar with use of the commons please move the image image:Smartcard.JPG to commons? Thanks. Mh96 09:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Font problem[edit]


Is there someone could help me in the font problem? I work in the ko Wiktionary and want to display ancient greek flawlessly. I've collected so many fonts and put in Monobook.css_ #bodyContent. But it doesn't work (see here) as I've wished. -- 아흔(A-heun) 09:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm very rusty with both the Greek alphabet and Hangul, but I don't notice any problem on your page. I suggest that you post your question at "technical", and say what the problem is. -- Hoary 09:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Voyage by Trailer sailer down River Murray from Albury - Murray Bridge[edit]

I am proposing to voyage in a shallow drafted, retractable keel trailer-sailer, both sailing and motoring, and I wish some information on various aspects on the River Murray.

Where are locks and weirs located, and can I operate manually by myself ? Where can I purchase a map of the River Murray ? Where are quicksand areas located ? When can I expect the most floating logs travelling down the river ? What would be the approximate lowest level of the river, in which area, and what time of the year ? What is the average tide flow speed ?

I propose to take approximately 12 months to cruise the river, and purchase supplies and fuel in local riverside towns. Stopping frequently to fish and take in the scenery.

Trusting some information will be forthcoming.

Vernon Vale

I suggest that you find where navigational maps such as this for other rivers in this unspecified nation are sold, and contact that company for a map. For answers to the questions that remain unanswered, you're probably better off asking at some forum devoted to inland navigation in this particular nation (try a search engine), but you could always try at RD:Misc as well. -- Hoary 06:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:PA Highways[edit]

{{PA Highways}} is a very large template. In the title line it has "edit", but it does not have the "show/hide" button. I don't know how to put it in the template and I was looking for some help. Any would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! --myselfalso 18:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the kinks get worked out, this might be a candidate for template:Navigation bar (there is a remaining issue related to accessibility with the JAWS screen reader). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Need help - Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki[edit]

Heya. 'Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki' was vandalised in an edit 16:15, 19 October 2006 by I tried a 'quick and dirty' fix, but the footnotes are all over the place. Need help and advice. shirt58 about 11:00:00, 10 October 2006 UTC.

It's fixed. Big Thank Yous to: Zanewe, Ultramarine, Philip Baird Shearer, '", "", Wdflake, Csernica, and Mosca2. shirt58 09:27:20, 11 October 2006 UTC.

Vandal Fighter problems on Mac Os 10.3.9[edit]

Dear community: I'm experiencing some problems with Vandal Fighter and Macintosh, so I'm looking for other mac and VF user. I work on a Mac with this specs:

  • System 10.3.9 and I can't upgrade to 10.4 (tiger) since I work on office computer and it's not "my business" to decide for an upgrade
  • JVR 1.4.2 and I can't upgrade to 1.5, because system 10.4 is needed
  • VF 3.3 and I can't upgrade to 3.5, because I tryed 3-4 times and it wont even open (is not even launched and gives errors on console)
  • I regularly join #it.wikipedia on irc.freenode with not problem at all and without configuring anything special
  • I don't have an active Firewall

The configuration on VF is:

  • #it.wikipedia (but I tried on #en.wikipedia too)
  • 6667

The application gives a message in wich is told "channel joined", but no data is loaded, not a single line: nothing. The main window (live RC) is totally empty.

I've tried to download VF 2.3, but the output is exactly the same, so I'm stuck: any suggestion? I've written to Henna asking for help, but if someone had troubleshooted the problem before me, maybe I don't need to bother her anymore.

Thank you very much for your help, --Tinette 09:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You could try just watching the RC channel with an IRC client. Not quite as clean, but... Zetawoof(ζ) 19:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Password change spam[edit]

I just got some twenty or so emails informing me that an anonIP had tried to change my password. I'm being mailbombed. Where do I go for a remedy? Zora 08:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no remedy for them as of now. They wont affect your password. Just ignore them. A remedy was requested at bugzilla. Will post the link if I can find it -- Lost(talk) 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Update:here's the bugzilla link: bugzilla:6427. -- Lost(talk) 08:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On improving guidance to editors reverting vandalism[edit]

I have searched around for how to properly revert and warn IPs and user/editors that vandalize articles.
Let's just say that using the numerous {{test}} templates has been non-obvious, and documentation for the innocent user that cares to bother to do this so that an administrator later on knows some IP address is consistently causing trouble is surprisingly hard to discover. Especially since it's a big deal for the few who attend to it all the time--administrators, which I am not. I'm not even sure where the best forum to bring this up may be, since there are dozens of templates, and it appears to me, no central discussion area for the various templates.
As for properly indicating a revert, and to which previous page a revert is taken back to, and who was "blamed" and which past post was considered "reliable"--something I don't think I have managed to comment correctly in one out of five times, and I have yet to encounter an advisory on what reccomended text is desirable. It is not a simple affair to do this correctly (and if there's an easy way to do this process, I have not seen that either).

Needed are:

  • usable instructions on the many "test" warning template pages (how exactly to insert the article name (and date?), when this is possible, is almost invisible--this ought to be on the template page itself, instead of hiding in the talk page, shouldn't it?)
  • a category that leads to documentation of how to use the multi-part and commentable "test" templates.
  • easy access (perhaps a category?) to documetation outlining what the comment should be on a revert for vandalism.

Am I missing several guidance pages that already exist?
Yellowdesk 05:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. It has a chart that tells you what to type to put it on the userpage, and links to what appears. Just remember to subst the templates. It's a little confusing, but it is there. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 13:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, for template info. Yellowdesk 13:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Severe Userpage Vandalism[edit]

Look, I'm being attacked by an IP. I semi-protected the user page, and, now, they're using the talk page.

Can someone please ban these IPs? I'm putting it here, because it'll be destroyed by morning. I really need action now. Or protect the userpage? I've put in a request for semi-protection, because this is just the first of many. It's getting really, really, really annoying. I can't help out with this happening.

Also, another thing. Can someone please look out for any pages named tornis, torni or Christopher Tornatore? There's no need for them to be created. So, if the links are blue, it's a sign of vandalism.

Scalene 10:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. He's not going to stop unless he's banned or the page is protected. I'm struggling not to feed him, so, please help me out here. Otherwise, I'll do something I regret. Scalene 10:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


I've had to deal with repeated vandalism to my user page. I want to know what people think I should do, short of locking it.

I can't monitor it 24/7.

Any advice? Any solutions? Scalene 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added your userpage to my watchlist and I'll revert any vandalism I see. I'm sure a couple of other people will be kind enough to do the same. On a more effective note if it's IP's doing the damage, then you could always try requesting semi-protection. Megapixie 12:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. How should I go about requesting semi-protection? Scalene 12:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Checkout WP:SPP. Goodluck. Megapixie 12:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Signautre and Formatting[edit]

Hi - I have two questions:

  • I've noticed differences when people do headings. Some use


Does this make a differences and is one preffered to the other?

  • I recently finished making my signature, but it is rather long in code. Should I shorten it? Thanks for the help

0L1 - Talk - Contribs - 19:58 October 17 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do shorten that. It's kind of big. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. 0L1 - User - Talk - Contribs - 09:05 21 2006 (UTC)


yet others do

Rectus abdominis muscle[edit]

On Rectus abdominis muscle, could aowmone sort the infobox out. All the text is squashed down the right side. (Classic skin). -- SGBailey 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • A quick review of other muscles suggests that all have this problem. -- SGBailey 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


The article on prope seems to have been deleted. First off, I can't find any reasons for why it was deleted, or any archives of the article. Secondly, there are numerous other links to the article (Sonic 2006, Yuji Naka, Sonic Team...) what should happen with these? 14:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The deletion log indicates that it was an expired prod, meaning a proposed deletion notice was placed on it for the requisite five days. If you want the article to be undeleted, a request can be placed at WP:DRV#Proposed_deletions. Hope that helps.--Kchase T 14:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this needs to be put up again for discussion – Yuji Naka is one of the most prominent games developers in the world, so the fact he has started a games company should be recorded somewhere, especially as I believe they’ve announced active development on a project (My Japanese isn’t good enough to verify this.) Whether this should be it’s own article, or in Yuji Naka’s entry, I don’t know. But at the moment, there’s a lot of dead links and missing information that should be fixed. 10:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on articles: Emran Mian and Kamran Nazeer[edit]

Two wikipedia users seem to be using these articles as a platform for pursuing a private grudge against the author. I've tried to edit out the false material, but the user keeps re-posting. I know the author personally and can state with certainty that the claims are untrue - is there any way to prevent this material from continually reappearing?

I have also known the author personally for a number of years and can confirm that these claims are incorrect. Please do prevent this material from continually reappearing. Thank you.

If it is a personal attack, and occuring again and again, try requesting Semi-protection, if they are IPs. If not, talk to an administrator, and ask what they can do. Scalene 10:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

blatant incivility[edit]

What's the procedure here? has been repeatedly making POV edits to Template:ScientologySeries rather abruptly and aggressively this month after only making six edits since November 2005, but the more flagrant disregard for Wikipedia is in the user's edit summaries, in which he accuses other editors of being sockpuppets for no apparent reason, and refers to other editors with terms like "autistic", "creep", and "use a braincell or two". [1] Isn't there something that can be done about such blatant incivility? The user has already been warned on their talk page. wikipediatrix 02:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinks for nationality?[edit]

I've been fixing dab links for Swedish and Norwegian. After some initial hesitation, I have settled on using piped links to Sweden and Norway respectively when the adjectives refer to nationality; this is because Swedish people and Norwegian people explicitly treat ethnic Swedes and Norwegians -- someone who is from Sweden or Norway, or who lives there, may or may not be ethnically Swedish or Norwegian (example). I've been challenged on this in at least one case, and now I'm wondering whether there are any WP guidelines on this. (Just looked in the MoS and didn't find anything.) Other serious thoughts on the issue would also be welcome. Thanks. --Tkynerd 21:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with trivia problems?[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but here goes.. I've noticed for a while now, a serious issue with trivia. I've read the Wikipedia trivia pages (on how trivia shouldn't be in articles, and all that), but I need more help. I've created a project for it, but it doesn't seem to be helping alot (since only a few people have joined so far). What can be done to help this issue out? It seems like just about any episode article for shows like South Park, Simpsons and so on... have insanely huge trivia sections due to fan's posting every little detail on the show. I'm certainly no expert on all the shows, so I can't just easily clean the trivia and put it in the article itself all the time. Anyone care to help? RobJ1981 21:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just wondering how beneficial it is to try and weed out all of that trivia? There's already a deletion process for dumping non-notable pages. I think it is more beneficial (right now) to work on enhancing the substantive topics than to try and eliminate such trivial content. As long as the subject matter is far down the category tree, only somebody who is searching for specific information on those topics is likely to come upon it. (Unless they are searching at random.) If they are searching for it, then the information is of some importance to them and it's just as well to keep it. The one aspect of trivia I don't much care for is when such sections show up in otherwise solid, core topics. — RJH (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
It's helpful because once trivia is cleaned up, the article looks much better. It's not just a summary or some information, followed by a huge list of other notes on the subject. In many cases, there is trivia sections that are much larger than the main text of the article itself. Just because it's a favorite thing of someone, doesn't mean they should add extra cruft to it. Every little note isn't needed. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan's trivia guide. RobJ1981 04:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Locating history page of deleted article[edit]

I am trying to locate the history page of an article that was removed back in March or April 2006. A search for the term reveals no article, and thus no history page. Is there a way to locate history pages of articles that have been deleted?


Admins have access to the history of deleted pages if there's a need. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)Yes and no. Administrators can sometimes view and unlock such history pages, but not always. They prefer to have a good reason for doing so. Non-administrators cannot view such history pages without the help of administrators. As a non-admin, you can request help with this at Deletion review. Look at the undeletion policy for more information. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as international phenomenon[edit]

Can I get some input on this? It's my contention that the title of this article is POV, and I suggested it be moved to something like "International popularity of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", but the discussion on the Talk page is going nowhere. It's not like I have a great deal of heartburn over the title, but it does seem hyperbolic. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Largest Organism[edit]

I would like to ask anyone with the knowledge and time, to please look at this page: Largest Organism. There are a large number of glaring inaccuracies. I have tagged the page to reflect this, as have others to the best of my knowledge. Thank you very much in advance. John Doe or Jane Doe 12:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The correct title is at Largest organism. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've now created the redirect page. –RHolton– 11:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on references for bios...[edit]

Not exactly a hypothetical situation; but wanting to pull it out of context of a specific article...

Joe Somebody is a professor at University of Noplace. He has contributed extensively to the study of micronothingology. He has written many papers and books including: (extensive list here).

He was born in Noplace, graduated from SomeUniversity with a BA in Something in 3045, earned his MA in nothingology from Harvard in 3056, attained his Doctoral degree... Blah blah blah...


