Help desk
< December 8	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

December 9[edit]

sign in[edit]

I have created an account with Wikepedia last month and responded to the verification email.

When I wish to edit an entry I sign in easily. But, when I go to the entry to edit suddenly I am no longer signed in. This cycle repeats endlessly.

How can I remaind signed in?

66.82.9.49 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...Have you tried checking the "remember me" box. This helps me usually. — Seadog 01:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this section above. Prodego ^talk 01:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James bond parodies[edit]

I made some additions to the "James Bond parodies" article. I added the movies "Deadlier Than the Male" (1966) and "Some Girls Do" (1969)to the list of parodies. I then accessed the entries for both these movies, and tried to make them redirect to the "James Bond parodies" page through the category link. Instead a new page for "James Bond parodies" has opened rather than redirecting to the existing page.

Why does this happen, and what have I done wrong?

--Mrodowicz 01:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no actual "James Bond parodies" category. What you probably want is a See Also section instead, and a link to James Bond parodies in there. -- Kesh 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I've rectified the problem - much appreciated!

--Mrodowicz 16:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why delete?[edit]

I have created a page but it has recently been deleted. Why did one of your administrators do that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soraboy280 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Can you let us know the page that got deleted. 9/10 there is a a good reason why. If you can't don't let us know there is nothing anybody can do. — Seadog 01:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seadog, i wrote a page, BUT it was about a friend named "Leo Munda" Is it because it would not benefit to Wikipedia or anything like that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soraboy280 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your civility but basically it was probably deleted due to the fact that the person was not notable. Basically what that means is that articles are only allowed to be about notable people. — Seadog 02:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Upload[edit]

I wrote a Wikipedia page, and when I type in the Title in SEARCH, it isn't there. Does it take some amount of time, for I saved it and uploaded it, so shouldn't it be there? When will it be there? When I go back , I see my work, but not when I put the subject into SEARCH. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leahbeez (talk • contribs) 03:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It takes a wile sometimes. The server is being a little slow today, just be patient. If it doesn't show up for like a while, click on the page where you created yoru article (it doesn't exist but still click on it). You'll get a bunch of stuff written down and a box for you to type in your changes. In the bunch of written stuff, you'll see "deletion log", click on that and see if it was deleted. If it was, then see why it was and if you need to, contact the user (admin) who deleted it. If there is nothing in the log, you must have not created it (probably didn't hit "save"). Cbrown1023 03:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article exists, it will be deleted, though, unless you can prove it is notable enough. See the page you created for more information. Cbrown1023 03:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need help[edit]

I need help with my signature. I have been trying to come up with a cool one ever since I had my username changed. I have a really cool one, but the Preferences won't save it right. It says to check the HTML tags, however I am quite sure the HTML tags are right. This is what I want it to look like: C J King. This is the source code, bolded:[[User:CJ_King|C]][[User talk:CJ_King|J]] [[Martin Luther King, Jr.|King]]. Please reply on my talk page, as I will be looking there first. Thank you very much for your help, and please have a nice day.--CJ King 04:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you have the Raw Signature button clicked. Also, I would advise you to try to cut down some on the length of that sigunature, is it currently spans over 4 lines (see WP:SIG, which hopefully has information on that). Good luck. -Patstuart^talk|edits 05:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four lines? For me it's barely longer than one line. Remember not everyone has the same screen resolution. Whatever you do, just don't put bold text in your signature—it's sooo tacky. BigNate37_(T) 05:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just under one line for me :S but if it is too long, it won't be appreciated on talk pages because it takes up lots of room. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

usa patriot[edit]

how do i get to usapatriot act controversy free speech zone —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.141.78.164 (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I think you're looking for Free speech zone.--Kchase T 05:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

I know that you can user __NOTOC__ to suppress the table of contents, but is there some handy code to suppress categories from appearing? --Daniel Olsen 05:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. That has the potential to be misleading. BigNate37_(T) 05:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or minimalist, which is the desired effect (it's in userspace). --Daniel Olsen 05:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Userbox categories, is it? I'm afraid I don't know anything better than substitution and manual removal of categories, if they're coming in from templates, and that doesn't always work. Either way, to my knowledge such a magic word doesn't exist although I wouldn't be very surprised if there was something I didn't know about for it. BigNate37_(T) 05:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is I still want to be included in the categories, not not have the big (somewhat ugly) box at the bottom of the page. --Daniel Olsen 06:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF you "Really", really dislike them you can make your own userboxes if you know how. That way you won't have any categorys. IF you have questions about that let me know. — Seadog 14:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already know how to create and edit userboxes and such, but that doesn't solve the problem. When someone browses through Category:Example, I want to be included in that category, but not have all the categories I'm in show up at the bottom of the page. --Daniel Olsen 18:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Page Full of External Links[edit]

I recently expanded an article about the Colton Joint Unified School District. My original intention was just to create a list of schools. I ended up getting ambitious and created external links for all the schools I listed (which I have since edited when I discovered one of the high schools has a Wikipedia article about it). I would like to know if it is considered bad form to create a page with that many external links. Should I leave the list but remove the external links and replace them with a list of links from the school district homepage at the bottom of the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColTony (talk • contribs) 09:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Normally I would say yes, though in this case it looks like it may be relevant. You could also consider creatinga category called Category:Colton Joint Unified School District. Patstuart^talk|edits 09:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sound negative or as though I'm being hostile but it is actually against policy (see Wikipedia is not a repository of links) and it may lead to your article getting deleted. You may also want to move it to List of schools in Colton Joint District or something similar as a list. I think the list has been well made but lists on Wikipedia are usually for listing Wikipedia articles so check if the schools have articles (all of them) and if not you could create articles for them. If you have any questions about this or anything, feel free to contact me on my talk page. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting full (rather than subset) of category contents on single page[edit]

Hello. Thanks in advance to all those people who take time to monitor this page and help other users, it must be a fairly thankless task!

My query is that when I visit a category page that contains links to hundreds of articles, such as Category:Cleanup_from_December_2006, the initial page presented only presents a subset of the total articles, with links to the "next 200" etc. This is obviously a useful feature to stop a user's browser having to try and print 10,000 articles if you are viewing a huge category. However, is it possible to override this behaviour and get a list of all articles in a category on a single page, no matter how many there are? (perhaps by sending an argument in the URL such as "&showall=true") The reason I ask is that I have a bot that needs to fetch a list of all articles in a category and it would obviously be a lot easier if it could do this from a single page. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan 10:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is no, but you might ask any of the folks who run CFD cleanup bots, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. The reason the search result is limited is because unlimited category listings for large categories were causing server performance problems, not because of any client side (browser) issues. If there were a way to defeat the limit, it would provide a denial of service opportunity. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

darnit, the thing is ironically the bot is going to cause MORE server load if it has to cycle through 200 pages of results than if it could access a single page. Thanks, I will post this query at the page you listed. - PocklingtonDan 16:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam, spyware in Wiki Link.[edit]

While using wikipedia, I hit on a like to a website www.jt.org that was suppossed to have Saturday Night Live clips. This caused either a virus or spyware to come onto my computer