  • www.Noplace University department of
  • www.Jo Somebody's personal
  • www.Experts in
  • Paper written by Joe Somebody
  • Paper written by Joe Somebody
  • Paper written by Joe Somebody
  • Paper written by Joe Somebody
  • Paper written by Joe Somebody
  • Paper written by Joe Somebody
  • Paper co-written by Joe Somebody and John Doe
  • Wikipedia article on Micronothingology
  • Wikipedia article on ground-breaking Micronothingology discovery made by Jo Somebody that does not mention Joe Somebody by name.

What do people think? Are those references sufficent for the article? My understanding of notability critera leaves me confused. The guy is obviously notable, but the main notability criteria seems to be that stuff has been published about him. The papers he wrote are about micronothingology, not about him, and all the other references are either about his teaching or his discoveries in the field of micronothingology... in other words, not a single source for the biographical information. Moreover, he links to the homepage of the university, not, say, his profile on the university web site. Is an article that reads like this and is referenced like this properly referenced? I'm confused. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

At the very least Wikipedia articles should not be included as references! Rmhermen 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
If Dr. Somebody made a micronothingology discovery and the Wikipedia article doesn't mention that, then the micronothingology article should be fixed, probably citinig some of those many sources listed here.
In science, writing a lot of papers only makes you notable for being a prolific writer. To be a notable scientist, though, it's not how many papers you've written that matters. It's how many people cite your papers in their own work. If Dr. Somebody has done lots of work in a field that nobody cares about, then he's hardly notable. But if his work is used as the basis for many other people's work, then he's an important contributor to the field.
Since those references listed are papers he wrote, they probably don't contribute much information about him, so they're not very good sources for a Wikipedia article about him. So rather than call them references, provide some of the more important papers as a selected bibliography. But please don't list all the papers he's written; Wikipedia isn't a CV. --Rob Kennedy 17:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just concuring with what Rmhermen & Rob Kennedy said above. Paper's about someone's research or citing a particular individual's work are a much better indicator of that person's notability in a field. Pertaining to the biographical information, preferably there would be a link in the article to some external source (say a University site bio) that would back up the bio info. I think when it comes to reliable sourcing, a good thing to remember is whether or not the information in question is contentious or not. I think a Uni bio or even a bio on a professor's MySpace is perfectly acceptable for age, year of graduation, schools attended, etc unless there is some sort of question about the subject and the reliability of the claims (even though technically MySpace is about the furthest thing from a WP:RS you can find). Joe Somebody being listed on a profile on the Uni website as getting a PhD at Yale is fine unless there is some sort of evidence this is not the case or has been publically disputed. Text indicating "Joe Somebody is married to Mary Somebody and that they have a dog that they really love" is the kind of thing I'd typically remove though if unsourced because it would be WP:OR; and even if sourced isn't overly important to the discussion of the subject's notability and work. Bottom line though is that in the example you've cited above, I don't think that level of referencing would really have established the notability of the person.--Isotope23 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would remove all but two of the papers, the MySpace, and the Experts in whatever links. Nwwaew(My talk page) 21:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thousand Island Park[edit]

If anyone in the New York state area is familiar with this community, we could use a little help at the article. Clearly, the current contents are HIGHLY inappropriate, but there's not much of a clean version to revert to. If no one can help flesh it out, it probably needs to be nuked: it certainly can't stay in its current state. Joyous! | Talk 23:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, as of 9 October (when you asked for help here), Thousand Island Park was simply a redirect to Wellesley Island, and as far as I can tell, that's the way it should be (I don't know anything about the area). If there is enough to say about Thousand Island Park to make a decent article, then you can ask for the redirect to be removed (I believe it's currently protected: see WP:SALT) and at least write a stub. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're asking for. --Tkynerd 02:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To Deco from David re Wikipedia[edit]

Dear Deco,

You had kindly answered my question re editing out a part of WIkipedia and then using Export to get it in to the current version.

In confronting this cycle of action I realized I need some help.

I would gladly hire you to do the job for me and put the finished roduct on a DVD R for me to download into my Sony Clie PEG TH 55 PDA.

My e-mail address is : [email address removed to prevent spam] If you would send me an e-mail on this and we can talk without glutting the thread with innaplicable info not pertinent to the pump.

OR if this is nto what you wish to do could you give me step by step instructions on how to do this and have the following finished product - a 1.8GB approx version of Wikipedia downloadable into my Palm OS 5.2 operating system of my Sony Clie PEG TH 55 without that specific article I mentioned earlier.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best David

This would probably be best handled through private communications. Please take a look at What Wikipedia is not. As far as I can tell, theres nothing wrong about downloading Wikipedia articles, but the problem is discussing things like this here. Nwwaew(My talk page) 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Where do I place inline citation for all the information in a table?[edit]

I have recently learnt how to format references and tables.

Now I need assistance with an unusual situation involving both references and tables.

In the article I Not Stupid, the Cast section consists of a table. I have found a reference for the information in the entire table.

The question is: in which cell should I place the inline citation?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You could do it like this:

According to Raintree Pictures production notes,[#] the main characters of the movie were played by the following actors:

In other words, introduce the table with a complete sentence, and put the citation somewhere in the sentence.
Also, I encourage you to use the {{cite web}} template and related templates when you make <ref> citations. That way, if a link ever goes dead, we still have useful information about where the information came from, which we could use to replace the reference with another. (They also make for more pleasant-looking lists, instead of just a list of URLs.) --Rob Kennedy 07:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Intervention needed[edit]

At Docking (animals) where one person keeps including a section called (In)Human Punishment. The section details the punishing of human being using branding and other forms of maiming.

It has been pointed out to this writer that however meritorious, the topic of human judicial punishment is separate from the docking of animals.

Others have quite rightly suggested that the material should be placed in an appropriate article, or even in its own article if there is enough material.

The reply is that the human being is an animal and therefore the section is being restored.

Animal docking and human maiming are clearly not the same topic.

More importantly, any person truly attempting to find out more on human punishment would not look in an article on the docking of animals.

Could someone (or better yet, a few) please review this?

Quill 05:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

On the talk page I asked the editor to provide sources that describe these practices as "docking". --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contents and related pages[edit]

This is a request for feedback on Wikipedia:Contents and related pages, most of which should be listed at Category:WikiProject Reference pages. The purpose of this "project" is to develop a set of comprehensive yet highly usable "Wikipedia Contents" pages suitable for the Main Page and sidebar. Please give feedback related to topics such as content, usability, and presentation. Think about what should be added, deleted or rearranged on the main page, supporting pages, and the header and footer navigation templates. Also, more contributing editors are very welcome to dig in and help spruce things up. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 15:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for posting this - I'm having trouble finding a template for Authors[edit]

I have templates for Fictional Characters and Novels but in spite of searching Village Pump topics, using the search engine (both Wikipedia's and Google), looking at the FAQ, going over a list of all the templates and trying various other things, I have not managed to find a template for creating an article about an author.

As a side note, wouldn't it be easier if you could find a template to create an article by entering a search query?

I believe your are looking for Template:Infobox Writer. Do what I do - if in doubt go look at a famous example that is probably lovingly fan maintained - i.e. Stephen King. Megapixie 21:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding who runs a website to external links[edit]

I was reading about religious persecution and one of the links at the end of the page was for Since this site is run by Scientologists I added a note saying that. While I read a discussion here about whether that site should be quoted at all I felt adding who runs that site should be mentioned so people can use that knowledge in assesing the information available on the site.

Is adding the fact it's run by Scientologists reasonable?

Just by itself, no, I don’t think it’s reasonable. In that article, you simply write, “This site is operated by Scientologists.” So what? You haven’t said why that point is important. As far as I can tell, you’re making a non-trivial claim since after skimming over a few pages, I don’t see any direct connection between Scientology and the group that runs the site, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. --Rob Kennedy 18:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I initially believed it was run by Scientologist's because the first essay I read was written by a self described Scientologist. But it is was in the Guest section. Then I looked deeper and researched many articles on the site including about 80 percent of the articles that describe various religions and "Spiritualities." They are all written by one man B.A. Robinson except for Scientology. The articles that explain Scientology are writen by Al Buttnor alone or co written by Al Buttnor and B.A. Robinson. Al Buttnor is involved withthe Toronto Chapter of Scientology and he is listed as the contact for Toronto at this webiste [2]

The articles solely written by Al Buttnor are not in the guest section giving the impression he is directly affiliated with it's suspicious but the founder B.A Robinson claims he is Unitarian. Though I don't understand why the founder's byline appears alone in articles about everything else but allows a Scientologist to explain Scientology. There are many experts in other religions who could have given insight in their field.

As for the site it claims to be tolerant may be true as it is tolerant of so called religions that practice hatred towards other religions. The Unification Church is the Prime example. The site duefully reports of the Washington Times opinion pieces that are racist and intolerant but never condemns it. Sun Myung Moon made this reference to the Holocaust in 1974.

"By killing one man, Jesus, the Jewish people had to suffer for 2000 years. Countless numbers of people have been slaughtered. During the Second World War, 6 million people were slaughtered to cleanse all the sins of the Jewish people from the time of Jesus."

Moon also said: My teachings are the keys to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. To open the door, you need to obtain the key from me. If you try any other means to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, it does not work." (Sun Myung Moon, Today’s World, May/June 1994, p.12)

Although Mr. Robinson condemns some religions that practice violence. As well as religions that murder or incite suicide in it's members such as Solar Temple. He seems to draw the line at violence but hate speech against another religion is okay. Mr. Robinson says there is no indication that the Unification Church is a "Destructive Cult" Despite it's record of hate. Mr Robinson honestly admits he went to a a convention on religious tolerance and freedom in Washington during the 1990's sponsored by the Washington Times and admits the newspaper heavily subsidized his trip. Moon and his Church and the Washington Times were well known to be intolerant and hateful during that time but he still accepted their bribe.

I don't know the complete aims of Mr. Robinson and his website but I am having trouble believing tolerance is one of them. THen again he may be completely sincere but doesn't see the contradictions. He also has a fascination with Pychiatry which has little to do with Religious Intolerance. He seems to be obsessed with Recovered Memory Syndrome and Multiple Personality disorder with many articles critical of it. While there are probably good reason to be skeptical of those topic he can't even be unbiased in an article that claims to present both sides of the case.

Dr. Bennett Braun was one of the former leaders in the MPD/DID field. (He has since been expelled from the Illinois Psychiatric Society and the American Psychiatric Association, apparently for ethics violations.) I'm sure he could have found a proponent that didn't have ethical lapses but he didn't. Psychiatry is something Scientogists are against.

Mr. Robinson seems very deicated about his website having written many thousands of articles for it. But his objectivity is suspect and it takes the time to wade through all the articles to see it. He can't be considered a reliable source despite the fact he will present negative information about certain subjects and give footnotes where they come from.

He should not be used as external link. As for your point about adding what organization operates a website. It doesn't need to be explained if it's a fact. Knowing a website that doesn't state who really runs it is enough. Readers can make a judgement about objectivity. If a website about racial tolerance was operated by the KKK that's relevant by itself and doesn't need further explanation as to why it's importnat as you suggest.

But then that hypotetical site should not be referenced in Wikipedia. Neither should Mr. Robinson's site with help from Al Buttner.

Thanks for you comments it made me look more closely and learned I shouldn't go off half cocked but do in depth research.

I hope I have used this section of the village pump properly but was just trying to acknowledge the point made by my esteemed collegue and add more infor to buttress my argument.

Thank you

removal of speedy deletion tag[edit]

User:Jamesarts won't stop removing the db-copyvio tag from Steven R. Gerber. What now? wikipediatrix 21:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, it's fixed. wikipediatrix 21:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Article name help[edit]

After the guilty plea of one of the indicted, I was surprised to find that Wikipedia had no articles on the individuals or the event of a transatlantic bombing plot broken up in 2004. I ran up a stub at 2004 Financial buildings plot but that is really a poor title as the financial buildings were all in the U.S. while the UK targets appear not to have been related to finance. Since the individuals were arrested in the UK and, so far, face trial there some acknowledgement of that fact should probably be in the title. Any suggestions? Rmhermen 16:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User creating his own references[edit]

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and I have squabbled in the past about the addition of a long list of alleged New York Times sources to Pillar of Fire Church. These sources, going as far back as 1907, are unverifiable online, and my concern at the time was that that they may have been padded to aid the AfD that was going on at the time. Now Mr.Norton has created his own reference for them by throwing together a quickie webpage at containing this same alleged NYT info and adding it to the article. Had he added it as a directly cited reference, I would have deleted it immediately, but since he placed it in the "External links" section, I'm putting the question here: doesn't Wikipedia frown on users inserting links to web pages they've created themselves, especially when it seems like the tail is being created to wag the dog? wikipediatrix 14:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I removed the link per WP:EL. Point 3 in links to be avoided is pretty clearly against adding external links created by the editor adding the link. On the greater question of if this link is an WP:RS for the NYT articles, I would say no. Beyond that the article looks like shit with an excessing farm of every NYT article ever written about the church, even if it is 100% factual and true. Since none if it is a source for the article, I don't see the purpose.--Isotope23 15:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I have clashed with Mr. Norton in the past myself, but I never, ever had any reason to doubt his sources. He appears to have access to many very good archives that either require login or are available only offline. He uses them to create an amazing coverage of obscure people and things often of local interest only to people in New Jersey. I would not think that he invented any of these Time references. They are verifiable after all—by going to a library. But just listing these references again on his own page and linking to that from the WP article is a no-no. (My own clash with him was over image copyrights; he seems to have taken to assert his own copyrights over old images now, using something like "© Richard Arthur Norton archive" and licensing images with unclear PD-status as CC-BY himself. At least, that was the case last time I looked. I'm too tired to fight such nonsense for orphan images that after all might be PD (only we don't know for sure), so I didn't follow through on this one and don't know what he's doing image-wise nowadays.) Lupo 15:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It's true that they're verifiable by going to a library, but I don't think a good Wikipedia article should expect the reader to have to go to a library. (I'm not necessarily accusing anyone of inventing the unclickable articles, but simply pointing out how easy it would be to do, and if one did, who would notice? And if I did go to the library to slog through old microfilm of ancient newspapers and found that one of these NYT articles didn't exist, what then? Would it not be a WP:OR violation to remove it from Wikipedia based on my own trip to the library?) wikipediatrix 15:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Nope, it just would be a failed verification, and you'd remove the wrong reference and possibly take other steps. Otherwise we'd have to ban all off-line references. Lupo 16:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Right, there is nothing wrong with using offline, hard copy references in an article... likewise there is nothing wrong with vetting existance of sources; this is not WP:OR and has been done in the past ('see Vampire Watermelon). That said, I don't see the purpose of listing 20 or so NYT articles in a resources section when none of them are really used in the article (and there already is an extensive references section). It doesn't really make the article any better.--Isotope23 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Not trying to belabor the point here, but: when we have an offline reference to a book, it's usually easy to at least verify that the book exists. But if offline references to ancient and obscure articles are assumed to be valid sources until proven otherwise, what's to stop anyone from placing things like "New York Times; January 28, 1907; pg. SM2. "Alma Smith arrested for public indecency in shocking chicken incident"? And when disputed, it's just one editor's word against another's. wikipediatrix 16:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to be an encyclopedia that covers more subjects than merely those already available on the internet, we're going to have to accept book and newspaper references that are unavailable online. I believe WP:AGF would also entail assuming people aren't just inventing blatantly mythical old newspaper references. --tjstrf 16:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
And disputing it isn't all that difficult a process. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. If I create an article and base it on a 1908 newspaper, anyone can go to the library and see if what I've said is true. If it is disputed, then really the burden of proving this sources existence is on me as the person basing the article on said source. Particularly in the case of really old newspaper article before the early 1920's (1922 specifically) a scan could be uploaded as evidence of the article's existance as it would be out of copyright... Of course there is potential for someone to come along and make up sources, and it has happend in the past, but it doesn't invalidate the concept of using printed sources, no matter how old.--Isotope23 17:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
So don't assume they're valid sources. Go check it out. If you can't do that, then ask for assistance. Being available only offline doesn't invalidate a source, and doesn't make it any less reliable. (It may affect the reliability of the Wikipedia editor who cited the source, but if the source exists and reports what the editor claims it reports, then there's nothing wrong with the source.) --Rob Kennedy 17:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
ProQuest has New York Times references as far back as 1851. Many libraries, schools, and universities offer access to ProQuest and related databases. Just because something isn't available free to the entire world doesn't mean it's not verifiable online. If there's anything in particular you'd like me to verify for you, just let me know and I'd be happy to help. --Rob Kennedy 17:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweetest Day[edit]

Without going into the minutae of the dispute surrounding this article (which can be seen on the Archives of the Talk Page), Essentially there is one editor who has posted up a diputed tag on the article. This tag was [removed] by an admin with the edit summary One editor disputing the neutrality without reliable sources does not constitute a neutrality dispute and the disputing editor was given a 24 block for disruption (not for the tag per se, but for disruptive edits surrounding the article). The editor backed off from the article for a while, but now has returned and tagged it disputed again. I removed the tag and the disputing editor reinstated it. Essentially there is no new argument here, the editor disputes the reliability of the sources and the neutrality of the article. I opened an RfC on the article when the original dispute was happening, but this garnered almost no input. I don't think the tag is necessary when one editor with a fairly obvious POV to push disputes the article because he doesn't agree with the way the sources are presented. I also don't want to get involved in a pointless edit war of removing and adding the tag or continually going over the arguments for/against the version that is posted right now because I've been down this road already when I tried to engage the editor for discussion about the text and it is a dead end. Basically I'm looking for any advice or input where to go from here since the RfC didn't do much. Mediation seems a bit drastic of a measure for a tag. Is there any other avenue available that someone could recommend?--Isotope23 14:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: What if you just allowed the facts about Sweetest Day (which can be found here) to be inserted back into the article? That would probably end the dispute. Miracleimpulse 18:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment ah, a little wikistalking there Miracle? We've been over the POV, original research, and sourcing problems of you're version exhaustively. Review the talk page archives...--Isotope23 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm having a hard time finding any third-party sources on that. There's a book written by Vladimer Papava (often credited as Vladimir Papava), a professor and former Minister of Economy of Georgia entitled Necroeconomics: The Political Economy of Post-Communist Capitalism (ISBN 0-595-34915-3). User:Vladimer Papava is the sole editor of this and related articles. The problem is that I cannot find citations or other reputable third-party references to "necroeconomics": it seems to be a neologism coined by Mr. Papava himself. I do not believe that User:Vladimer Papava was indeed Mr. Papava: I highly doubt a man of his standing has the time to edit Wikipedia. Mr. Papava probably also has no interest himself to misuse Wikipedia to advertize his book or his ideas. Could someone well-versed in economy look into this? Is this a worthwhile undertaking or just some misguided promotional attempt? Or just a misguided article, representing one man's book (published in 2005) as the ultimate truth on post-communist economics? Lupo 12:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, well... He's apparently also editing as User:, who worked on the article Vladimer Papava and added links to these neologisms at List of economics topics. Lupo 12:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
And we have an image problem, with various editors claiming images of Mr. Papava were {{PD-self}}: see Image:Vladimer papava 2.jpg and Image:Vladimer papava.jpg... (User:George Katcharava and User:Temur) Lupo 12:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

John Nagle, guitarist.[edit]

Here's an amusing situation. At John Nagle we have a new article about a guitarist of marginal notability who probably doesn't meet WP:BAND (no CDs on a major label, not in Gracenote, info mostly from musician's own website), and we have a fan who wants an article about him. I ran into this because I have the same name. I put the usual {{db-band}} on the article, and the fan is pleading to keep it. It looks confusing if I work on that article. Would someone else please do that, and explain nicely how many bands and musicians try to get into Wikipedia and are thrown out every day? Thanks. --John Nagle 06:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Excessive self-promotion[edit]

See [3]. Seems to be going to another China-related article every few minutes to add a link to his site. Wouldn't call it spam, and if it had been just one article, I'd just say thanks for the link, but 30+ seems excessive. cab 16:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Finding the age of an article quickly[edit]

Is there any quick-and-dirty way to find the original creation date of an article, particularly one with a high edit count? I don't currently know of any other way besides opening the page history and going back 500 edits at a time, which isn't pleasant if you're trying to find the original copy of, say, George W. Bush. Thanks, --Aaron 02:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, when you are on the history page of an article, click on 'earliest' instead of the standard 'latest'. Garion96 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that this does not work for some of the oldest articles as part of the history was lost in an early software upgrade. Occassionally you see comments like "typo" as the first edit of a long page - a clear giveaway of missing history. Rmhermen 16:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon needs reverting[edit]

Bit busy but recent edits Special:Contributions/ from this anon User talk: need reverting. The Saddam one was done already but the ones where he claims to be Joe Torres and claims a Gaysian club was found at some school are not. POssibly there are more however his original edits appear ok Nil Einne 14:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

GFDL violation[edit]

Someone needs to send a Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter to Al-Jazeera as they are using us as an acknowledge source for wholesale copying but not complying with GFDL requirements [4]. BTW, the page they're copying is Trial of Saddam Hussein Nil Einne 13:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It also claims to be copyright al-jazeera at the bottom of the page, which also violates (I think?) the GFDL, as there is virtually no text written by them on the page. Time3000 14:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questionable editing, request other eyes, or direction of where to post this notice.[edit]

I've just made a severe redaction to Hurricane Electric Internet Services after discovering the articel loaded with what looked like un- or questionably-sourced marketing language about this company. On looking at the history, I notice that the vast majority of edits were done by someone named "HE Network Guy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log)"! Is this sort of blatant editing concerned by any specific policy, or at least community feelings? I can't imagine it'd be looked very favoribly on... 20:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I put a Speedy Delete tag on it. Thanks for pointing it out, you came to the right place. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Location of special source material?[edit]

Is there a place to send special source material? The problem arises from the Cristina Odone article. Someone claiming to be the subject's husband complained that the place of birth was wrong and should be changed. Initially I refused, because the existing place of birth was sourced, and there was no hard evidence that he was the subject's husband. He complained elsewhere and received an e-mail stating that he should send me a copy of the subject's passport, which he did. I changed the article and used the passport copy as the source. The problem is that the source is held by me and accessible only by me. Alan Pascoe 16:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Tough call. If this isn't actually disputed information then I wouldn't stress too much. Otherwise, unfortunately, it would fail WP:V. I suppose a reference to some document in the public record could take its place - a marriage license? - with an appropriate archival notation in the footnote so that anyone who really wanted to verify it could go to the appropriate government office and confirm that the information is correct. Durova 16:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
This has been overtaken by events. Cristina Odone has just written an article in which she states her place of birth, but also takes the opportunity to bash Wikipedia, despite the fact that reasonable steps were taken to respond to her concerns. Alan Pascoe 15:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

How do I get images (which I have already uploaded to WP) also into Wiki Commons?[edit]

Please tell me in excruciating detail exactly how to get my images (that I have already uploaded into Wikipedia) into Wiki Commons? Thanks for your help. - mbeychok 06:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Step 1, get a Commons login and log in. Step 2, download an image to your PC from Wikipedia (you won't be logged into Wikipedia at this point). Step 3, upload the image to Commons. If the image has the same name at Commons as it does at Wikipedia, Wikipedia articles will see the Wikipedia version (not the Commons version). In this case, consider step 4, tag the Wikipedia image with {{NowCommons}}. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Remember to only do this if your images are acceptable in commons. Fair use images are not. Of course if you own the copyright of the images then you shouldn't be using fair use but perhaps you're using the term "my images" loosely Nil Einne 14:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting a list of articles[edit]

Does anyone know how to compile a list of every non-disambig page with more than 50 other pages linking to it?

Special:Mostlinked --Wolf530 (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for opinions[edit]

There is a discussion here regarding an issue of terminology related to a current event. We are soliciting outside comments from interested editors and invite you to review the issue. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing deletion debates.[edit]

It had been my understanding that only an admin could close a deletion debate. Obviously, if the thing is to be deleted this is true as non-admins can't delete stuff. What if the concensus is clearly leaning towards keep? Can a non-admin close a deletion discussion and call it keep? If not, why? What do admin powers avail one in closing a keep debate?~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: your understanding is not quite correct. Longer answer: see Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions. If you still have questions after reading that, you might want to put them on the talk for that page. -- JLaTondre 19:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

alexandrian school of anatomy[edit]

Which website am I supposedly copying from? I am a student and used text books and article reviews. Where else would I get my information from? I just need some more details as to this problem. thanks.

laurenpark 04:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)mslauren

Just quickly looking at your talk page and some other pages, it seems that someone thinks you are copying the words from your text books and article reviews, rather then mearly getting the information from them and then stating it in your own words. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't know whether this applies in this particular instance, but a related misconception is the belief that a few cosmetic changes to a text would avoid plagiarism and copyright problems. This isn't so: it won't wash to just open a thesaurus, alter a phrase here and there, and claim that the resulting text is an independent piece of work. Durova 00:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Irish Travellers article[edit]

The talk page on this article contains, what I believe to be, many racist and bigotted comments against these people(comments calling travellers smelly and thieves among others) Can I remove these comments or is this against policy? Downunda 02:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You can remove anything you like if you can make a cogent argument for it. That's not to say others can't restore it if they think it should be kept. I didn't see any insulting statements on that page, but didn't look too closely. Just follow usual consensus rules. Deco 02:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Since you specified that this was on the Talkpage, my understanding is that problematic comments may be Archived but not blanked. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe the anecdotal evidence of thievery and the commentt referring to smelliness are offensive (if someone said that your ethnic grouping were all thieves and smelled, would you be offended? btw- I am not Irish Traveller but feel for their plight).Downunda 05:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Smart Phones[edit]

How do I get Wikipedia to load properly?

I saw something about that, about how to have your abbreviated operating system load pages for viewing but I can't remember where. It was some sort of technical discussion, WP guideline sort of page. Terryeo 20:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Question[edit]

According to our very own Brad Patrick in shoot on sight, "draconic" measures are necessary to remove excessive corporate vanity articles that threaten WP's credibility. I agree with his assesment and statement 100%, but I'm not clear on how to proceed with this one: Recover My Files looks to me like it qualifies for a Speedy A7 (the article is promotional, as were all the ghits I spot-checked; no other claim of notability; I found no "scholarly" or cite-able references at all). However, the article is technically about the software and not the company. I could nom it to AfD as per usual procedure, but Brad has clearly specified that he wants these things gone now and AfD should actually be avoided. If someone familiar with AfD and Speedy procedures would share their opinion, I'd be grateful. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely shoot on sight. Blatant corporate spam. Deleted. —Mets501 (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with User:Amine2[edit]

This user keeps uploading images without source/license and even copyvios with clear watermarks stating their origin. This user needs some observation by mods and lots of copyvios needs to be deleted. This user might be somehow related to User:, they seem to be both active on similar articles. Sorry if this is the wrong board to post this but that's all I had found so far. --Denniss 22:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

How to make a torch into a projector?[edit]

I need to convert a torch into a mini projector, I've read the pages with regard to kinds of lens but still unsure. Can anyone help?

It would probably be best to post your question at the Reference desk and provide as many details as possible about what you are starting with and what you want to end up with. Good luck. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice on spreading another wiki -[edit]

I hope it's not innapropriate to make this request here, but a team of students and I that founded a debate wiki called are trying to better strategize ways to spread the word among the wiki communites. Meatball wiki has not yet proven very helpful. Are there any ways to spread an idea appropriately within the Wikipedia community. Any suggestions at all would be very welcome. Thanks. Loudsirens 20:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Memory work: oceanflynn email confirmation[edit]

I entered a section on memory work. I started to work on it in the afternoon yesterday. Then continued last evening to remove citations of more than one sentence at your suggestion. Is this section still being considered or has it been permanently deleted? The email confirmation to bounced back. I have taken some time off from the hectic life of being a PhD candidate/ sessional lecturer. I look forward to spending some time contributing to wikipedia. Wikiepedia is a collaborative space that demonstrates why the internet has the potential to use information to be both more knowledgeable and wiser.

The interface for contributers is very user-friendly but it takes awhile to read all the details.

Could you please send me another email confirmation? for user oceanflynn ocean

Thanks--Oceanflynn 17:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User editing talk page[edit]

While not exactly vandalism, a user has removed an unsigned snarky comment and while that might be okay, also removed a comment that "I'm a moderator at such-and-such site, I should know." Here is the specific edit: [Julianna Rose Mauriello] I will leave the reprimand (if any is needed) up to you. Kat, Queen of Typos 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the comment and sig but am assuming it was unintentional. You can certainly do the same yourself in future, but I regard "reprimands", or warnings, to IP's as an excercise in frustration. Happy editing :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Page edit history[edit]

Is it possible to find out via a search who was the person that added a specific part of text in an article? Fuutott 13:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You click up "history" in one window or tab. You begin to explore about the edit of interest while keeping your reference intact. Yes, you can find anything added to the page except that once in a while a server crashes or something and some edits are sometimes (very rarely) not accessible any more. Terryeo 17:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Do your search by halves. First copy the text for which you're looking for attribution (highlight, ctrl+c). Now go halfway down the edit history, click on the date, and search for the text; if there, you know the edit is in the edits prior to that date; if not there, you know the edit is in the edits subsequent to that date. Repeat the procedure for the half you have identified. You'll find the edit in short order.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Naturally occurring monthly cycles[edit]

Apologies for the vague nature of the question - anyone know of a good resource which lists/details information on this subject? (e.g. Moon phases, ovulation, etc. etc.)


Alex Grant12.111.201.34 19:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You could start by looking at Menstruation, Natural family planning, Ovulation, Rhythm method, Lunar phase, and especially Fertility awareness, etc. and look at the external links there. HTH Katr67 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Katr/all- I probably wasn't clear enough in my first post - what I'm looking for is examples of anything else (other than my two examples) which naturally conforms to a monthly cycle ...
Alex Grant12.111.201.34 20:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, in that case you might want to ask over at Wikipedia:Reference desk, since this discussion is rather more for assistance with improving Wikipedia articles than with general knowledge questions. Good luck! Katr67 20:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with Redirects?[edit]

Would somebody who knows how to use the Robot thing to make changes please go to the article Freddy Head and change the many links to the redirect page Freddie Head. I created this using the wrong name but now see that his family spells it with the "y." [5] Thanx. Handicapper 14:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. In the future, use the "move" tab near the top of your screen instead of recreating the article. Best wishes, Durova 16:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Charms of Katrina[edit]

I posted an article: -Charms of Katrina - and Ikept seeing that it will be speedily deleted if it does not meet criteria, but I should edit the post. can you please explain? My article is not adult or stupid. User:Qrama

What is the link to the article ? Charms of Katrina does not link to an article. Terryeo 01:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Qrama is asking about The Charms of Katrina. It sounds to me like a personal essay whose subject has to do with compassion. Terryeo 01:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Qrama, your writing is certainly not stupid, but it will probably be deleted because it's an essay rather than an article, and as an essay it's not really related to Wikipedia. Please don't be discouraged, just remember that our primary purpose here is writing factual articles, and everything else we do should reflect that. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use[edit]

An editor has essentially reproduced an entire 5 page promotional publication by scanning it, uploading the scans, and linking to a low resolution version of his (or her) scans in an article's "Links" section. [6] I suspect this might qualify as "Fair Use" WP:FU but the 5 links of low resolution scans invite a reader to "download a high resolution version". THose are quite detailed, they could conceivably be downloaded and reprinted and distributed, reproducing the actual, original promotion. Yet when I speak with the user, he (or she) is really quite ummm, non-responsive about the issue and accuses me of making false accusations, personal attacks, etc. What would be an appropriate way to begin to handle this situation ? Terryeo 07:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you've already taken what steps you can regarding the images by bringing up the topic in other venues which are more technically oriented. As for Fahrenheit451 being "non-responsive", well...if he got any more responsive we'd probably be prying his fingers off your throat :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 08:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
lol. Terryeo 08:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Hey, there's a content dispute breaking out about the article on Morgellons raising concerns that the article isn't exactly neutral. Take a look at the article, the talk page, and help make a lasting conclusion for the article. —this is messedrocker (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Klamath Falls, Oregon[edit]

Can someone take a look at this, starting about here? The anon and editor who made the recent changes are the same, I think. I said in my edit summary that a link to a Wikipedia article is not a reference, but I don't want to revert again. There is some good info mixed in but I don't think the tags should have been removed. I'd do the cleanup myself, but lately I have had editors get upset with me when I act alone, so I'm asking for help again. My communication skills seem to be impaired. A few intervening edits and a note to the user would be helpful. Thanks! Katr67 16:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked over the article, made a couple of minor changes, and left a note on the Talkpage. If we continue discussions there, maybe the other editor will join in. I'll be happy to continue puttering with it and help if I can. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot--I took a look at your edits and your note and I like your approach. I tend to just change everything in one fell swoop, throw a bunch of policy links around and hope the other editors suddenly understand what I'm trying to do. Slow and steady wins the race though. I'll add some commentary on the article's talk page later. Katr67 22:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Moderation Requested[edit]

I have some kind of edit war at my hands at BattleTech technology. The article's content is fictional, and the problem (as I see it) is that some editors use fictional language to describe it. You can find the discussion here: Talk:BattleTech_technology#above/below

I would be glad is someone uninvolved could take a look and apply some common sense. --

(If this is not the right forum for these kind of request, please point me in the right direction.)

Replied and gave some direction. Durova 23:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

W.I.T.C.H. (TV series)[edit]

There's so much work to do on the article, I don't even know where to begin with. If you can at least give us some pointers, we would be very grateful indeed. May the Edit be with you, always. T-borg (drop me a line) 14:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Someone has tried to dump the entire contents of the British National Vegetation Classification on WP, and has left a whole series of poorly-titled articles. Example, British NVC community W1 redirects to British NVC community W1 (Salix cinerea - Galium palustre woodland). There's quite a number of them, so can I get some assistance in moving them to the shorter, more WP:NC-compliant titles? Thanks, Chris talk back 15:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And what is THIS template?[edit]

{{P}} looks about useless, however it's referenced from, amongst others {{Namespace prefix of associated page}}. What am I missing?! 01:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think {{P}} is just for doing smileys. {{Namespace prefix of associated page}} doesn't actually reference {{P}}, the template it actually references depends on the namespace of the page it is being displayed on. Because the what links here mechanism cannot handle such complex template syntax, it incorrectly shows that {{P}} is included. Tra (Talk) 02:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, OK. 02:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
AHA! I've found out the TRUE reason for that template: It's linked to by talkpage templates when they're incorrectly put onto articels! Try it and see! 02:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I can see what might be happening here... the talkpage templates refer to {{Namespace prefix of associated page}} which in turn refers to {{P(current namespace)}} and since in articles, the namespace is "", {{P}} is therefore called. Tra (Talk) 03:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Error that I keep getting[edit]

The "you have new messages (last change)" text at the top won't go away (even though I already checked my talk page, and read the most recent message). I've went to other pages on Wikipedia, and the message still remains. How do I fix this? RobJ1981 15:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Try clearing your cache first, then click on the link provided in the "you have new messages (last change)" text. Tra (Talk) 19:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Given the time you were reporting this, I was actually having an identical problem. They were upgrading the DB and if you were unlucky enough to have just had a new message which you hadn't checked by the time they started, it wouldn't go away until you logged out and logged back in. Weird one. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 11:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

spelling problem[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to translate articles from french to english. I'm sure I'm making spelling and style mistakes. Is there a category to put into the article in order to make sure some people will have a look at it and correct the mistakes? Thanks. Ajor 16:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You could put {{copyedit}} on top. It expands to the message below and adds the article to a category of articles needing copyediting. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Im just wondering but would Lryics be considered useful in music wiki pages? Jamesbuc

Most of the lyrics you probably want to add would constitute copyright violation. DurovaCharge! 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldnt think it would be copyright violation. Playing the music, yes. Just showing lyrics, not really. Jamesbuc
I studied writing in graduate school where we were required to take a course on the subject of writing-related laws. Both the music and the lyrics of a song are intellectual property. Publishing a song's complete lyrics without the owner's permission is as much a violation of the law as publishing a complete poem without permission. Of course, if your particular interest is popular music of the nineteenth century, then you may reproduce those lyrics because they are public domain. DurovaCharge! 18:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Two caveats:
  • Quoting brief (say, 1-3 lines) lyrics for discussion or analysis falls easily within the realm of fair use, and so is allowed.
  • Regardless of license, do not include long lyrics (no more than a page or so). Longer works belong on Wikisource.
Deco 03:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion *of* the lyrics, with quotes to demonstrate the points made or controversies or whatever, so long as WP:V and WP:NOR are followed, would not be problematic. That would be considered fair use. However, lyrics themselves are copyrighted. As someone who very nearly went into the music business myself about a decade ago, I was sent out all the brochures from AMCOS and Control who handle the copyright on lyrics. As a totally random example, the song "Flying Without Wings" by Westlife notes "Rondor Music (Australia) P/L, Universal Music Publishing Pty Limited." Note that Westlife are a BMG, not a Universal artist. Hope this helps. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 11:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Selig Percy Amoils[edit]

Would anyone be willing to offer a second (or third) opinion in Talk:Selig Percy Amoils as to whether or not information collected via personal e-mail with the article's subject violates WP:V or should be allowed in Selig Percy Amoils? Thanks! -AED 21:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a reliable source not only because it's unverifiable but because it comes from the original source and not from an impartial second source. Fails WP:RS doubly. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Recycled Usernames[edit]

Hi, Do usernames get recycled, somehow? I see there are several usernames that are registered but never used. One of them, unfortunately, is Mysha, the username I use on nl: and fy:. Is there a way such usernames become available again? Mysha (nl)

Not at the moment. WP:DUU90 was a proposal to recycle never-used usernames that gained consensus, but the developers decided not to implement it. As you use this name elsewhere, you may want to go to the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard and ask them what their opinion would be about giving you the name ('crats have the ability to give people unused names, it just hardly ever happens). --ais523 13:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll try that. Mysha (nl)
Isn't there a plan in place to create a universal log-in system where your same username and password work for all Wikimedia stuff? Whenever that happens what'll they do about never-used usernames like that? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Help with article in another language[edit]

In de:Steven Bradbury, does the article claim Alisa Camplin is a snowboarder? (She competed in aerial freestyle skiing, not snowboarding). If so, can someone either correct the article or add a "citation needed" tag?

Also, is there a better place to discuss requests like this? (I had previously noted the problem in the German article talk page, but with no response) Babel doesn't seem to have anything that'd be suitable for such a request. Thanks, Andjam 06:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the German article. A better place for the request might be Wikipedia talk:German-English translation requests, but I've never used that page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What shall I edit..[edit]

Not necessarily looking for the answer from you guys but where should I go to find out what article to edit based on my background and available books? See my user page for all the info you need JayMars 23:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, what are the books about? Start with the articles about those topics. Use the links you find in those articles to find other articles. Articles also have category links at the bottom, where you can find articles related to the ones you’re looking at. (If you encounter articles that don’t have categories, then that’s something else you can fix.) You can browse the list at Category:Articles lacking sources to see whether any of your books are relevant to those articles. You could also try User:SuggestBot. Leave a request, and it will suggest articles to edit based on what you’ve edited before. --Rob Kennedy 01:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
JayMars: You don't appear to have a user page. All I see is a red link. — RJH (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Finding "outbreak"[edit]

I'm not sure what exactly happened, but on the disambiguation page for 'outbreak' both 'viral outbreak' and 'outbreak' (an obscure mountain biking video apparently) both link to the same page, apparently there is no page for a viral outbreak linked. Does anyone know how I'd go about fixing this or just finding the original article on 'viral outbreak'(if there indeed was one)? Also: I'm sorry if I posted incorrectly or to the wrong place, I'm a total wiki novice, but I'd like to help and this didn't seem like a reference desk issue as it dealt with both policy (on the obscure and short biking informational film tub I may well request deletion on grounds of it being non-notable and unsourced) and technical matters as well as help finding information on a viral outbreak, which doesn't seem to show up in my search.

edit: on further research it appears all links in virus pages (IE in molecular virology) have been pointed to this video as well.

 : The way I would go about it would be to go to articles such as Virus, Viral infection, infection and the like, look at the page's history, note the most fequent editor and go to his personal discussion page. Then I would talk with him about the situation since that editor would likely have some interest and knowledge in the area. Terryeo 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, As I said I'm pretty new here and up until now my editing has mainly been typos and occasionally editing things for friends, I have no desire to start an edit war, but it seems to me that something disease-related is the most common public conception of an 'outbreak' and it's kind of off-putting not even being able to find the page when I need some reasearch. Any idea how to find the 'actual' outbreak article, or if one indeed exists?

right click wiki lookup[edit]

I'm using firefox 2.0. Before the upgrade I use to be able to right-click a highlighted word and get a wiki lookup on it. That ability is gone I want it back. Help Kungtwo 21:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like some sort of extension that you lost when you updated. Perhaps this (https) or something similar. Dylan Lake (t·c·ε) 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with person deleting same text daily[edit]

What can be done about an anonymous Wikipedia user who keeps deleting the same section of an entry day after day and replacing it with text that contains original research with no cited sources?

I have started a discussion on the page the person keeps posting the article to and have encouraged the person to join in on the discussion, but he/she has not replied after an entire week of this. I have also left several messages on the person’s user talk page which have been ignored. See user talk

By consensus opinion with other Wikipedia editors working with me on this entry, I have reverted this article daily for the past three or four days running.

I have attempted to have the page placed in "semi-protection" status twice, but have had my requests denied because the person felt that what was taking place is an "editing war" and not vandalism. While that assessment may be correct, I am at a loss here as to how else one could describe what the person is doing. And what would be the remedy for resolving an "editing war" when the person in question refuses to communicate?

Any suggestions? I’m new at editing here and have not had any luck finding anything that addresses this situation anyplace else.

The Wikipedia entry in question is: Zodiac Killer

Thanks. Labyrinth13 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You could try the dispute resolution resources; if the user is continuing this every day and refusing to communicate, WP:AN/I may be a good place to ask for admin help. --ais523 09:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the page. DurovaCharge! 19:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trigger-happy Editors[edit]

Several things happen at once: - I changed V for Vendetta while someone vandalized it. - Someone rvv, killing my changes. - I reverted to revert the vandalisms one-by-one. - Trigger-happy editors wouldn't let me.

- Now a bunch of them is putting duplicate discussions on my /Talk.

I would a appreciate if anyone would talk to them to calm them down. The changes on V for Vendetta are done, and all they do is blowing of steam on my /Talk.

Thanks in advance. --

Although these editors were a bit overzealous, they couldn't read your mind and their intentions were good. To avoid this in the future, make your changes in one edit instead of two: go back to the old version, edit it, remove the vandalism, and save. If you get an edit conflict, well, merge. Quickly. Featured articles move quickly. Deco 03:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


User:Hotwiki has uploaded this image whose details are just blatantly false.... this is obviously not a screenshot, and if it came from, there's no way that UPN has "irrevocably released all rights to it". I'm already having a problem with this user adding false sources that don't contain the info supposed to be sourced, such as on Lisa D'Amato, so I wish someone else would weigh in here. wikipediatrix 15:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Category:Black sitcoms exclusively for US shows?[edit]

The description states This category consists of Black sitcoms, i.e. American sitcoms that feature African Americans in the lead role or much of the cast.

Why aren't British black sitcoms allowed, for example? I'm not bothered, just curious why the distinction is made. 01:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably unintentional bias on the part of the category creator. Feel free to counter it by changing the category description and adding articles as appropriate. Or as an alternative, create a category hierarchy by country of production. That would make things easier to navigate because every Nigerian sitcom would probably qualify if this remained an umbrella heading.DurovaCharge! 16:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Marketing team of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center[edit]

To whom it may concern:

My name is Diana Seif and I am currently working with the Marketing team of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Wikipedia is known for its abundance of information. Because of this, we thought perhaps you'd be interested in linking to our Degenerative Disc Disease page as an outside resource. Our web address is and features highlights symptoms, cause and risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment of this condition; all of which would correlate nicely with the content on We greatly appreciate your consideration. Please contact me should you decide to link to us. Thank you.

Best Regards,

Diana Seif

Reputable source, under-referenced page: link has been added. Here's hoping you check back. DurovaCharge! 16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoting a citation tool - Wikicite[edit]

Some time ago I wrote a tool that helps people to properly reference their Wikipedia articles. I called it Wikicite and put a brief paragraph about it in the Templates section of WP:CITE. It seems a number of people find it useful and I have had some very positive feedback. Recently some of the feedback highlights that, while the program is useful, it is very hard to find. I really don't want to get accused of spamming by plastering references to the tool everywhere, but right now its a light hidden under a bushel. Those who use it think its great and tell me so. Most people don't know it exists and struggle to reference their work by hand. Any suggestions on how to promote the Wikicite tool more widely would be gratefully accepted. Right now I have a link to the executable and the source code on my user page. --Dave 10:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

Can I get some help removing a repeated paragraph by an anon user that is being inserted in Afro-Cuban, Afro-Latin American and Afro-Brazilian. The piece is hopelessly non-encyclopedic, pure original research and potentially offensive - you know the sort of thing. My 3rr and patience is reaching it's limit.--Zleitzen 10:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you call a Pathological liar?[edit]

me and my mates cannot remember the single word technical term for compulsive liar, can anyone possibly help us!

Did that answer your question? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Probably not, as the question was for a single word. "Prevaricator" and "confabulator" come to mind. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You'd probably get a better response from the reference desk Nil Einne 13:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Scanned photographs of copyrighted text[edit]

Photographs of several pages of copyrighted text have been uploaded. They are used in the article Scientology_as_a_business#See also. [7], [8], and [9] which are printable, readable reproductions and are pointed to by [10], [11], and [12] respectively from the article. Is this kind of reference within Fair Use Policy? Terryeo 22:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Price lists, catalogs, and menus generally aren't considered violations of Fair Use, to my knowledge. These are public documents that are, by their very nature, intended to be freely disseminated. wikipediatrix 00:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
TY for a response. The link which appears [2] was deleted, it was similar in quality and content. Is there a specific Wikipedia policy or guideline which mentions printable, text scans ? I was under the impression it would fall under "What Wikipedia is not". Terryeo 02:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo has recently made the false claim that a pricelist is magazine. Like Hubbard says, "A=A=A". Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#scans_of_text_documents--Fahrenheit451 07:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As I've said on Wikipedia talk:Fair use#scans of text documents, the fact of the matter is that the copyright that is held with this material is about the text, and it does not matter that the digital file is an image. I invite further discussion to Wikipedia talk:Fair use#scans of text documents. -- Ned Scott 08:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mass deletion of crime related articles and images[edit]


While I'm not sure if this is the appropriate area to discuss the matter, over the past few hours over half of the articles and images of which I have contributed to Wikipedia over the past two years have been deleted. While I would assume there was justification for this, I received neither any notification that there were problems with any article I have created or image uploaded these articles or that they would be deleted. I am guessing this may be in reference to articles for which I used crime author Jay Robert Nash as a source, since being informed of the conflict between he and Wikipedia several months ago I have used him only as a secondary resource and taking care to provide additional resources if external links when available. In addition, it appears that any contribution in which Nash appears as a reference, regardless of the extent of its use or other additional sources and citations, has been deleted.
For example, the information regarding the juvenile Market Street Gang, specifically the claim that members of the satellite gang the Little Hellions were later members of recently deleted North Side Gang (a claim generally acknowledged by crime authors and further supported by external links provided), I cited Jay Robert Nash's Encyclopedia of World Crime series as at least one of the sources of this information. However, as far as I am aware, this longtime article was on Wikipedia before I even began editing and had a number of reliable sources and references. Another example are the deletions of two missing topic lists which I have complied over the past year.
As of this writing, I have still not been notified as to what exactly has happened, however I would rather hope that my contributions over the past two and half years have been a complete waste. Thank you for your time. MadMax 12:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like North Side Gang was deleted due to "sourcing problems." Use the deletion log to view delete summaries. If you disagree with the deletions, you'll want to read Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. Keep in mind that admins don't notify all editors of given pages for reasonings behind deletion. It's an editor's responsibility to follow up with a page and keep up with AfD. Are you adding pages you work on to your watchlist? If so, you'll see when they come up for deletion and you can put your comments in. --Wolf530 (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
While I certainly understand Wikipedia's policy concerning this issue, none of these articles were nominated for deletion with at least 100 contributions deleted by a User:Cyde within a span of several hours. All have the same statement Sourcing problems; please rebuild from a larger variety of different sources or simply copyvio. If there were a concern of either of these issues and, again had I been notified or at the very least given a deadline, I would have readily listed additional references although in many cases these articles had at least more then one reliable reference (many of which are used in crime related articles throughout Wikipedia). MadMax 10:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Market Street Gang points to North Side Gang which is deleted. If North Side Gang is not undeleted or re-made, please either ask for MSG to be deleted or make it into an article Nil Einne 14:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I created the Market Street Gang as a redirect to the now deleted North Side gang which, as I have stated previously, was largely an off shoot of the Market Street Gang. I felt such an article would likely remain a stub so I incorporated it into the article. However, the issue of the North Side Gang's deletion was only an example of an issue which I repectfully feel has not been addressed. If I should be bringing this matter up to another section of Wikipedia more suited to resolving this issue, I would appreciate any assistance. MadMax 14:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. --Wolf530 (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

SVG images -- what's the point?[edit]

What's the point of uploading SVG images? From what I can tell, they just get converted into PNGs anyway. -SharkD 14:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

SVG images are vector graphics, so they can be re-sized easily without pixelation. Unfortunately, Internet Explorer doesn't support SVG images, so the images are re-sized (without pixelation) server-side then converted to PNG format which is sent to the browser to display.
Users of other browsers see the plain SVG image, and the browser displays it and re-sizes it to the required size.
Another reason why SVGs are liked so much on Wikipedia is because, if you open one in Notepad, you see that it is made up of XML, which is an open file format. Tra (Talk) 16:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, everybody gets the thumbnails as PNGs. There's no special treatment for browsers that support SVG. —da Pete (ばか) 18:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
There likely will be in the future, though. — Omegatron 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
SVG is also easier to edit because it includes not only the image, but also the source information used to generate the image. For instance, an SVG map with English place names can be easily translated to French; a translator can just open the file and replace the text. If the file were in PNG or JPG, the translator would have to remove the English text, insert French text, and then clean up the mess made (by spots where the text overlapped the map.) Twinxor t 19:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, you're assuming people only ever use the thumbnails. In fact people often look or want the whole image. You might as well ask, why have images larger then the thumbnails? Nil Einne 13:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Username change in meta-wiki[edit]

Anyone know how to make a request of username change in meta-wiki? Thank you.--encyclopedist 07:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

meta:Requests for permissions#Username change looks ideal. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 08:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Numbering doesn't appear in table[edit]

I've tried to add another column to the Appendix of Irregular (English) verbs in order to automatically number the list, using the number sign (#). However, when I preview it, I only see number signs. I tried adding and deleting spaces before and after #, but no dice. Any troubleshooting ideas? Dblomgren 07:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible in HTML for a numbered list to spread across table cells. I've added in some numbers manually. By the way, when doing an external link, the pipe should be replaced by a space, giving Wiktionary Appendix of Irregular (English) verbs. An interwiki link could also be used, to give Wiktionary Appendix of Irregular (English) verbs. Tra (Talk) 17:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Copying classes to other wikis[edit]

I'd like to reuse the wikitable CSS class in another wiki.

1. Is it allowed?

2. Where should I put it? We don't have a mediawiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonf (talkcontribs)

  1. It's available under the GFDL.
  2. You would need to put the following code inside a stylesheet that is included on all of the pages:
/* wikitable/prettytable class for skinning normal tables */

table.prettytable {
  margin: 1em 1em 1em 0;
  background: #f9f9f9;
  border: 1px #aaaaaa solid;
  border-collapse: collapse;

table.wikitable th, table.wikitable td,
table.prettytable th, table.prettytable td {
  border: 1px #aaaaaa solid;
  padding: 0.2em;

table.wikitable th,
table.prettytable th {
  background: #f2f2f2;
  text-align: center;

table.wikitable caption,
table.prettytable caption {
  margin-left: inherit;
  margin-right: inherit;
If you're not using MediaWiki, please say which software you are using and/or give the URL of the wiki and it might be easier to tell you where to put it. Tra (Talk) 22:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick answer - the article where I'm trying to reuse the class is here.
That looks suspiciously like a MediaWiki to me. :) Chris talk back 22:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
In that case, add the above code to the wiki's MediaWiki:Monobook.css. Tra (Talk) 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, assuming that you are User:Simonf on both wikis, you might not be able to do this since you're not a sysop on that wiki. If this is the case, you will need to ask a sysop on that wiki to make the edit for you. Tra (Talk) 23:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

May I ask a few people their opinion on an editing dispute?[edit]

I understand that there are several formal channels dedicated to getting a third opinion or asking for a mediator, but most of those processes are severely backlogged, and I really do not wish to wait very much longer to see the end of a certain dispute, and think it would be more conventional to create a thread asking for a volunteer's opinion or mediation instead. If this is not the proper place for that, then please direct me to the right place. If there is no proper place for that, then please direct me to an polite and experienced Wikipedia editor who would not mind being a mediator on short notice.


I proposed an external link for the main article. I felt that the link would help support a statement made within the article that has no citation. Nique1287 feels that the content of the site I wish to link to does not provide adequate support for the statement.

Now, if that was all there was to it, then there would be no problem. We would share our opinions on the matter until one of us was convinced that the link was appropriate or innappropriate.

However, Nique1287 is not abiding by several Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Although at the start of the dispute she was civil, she quickly became unneccesarily harsh and critisizing. She wrote more than a tolerable number of veiled insults and never ceased to indirectly imply that I am ignorant and incompetant. Even after being reminded of the Wikipedia policies about civility, she did not curtail the harshness of her comments.

The entire time, I did not respond in kind. There were no veiled insults from me, nor was there a lack of civility. However, she has created an atmosphere in that talk page such that it is difficult to respond to anything that she is saying without being defensive and protective of oneself, due to her attacks. The dispute has become highly unproductive thanks to this and it is no longer possible to debate the actual issue.

However, the matter that we are disputing over is important to me, and I do not wish to see it ignored merely because it is impossible to discuss it thanks to Nique. A mediator would be highly appriciated, and at least hearing someone's third opinion on the matter would put me at ease.

Again, if this is not the proper place for such a request, I apologize, and please direct me to the right one. If there is no proper place, please show me someone who is altruistic enough to lend me a hand. EvaXephon 11:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You could open an article content query at WP:RFC. Regarding the personal attacks themselves, read the instructions at WP:PAIN and WP:RFI and decide whether to open a request on one of those pages. Those noticeboards cannot address the underlying content dispute but they could deal with incivility, particularly in cases where one party has carefully abided by policy and the other has violated the same. DurovaCharge! 16:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Filmographies question[edit]

Got a question about a point and I want to bring it up for further discussion elsewhere, but I don't know if this is the proper place for it... In the porn star section, there is an existing Wikiproject Porn stars where we've tried to come up with some guidelines for the articles. One of the areas we have there is with regards to Filmographies. The rule of thumb the project has come up with is that the filmography should be no more than 6 films, but there are clear guidelines mentioned for when a listing can run over that length. The reason for this is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and especially when filmographies for the various adult actresses can be readily found via IAFD and IMDB. So I go to apply this rule to the Courtney Cummz article, and I have two people make complaints. One points out that the project's guidelines are suggestions and not rules, and the other person accuses me of Wikipedia:wikilawyering and tells me to leave it be. Now i see the same person who added the list to the Courtney Cummz article doing the same thing to the Alexis Malone article.

I have two questions:

1. How can I advance the WP:P* project forward so the guidelines within the project have more teeth?

2. What should I do about filmographies in the interim? We're not talking about a short list here - the Courtney Cummz filmography list that was added ran to 112 lines of text, the Alexis Malone list ran to 260 lines?

Thank you in advance. Tabercil 22:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A Wikiproject cannot make rules and then require that other people live with them. See WP:OWN. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I personally believe that Wikiprojects should be able to make their own standarization guidelines, subject to consensus modification by the community as a whole if they do something that violates common sense. Wikiprojects are smaller, and hence it is easier to reach a consensus on an issue, and the editors in a Wikiproject are likely more knowledgeable of that subject. These guidelines would of course be subject to community review. If a project, for instance, decided biographies should be titled in their subject's native language, that would be easily overridden by external consensus. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 08:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The place to bring this up is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Porn stars so that others who have agreed to this guideline can take action, or can tell you that you have misunderstood the guideline. If a random editor saw a list of 260 items they might just remove it as "not a list" but the only teeth in a WikiProject are the norms that the members are willing to abide or enforce, as a group with similar editing interests. - BanyanTree 19:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Uploading pictures[edit]

How do I upload pics to a page?

By clicking "Upload file" in the 'toolbox' located under the search bar. - Tutmosis 00:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You can check out Help:Images and other uploaded files to help upload images. To then place them on an article page, see WP:IMAGE. Cheers, Jpe|ob 12:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Issues[edit]

I need healp with copyright issues for a photo I've just posted in an article I just wrote. The article is titled Mario Mieli. The photo is copied from Wikipedia's Italian site, but I am utterly clueless about how to designate the copyright status of this image. Please help or the image will be deleted.

Thanks from this Newbie. and my username is User ID: 2368944

I just added the image so users can link to it. Jpe|ob 11:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't find anything on the image use policy about cross-wiki pictures. Jpe|ob 11:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
it:Immagine:Mieli.jpg, of which this is a scaled version, is public-domain. --ais523 11:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Assistance with obstreperous user[edit]

I'm just about at wits end here dealing with the edits of a specific user by the name of User:Mactabbed who does not seem to care about how things are done on Wikipedia, so I'm posting here to 1) vent and 2) seek advice on what should be done.

We've been crossing swords for the past few weeks but his actions lately have (in my opinion) been clearly in the wrong. He's replaced free use images on the Alexis Malone and Courtney Simpson pages with fair use ones (Image:Courtney Simpson Throated 4 (cropped).jpg and Image:Alexis Malone Stick It in My Face! 2.jpg , in violation of WP:Fair use. When I replaced the images with free use ones, I go and leave messages on his user space advising him that the images are orphaned fair use. He goes and changes the edits so his fair-use images now appear on his talk page. I revert his edits and leave a message saying that fair use does not extend to images on his user space.

I get home from work today and decide to check to see what changes have been made to the pages that are on my watch list. I see that he removes a pair of warnings, the first is my statement that fair use does not extend into and the second is a tag stating that Image:Mena Suvari.jpg which is tagged as GPDL does not have a source. So I look at this new image, and see that he's stated the souce is This is patently false and I'm in a position to know as I'm the one who got Luke to put his pics into the Creative Commons. That pic was never taken by Luke, and is almost certainly is a copyvio. I also restore the tags on the Alexis Malone and Courtney Simpson articles as being orphaned fair use, and remove the Mena Suvari image as no source.

He turns around and leaves me this message:

This is harassment and you're really starting to annoy me, just leave the edits as they and stop trying to rever them to statisfy your ego. You longer care about improving wikipedia, you only care about Wikipedia:wikilawyering to enforce meaningless rules and regulations"

Then he restored all the violations in question.

At this point, the two of us have almost certainly violated the spirit of the WP:3RR rule (if not the letter) so I am loathe to go back in and restore things to how they should be per fair use. Mactabbed is well aware of Wikipedia's policy on fair use is - see User_talk:Mactabbed#Courtney_Simpson_and_Alexis_Malone_images and User_talk:Tabercil#Fair_use_vs._free_use. I have also left warnings regarding his continued reverts against the fair use vs free use policy - see User_talk:Mactabbed#Image_change.

Any suggestions on what should be done at this point?

Secret society[edit]

I would like the create an article about the secret society, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but there is already an article for the comic strip, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. When I attempt to create a new article, it only allows me to edit the existing page. How do I create a new article by the same title?

If two different subjects have the same name, you would need to see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. For example, you could name the article The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (society) and have links between the articles on the comic strip and the society. However, bear in mind that if the society is secret, there would be no way to verify that it exists, and articles in Wikipedia need to be verifiable. Tra (Talk) 00:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How to add a link to an external file[edit]

How do I add a link to a file that is located on another server? This is for a corporate Wiki, not wikipedia. The file I am trying to link is an Excel spreadsheet located within our corp firewall, as is the Wiki I am trying to link from. Any assistance is appreciated. --Btc9183 18:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[ Wikimedia Meta-Wiki's robots.txt] produces Wikimedia Meta-Wiki's robots.txt; hope that helps. --ais523 18:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that there is no web server running on that location. The file actually resides on a windows XP workstation -- I guess my characterization of it as a "server" was incorrect. It is a workstation that is acting as a server. Here is what I have tried:

[file:\\server_removed\Site%20IP%20Data\FE%20tracking.xls FE Tracker]

which is not working. The mouse pointer shows it as a link but when I click on it, nothing happens.

--Btc9183 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I got this to work by installing a freeware FTP server and using an ftp URL to link to the file... thanks ais523 for your help. --Btc9183 19:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Biography Input from the subject[edit]

I have recently written two biographies, both of which I believe have later had input from the subject. The first was on Scottish artist Nicola Green, the second about economist Diane Coyle. On the later, a newly registered editor came in and adjusted some details - their only edit. On the former, a newly registered editor who has only ever editted two articles - Nicola Green and her husband David Lammy, has removed some details which I think are great detail additions to the article. Having reverted User:Radiogirl's edits once, I find again they have again been adjusted back today removing these details. I don't want to get into an edit war with anyone, let alone the subject of an article - Thoughts? Although these details are in the public domain (one reference I used was David lammy's official website), the subject doesn't seem to want them on Wikipedia. Rgds, - Trident13 11:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Renaming a Page[edit]

I want to ename a page from Sundarnagar to Sunder Nagar. How can i achieve this? Vivekminhas 09:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way is to use the MOVE function at the top of the article's page. Adjust the page name in the tab to the correct name. This will redirect all pages that refer to that page automatically. Check for double-redirects, which you will see a tab-check for once you have moved the page. Rgds, - Trident13 11:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How do I let someone know about an error?[edit]

I use this page as reference when posting on message boards:

In particular the format for a text link in BBCode. This was changed today and I messed up when posting.

The way listed in the BBCode column will not create the desired effect. The editor also uses "u" instead of you.

Is this the place where I let somebody know?

I don't have an account, would creating one give me the option of pointing this out to someone?

This is the edit:

[url]]Wikipedia[/url]u can also just do [url][/url]

Just go fix it. Wikipedia is designed so that you can repair things on your own. In this case, I've fixed it already. Thanks for pointing out the error. --tjstrf talk 04:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate images in album cover pages[edit]

The user User:NickelodeonSlimeTime is uploading "" images to replace album cover images and then reverting them so they remain in the upload history. I have no idea what he's up to, but the images should be deleted regardless. Peter O. (Talk) 20:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Soy protein[edit]

Hello! Soy protein has been having a dispute about the inclusion of a certain table. Now that more research has been done, a better table (one that cite sources and is accurate) can be made out of it. I am requesting outside opinions in regards to whether or not to include a new table based on our developmental table. Please see Talk:Soy protein#Article_protected and read from there for more information. MESSEDROCKER 02:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

How do I flag unsigned posts?[edit]

OK, I know how to check the history when someone doesn't sign a post. Is there a template for adding that line in small type that says "preceding unsigned post is really by so-and-so at such-and-such time"? -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You are looking for {{unsigned|someguywhodidntsignhispost}} Megapixie 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That literally winds up saying the post was by "someguywhodidntsignhispost." How do you label it as to the actual user (username or IP address?) Edison 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I prefer {{unsigned2}} which also allows for a date code. For instance, if your last post had been unsigned, I would go to the history and copy and paste the information from your last post into the template like this: {{unsigned2|23:12, 16 November 2006|Edison}}. This will produce: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talkcontribs) 23:12, 16 November 2006. -- AuburnPilottalk 02:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. Oh, and War Eagle. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alarob (talkcontribs) 02:17, 17 November 2006

Users needing assistance, and specific example[edit]

Abdalla A (talk · contribs) admirably tried to add coordinate information for New York City to the United States article (under "Largest City") in two different attempts (between which is the diff). The user subsequently saw that the edits had not had the desired effect, and removed them. This is fine, except that apparently they don't know about edit summaries, previewing changes, or how to actually include that information properly (which seems complicated, given the Infobox). If it's good to add (perhaps for all country Infoboxes?), could someone with the know-how do that for them? In any case, could some WP:WC member or so drop them a line explaining the situation? (They've even previously asked for help on their talk page; they seem promising!)

More generally, I believe there's a page for reporting cases like this, that I thought was called "Users needing help" or so, but I can't find it now. Assuming I'm remembering correctly that it exists, where is it? Thanks! --Tardis 01:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Help needed to get info on commercial businesses and links relating to a topic[edit]

Hi! We make the best effort to stop the articles being flooded with ads and spamlinks, but I just realized a different need.

I need some info on manufacturers of projection screens, but I am clueless as to how should I compare the notability of different businesses, how to find any candidate businesses relevant to the topic, and how should be notability of businesses be defined in relation to a certain topic.

How should I proceed with this issue?

Is this such a thing that others have came across the same observations as I, having the same needs and questions?

Thanks in advance. Santtus 21:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice.[edit]

I've just ran across User:RTrafton, whose principal "Contributions" are adding noxious allegations of prominent people being gay, in an unflattering manner. I have left them a warning about this on their talk page, however I'm not sure if I should report them for this as they haven't done anything else since then. Does anyone have better ideas? Thanx 05:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (PS. As you might be able to guess, I'm more familiar with more obvious, cut-and-dried vandalism then things like this)

If a user stops after being warned, there's no need to report them further; that's what warnings are for! You might want to keep an eye on the contributions of someone acting like that, though, to make sure they actually have stopped. --ais523 08:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. Actually, looking at his edits, they all seem to be several months old! 21:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding a town website.[edit]

Hey, What do I need to do if someone has removed a website link, when unnesesary? The website is not registered throught the town, but the town gave the website owners to be the towns official website. Do I need a letter from the town manager proving that it is the town's website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:10 14 November 2006

If anybody wants more information on this then you may wish to read the article's talk page or the previous mediation case on this.--MarkS (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

difficulty creating new article[edit]

I wanted to create an article that would be merely a redirect, but I noticed they re-organized the articles for creation system. Now when I click to create a new article, I am sent to this page

but when I click on the link saying that I am not registered yet (or do not wish to register), I get somebody else's new article!? Not sure what I am doing wrong. 04:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Try again. I think I fixed it. -- JLaTondre 04:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick. Thanks. 04:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Article copied from government publication[edit]

The entire article section Cinder Cone and the Fantastic Lava Beds: Human history is copied word-for-word from the following source:

Since its a government publication, its public domain. However, if I'm not mistaken, the fact that the article is based on this source should be noted somewhere – otherwise, its simple plagiarism. Can somebody let me know WP policy is on this kind of thing? Peter G Werner 04:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit history[13] already has the attribution (see 17 Sept). You could also add it to the article's references section if you so desired. -- JLaTondre 04:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Reduce size of image on page?[edit]

I'm a newbie, and clueless. The images I uploaded to my new page are HUGE. How can I make them appear smaller? Any help would be greatly appreciated. ````

I've made the images on Frank Lloyd Wright's Graycliff into thumbnails and tidied up a few other things. Tra (Talk) 23:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Two articles on the same person[edit]

I just discovered that there are two articles on the same person, the Writer (slash) Conspiracy Theorist (slash) Propagandist Stephen F. Hayes. One lacks a period after his middle initial.

Stephen F. Hayes

Stephen F Hayes

Can someone do a redirect? Thanks! F.A.A.F.A. 23:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What you want to do is add merge tags to them. Rmhermen 23:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

References as first contribution[edit]

If you look at [14] you will see about 20 contributions by an anon user. All those I've looked at are adding the same book as a reference. My instinct is to delete as spam, since we have no evidence that this book was used to create the arcticle, and some reason to suppose it wasn't (no other contributions). But is it as simple as that? And if so, what sort of warning should the user get? Notinasnaid 19:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

?!? My Dutch Wikipedia interface language now Sundanese(?) !![edit]

I'm having a terrible time determining where and how to report this apparent hijacking of a major Wikipedia interface screen!!
As of about 0130 GMT on 18 November (early this morning), when I tried to use the Dutch Wikipedia, all the terms in its navigation box and toolbox - all the lefthand side of the Main Page (NL: Hoofpagina) screen - appear in some foreign language I've since tentatively identified as Sundanese (Basa Sunda) (language code :su:), spoken in Jakarta, Indonesia, and a few other places. Example: Top of lefthand navigation bar, for Main Page (in Dutch: Hoofdpagina) is the word Tepas, but hovering the cursor shows Hoofdpagina as before. Other terms clearly not Dutch: in the second navigation box, instead of Informatie over het project... is Panglawugan, and more.
Something appears to be seriously wrong here, or I'd appreciate some explanation. I reported this hours ago on the Village Pump (assistance) but have gotten no meaningful response. Please reroute this posting if you know of a better place for it! -- Thanks, Deborahjay 08:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to look alright when I see the wiki as an anon user. Try going to your preferences in the Dutch Wikipedia, and ensure that your language is set to Dutch. Tra (Talk) 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Good advice! I checked "my preferences" in the NL Wikipedia, and the language had indeed been reset (not by me, I assure you!) to su-Basa Sunda. Apparently this affected my browser, because even as an anonymous user (i.e. not signed on with my User name), the page I've been working on still came up with the interface in Sundanese. I've played around with resettings between nl-Nederlands and en-English and my screens are coming up appropriately. I'll be keeping an eye on this. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 20:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


This user appears to have done nothing but throw in links to, and while some of the images one finds there seem interesting, I can't decide whether or not this is spam. (Full list) Chris talk back 04:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I too want to know what the policy would be on this. I've also encountered links to non-english sites in articles that don't seem to warrant it. Is the presence of some nice images enough to be considered "a benefit" to the article? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added {{spam}} to his talk page. He seems to be adding the link in a spam like fashion. See WP:SPAM. Megapixie 05:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, I found that WP:EL includes non-english language sites in the category of "links to avoid". --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch Wikipedia looks wrong...?![edit]

I'm confused (and not sure this is the right place to post this): I just followed a Wikilink from the English-language Wikipedia to an article in the Dutch Wikipedia - and something looks wrong. The interface language doesn't appear to be Dutch (but Dutch Indonesian or ?? Sundanese), and my Username, that I'd created some time ago, isn't recognized. I'd appreciate if someone knowledgeable could check this out and explain this to me. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 00:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the language used on that Wikipedia, but I can tell you that you have to create a separate account for each Wikipedia where you need one. They aren't automatically recognized on other Wikipedias just because you've created an account on one. There have been proposals to make that happen, but so far the feature has not been implemented. --Tkynerd 01:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've created separate accounts and User pages for numerous foreign langugages (I'm a translator and archivist by profession). I'm pretty sure Dutch is among my languages already in use, as it's one of the Wikipedias to which I made an express link on a subpage I call "My Global Gateway." But thanks for your pertinent suggestion! -- Deborahjay 01:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
(LATER:) RESOLVED - the problem was apparently caused by a spurious setting (by ??) of su - Basa Sunda for the language in my preferences on the Dutch Wikipedia, that affected my browser even when I wasn't signed on with my User name (!) Thanks go to editor Tra for suggesting the solution. -- Deborahjay 20:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Glad you got it resolved, and thanks for posting the solution. --Tkynerd 21:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


A few people have been harassing me after I made a change to Treaty of Nöteborg. First some guy shows up claiming I'm some other user and posting things on my page. Then another guy shows up threatening me with blockage and stalking me half way across Wikipedia (undoing something that doesn't make any sense). I then took to see who this person and undid one of his edits (something that didn't make any sense to me). Then he comes back calling me names, claiming I should be blocked for stalking him (HE WAS THE ONE STALKING ME!). I left a message on this guys page telling him not to stalk me, but he removed the message saying "plonk".

Why am I being harassed and how come no one is doing something about it?

Atabata 12:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this a registered user or an anonymous user who is being annoying? Wikipedia attracts a few odd characters who like to gain attention by acting like twits. Your best option may be to simply ignore him or her, then hope it goes away. But if not, I'd maintain a history (including links to the older edit pages where the aberrant behavior occured) for future use. I believe you can then request administrative action if the behavior persists. Good luck. :-) — RJH (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Being seen as a incarnation of Jaakko Sivonen is based on similarity and timing of the edits. Pavel Vozenilek 05:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a place where changes to the software are announced?[edit]

Whenever new features are added to the wiki, I have no idea that anything changed until stumbling upon it. For example, clicking preview now previews both the page changes, and the edit summary. Is there any place where changes like this are summarized? -- kenb215 talk 05:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost runs a column called 'Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News' most weeks, which lists all the software changes made that week. --ais523 09:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

National University Testing - Admission policy, foreign students[edit]

Thank you for note regarding copy protection of language. This information, in this exact form, also was in a Press Release and was sent to the author of a book written for students attempting to gain access to the U.S. university systems. If the information is in a Press Release, I had understood that it was meant to be re-published. Your comment is most appreciated.

  • Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

MissionCreek 16:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio issue?[edit]

I've never seen a 'disclaimer' in a section header before. In the article Noah, a section header (here) is "referenced" with a "permission". It seems to indicate that the material in that section was taken directly from a copyrighted source. I don't know anything about copyvio issues, but this looks potentially problematic. How do we know the "permission" is genuine? What happens if the permission is retracted or withdrawn? Is this a legit usage under the GFDL? I hope someone experienced in copyvio will look into this and explain. Thanks. Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Jewish Encyclopedia, it is in the public domain, so no permission is required. --Cherry blossom tree 11:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying; I've removed the ref as unneccessary. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyvios site with live extraction of content[edit]

"Wikidpedia", it's called. [15] I know there's somewhere I can bring this to, but whom? Apparently it's registered with Pipex Communications UK Ltd t/a, according to Allwhois. -- Zanimum 14:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be looking for Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. - BanyanTree 14:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How do we deal with anonymous vandals?[edit]

A page I created was vandalized, and it's impossible to contact the user to complain. I have corrected the page, but isn't there some way to report vandals and prevent them from continuing? Going to the history page, there is no user name for the vandal, only a string of letters,, that leads to a so-called special page. Now when I make any edits on a page, my user name is clearly posted. How is it that vandals can change a page without leaving their user name? And what can we do about this problem? Thanks in advance for your help. --Leghorn.

That string of numbers is their IP address, and it's actually a more specific identifier as regards their realname than a psuedonym identity like mine is. This is because it can be used to find their physical location with enough legwork. --tjstrf talk 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was able to access the talk page for the anonymous user and leave a warning template. I hope that solves the problem. ~Leghorn.

External link question at Talk:Cancer#ConfirmPath_external_links[edit]

I think we need a couple of extra brains to comment on this current discussion in order for there to be the appearance and reality of broader input beyond the few folks who have engaged in the ongoing (albeit mild so far) addition/reversion activity at Cancer and discussion to date. Thanks for expressing your opinion at Talk:Cancer#ConfirmPath_external_links if you have one you would like to share. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A specific interpretation of WP:NC-SHIP please[edit]

A discussion is being played out at Talk:Royal Canadian Sea Cadets with regard to the naming convention of "Stone Frigates". These are shore based establishments which have a formal designation of SCSTC. This SCSTC designation has resulted in an edit war between one named editor, Quadra, and an IP based editor.

The IP Based editor has (or appears to have) taken an intransigent stance and has been insisting on some form of military regulation being applied to the article.

The other editor is doing his best to work with the IP based editor, but the IP guy is really hard to work with and takes fixed positions and seems to have set himself up as some alleged "responsible authority", making it very hard to continue to assume good faith. Nonetheless good faith is assumed, though the assumption is becoming ragged at the edges.

The edit war resulted in total protection of the page. In the circumstances this is supportable. Even though the IP guy seems not to wish to get an ID, it would have been wrong, I think, to discriminate, since this is an edit war, not vandalism. However this makes editing the article impossible, and there is much to do to it.

Quadra has researched and interpreted WP:NC-SHIP in what appears to me to be a reasonable manner. While it is sometimes hard to interpret what "IP Guy" is saying, it appears that he holds a diametrically opposed view. It seems from his comments on the talk page, notably "...the entire article is good as it is and might remained locked." that he is likely to edit unconstructively if the page is unprotected.

My hope is that the page and the talk page might be visited by uninvolved and disinterested editors with experience of interpreting guidelines such that a true consensus can be reached. At that point it is likely to be sensible to unprotect the article and allow edits to restart.

It's a real minority interest article. Each protagonist has deep loyalty to the service, and it seems to be a simple difference of opinion played out in a challenging manner. My own interest in the article is minor. I have made format and layout edits to it, and simply hope that peace may break out in Canada! Fiddle Faddle 22:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal stub deletion[edit]

When adding articles, I find it useful to create a series of personal stub pages to "construct" the basic article. I put these stubs on a separate page. Once the article is created, I delete the page. However, I note a stub page has been deleted, which I did not put a delete tag on - I found a cached version on Google. How do I find out who deleted it? Thank You - Rgds, - Trident13 13:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Go to and you will see the log. You can use this address for any deleted page by changing the pagename. The reason given was CSD G11 which reads "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help BirgitteSB! The guy left no explanation on my talk page, which I would have thought was a reasonable courtesy. I have left a message on his talk page asking why. Rgds, - Trident13 17:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian views on contraception[edit]

I was wondering if anyone would mind looking over Christian views on contraception. There is something that bothers me about this article (not content, but format). I believe there are way too many quotes, and the use of headshots of those being quoted seems unorthodox. Just trying to feel it out if others find issues with the quote and image use, or if it is just me. Thanks.--Andrew c 15:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You may have a good point about fair use provisions for copyrighted images. I commented on the article when it was at peer review. My main criticism was that it covered only half the spectrum of Christian views from center to far right, but ignored everything to the left of the middle. DurovaCharge! 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Suicide notes posted on Wikipedia[edit]

I just reverted an edit to the 'Suicide' article that reads like a suicide note. I added a neutral message on the anon ip's talk page. I am willing to assume that most if not all suicide note-like posts here are jokes ... and I know that we are not in the business of either crisis counseling or crisis center referral. I just wanted some comment on how best to deal with 'vandalism' of this nature. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your approach sounds more than sufficient. — RJH (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I beg to disagree. I located the city and state where that post originated and filed a report with the local police. While I don't think Wikipedia policy covers this officially, all suicide threats deserve to be treated seriously. DurovaCharge! 01:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you determine city and state based on, or did you dig deeper using a whois lookup tool (like Alien Whois)? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Basically I just did the standard query, noted all relevant information on pen and paper for reference, and Googled the police for that jurisdiction. Google's top result turned out to be wrong and they referred me to the state police who took the report. The officer was a little surprised at first, but once he understood what I was communicating it was straightforward and businesslike. The department's IT division can handle the rest. If this had come from a registered account instead of an IP I would have requested a checkuser. DurovaCharge! 02:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well done Durova! I think you did the right thing. I think the user would've been a vandal, but you never know ........... Yuser31415 06:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. It's probably best to err on the side of caution with things like this – Gurch 06:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I also agree that this was an appropriate response. - BanyanTree 14:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the detailed explanation. I think this is a good response, erring on the side of caution. Is there somewhere that this guideline to response could be written up in the Wikipedia namespace so it is preserved? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Users can choose to report edits like this to the police if they wish, and more power to them, but as for a central policy, no. No more than we should have a policy forcing us to report "I'm going to kill u" vandals, like the one who's been plaguing my userpage for several weeks (fyi, I'm still alive). Users can look at each edit as it comes and use their own common sense to judge whether it deserves anything more than reversion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: this editor returned a few days later to vandalize more pages. I've blocked the IP for a year, which is about the maximum IP addresses get blocked, and mentioned the police report in my block summary. The address had accumulated four previous blocks this year, the longest of which lasted one month. DurovaCharge! 05:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

2 new nav boxes need propagating, maybe populating[edit]

I've just created Template:d20 and Template:RPG systems, but I'm not sure if they're complete, and they need to be put on the appropriate articles. NeonMerlin 01:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

MA dissertations in a bibliography[edit]

There is currently a disagreement at Bibliography of the Darfur conflict. A user added a section on theses and dissertations with one item, a Masters dissertation. I reverted and was in turn reverted. Can anyone bring up any relevant policy guidelines, or just offer an opinion about the status of MA theses in a list of useful sources, at the discussion there? Thanks, BanyanTree 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Spammy Links![edit]

Supply_chain_management has a ton of links at the end and I can't distinguish ones that should actually be there from ones that shouldn't. They all look commercial to me. I could use a professional spam-link-remover's opinion. Sifaka talk 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Something happened to this image...[edit]

Image:YellowHardHat.jpg is a sherlock holmes hat! 22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The original image was on Commons. Acccording to Commons:Deletion requests/All images by user brokenarts, it was a clear copyright violation and was deleted on November 27th. On the same day, another user uploaded the current image locally. So, the hard hat is gone for good. - BanyanTree 22:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with it really, but it's still a strange name as that is definately NOT a hardhat! 05:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Where can I find editors who can help expand a neglected article?[edit]

Is there a place where one can advertise a page as in need of editors?

The ormeloxifene article is embarrassingly short. It is a selective estrogen receptor modulator, but its page is factually lacking when compared to the other medications of its class -- raloxifene and tamoxifen, to give two examples.

How can I seek out editors knowledgable about this narrow, scientific topic? Thank you! Joie de Vivre 17:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You can list it in the Open Tasks section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. You may also add the template {{expert}} or {{expert-subject}}, specifying Medicine, to the top of the page. It you add an expert tag, please outline your concerns about the article on the discussion page. Cheers, BanyanTree 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I do not understand how to use the expert-subject template, if anyone has the time to tell me, that'd be great. As far as the Talk page goes, I'm the person who created the article but I have no more knowledge with which to improve it. Thanks! Joie de Vivre 00:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
To use the expert-subject template, place {{expert-subject|Medicine}} at the top of the ormeloxifene page. Be sure you get the pipe symbol ( | ) correct. You can copy the template from here if you want to; I would recommend previewing the page before saving it. That should do it. Good luck! --Tkynerd 15:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Best place to pursue an RfC on copyvio/legal issue?[edit]

Hi. Can someone please steer me toward the best next step for The Bridge (film). There is an ongoing dispute that cannot seem to reach consensus as to whether it is appropriate to link to a live site for viewing the film seeing as how the rights owner has attempted to remove it from circulation. Some are making very "legalese" arguments that I, not being an attorney versed in copyright law, cannot evaluate. I would like to set up an RfC on this but not in the religion category as the question is more wikipedia policy/copyvio/legal in nature. Thanks --Justanother 22:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I will try this on the Help Desk. --Justanother 19:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

New editors whose English is marginal[edit]

I have been spending a lot of time working in articles re Indian cinema. Many Indian editors contribute there. Many of them speak flawless English but ... there are also wannabe editors who have studied English in school in India (from non-native speakers) and write misspelled, non-grammatical, non-idiomatic English. When I have to remove or completely rewrite their contributions, some of them get very angry. One editor informed me that he taught English and dared me to find fault with his prose. [16] So I took three of his sentences to pieces [17], after which he disappeared from the film articles.

I probably DIDN'T handle this the best way. I wish that there were some written policy that one could reference that could make some of the same points I was trying to make but in a kinder way, a less personal way. Does such a policy exist in some nook and I just haven't found it? Does anyone have any suggestions, or have the time and energy to work with me on writing such a policy? Zora 00:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is something that can really be delt with through policy. Have you tried pointing them to our hindi and urdu wikipedias?Geni 11:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a feeling that the people I'm dealing with would consider that a slur. Anything that suggests that their English is less than OK is a slur ... because speaking English well is an indication of upper class status in India (so far as I can tell). Zora 17:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if they'd react to it any better from an Indian editor... I've been teaching EFL for the last couple of months. I'd be willing to try talking to them the next time this comes up. Again, I don't know if it'll be any better, but perhaps worth a shot.--Kchase T 18:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought your response was very polite and tactful. I can see how their feelings might be hurt, but I don't think that there was any more polite way for you to handle it. Also, there's a difference between speaking a language well and writing it well. I speak French much, much better than I write it, yet I undersand it better if I see it written than if I hear it. You might be dealing with someone whose grasp of English (while better than my grasp of French) follows a similar pattern. They pride themselves on their fluency with the language, and were you in a room talking to them you would find their English quite good, but their writing skills lack something that their spoken language posesses. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


I could not find a template to put on an out-of-date article (e.g. talks about plans for 2004) when I want to mark it but don't have time to rewrite it myself right now. Something like:

{| class="messagebox current" style="width: auto;"
| [[Image:Current event marker.svg|50px| ]]
| '''This article is out of date.'''<br> <small>Future events or plans discussed in the text need to be reconciled with the events that occured after writing.</small>
Current event marker.svg This article is out of date.
Future events or plans discussed in the text need to be reconciled with the events that occured after writing.

I'm surprised something like this isn't listed already in the template section. Am I missing something? Or what is the proper thing to do?

Długosz 20:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Dlugosz!
I think you mean the template Out of date. To put that in an article, type:

{{Out of date}}

at the top of the page in question. Cheers and happy editing!
Yuser31415 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Yuser. I added it to Template_messages/Cleanup right after {{update}} which I somehow must have overlooked when I asked the question. I wonder how many more are out there that are not listed? —Długosz 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Article needs more eyes[edit]

Judge Rotenberg Educational Center has been subject to IP vandalism, including posting of a copyvio; controversial subject, needs more informaiton (including non-controversial history etc.) and could do with being on more watchlists, please. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. ViridaeTalk 11:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Learning Spanish[edit]

I'm looking for a website that will provide me with the fastest and best method of learning the Spanish language. Can anyone help me out?

Try asking at the Reference desk. Tra (Talk) 19:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Need advice[edit]

I need an advice on how to group entries in List of operators. Any thoughts?--Planemo 15:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You might consider consulting the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics if you have not already done so. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject setup.[edit]

I'd appreciate some assistance in setting up, or rather resetting up, the Climbing wikiproject at WP:CLIMB. I don't quite get all the categorization and template stuff, but it's definitely an area that needs a wikiproject. SWATJester On Belay! 07:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You might consider cross-posting your query at Wikipedia:Help desk Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council was set up specifically to help organize and coordinate WikiProjects and it would be worth checking them out. - BanyanTree 13:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that page is new to me; thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Main page: Somali Civil War[edit]

Hello. "Somali Civil War" on the main page links to Ethiopian war in Somalia, a new article created at 22:00 8 December, that says "This article documents a current event", that "The Ethiopian war in Somalia began on 8 December 2006" and that this article is part of the "Military history WikiProject." I am not an expert and don't want to cause problems based on lack of understanding or lack of knowledge but I object to creating and promoting a "Military History Project" page created the same calendar day, and I object to Wikipedia being the source for information that a new war started. What do you think? Can you merge the articles? Or change the Main page link? I have not read every article on the subject but for reference in case it helps, the English language press according to the Google News index as of 6:00 9 December is watching closely but not saying war started in their headlines. Thank you in advance for anything you can do. Susanlesch 06:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC). minor edit at :57.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history is one of hundreds of WikiProjects that have been started to focus on improving certain types of articles within the encyclopedia. It has been around for months (in fact it's one of the oldest WikiProjects). These projects are simply an attempt to collect together groups of editors interested in the same subjects and allow them to co-ordinate their efforts to improve the articles in their area of interest.
As far as the existence of the article is concerned, the nature of Wikipedia and the Internet means that this is one of the first places information is likely to end up; thanks to the Internet, news can spread around the world in an instant, and thanks to Wikipedia, anyone can create an article about it. As for the question of whether war has started or not, the article cites nine different pages on a number of major news websites, which we consider to be reliable sources. You can find links to these pages at the bottom of the article – Gurch 07:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The sources may be reliable but look at the dates: the International Herald Tribune 6 November, BBC News 22 July, Sudan Tribune 6 September, All Africa 28 November, BBC News 30 November, and Reuters 30 November. Two are from 8 December, BBC News and Al Jazeera. But of course I defer to you and those with more Wikipedia experience though. Thanks for your reply.Susanlesch 07:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)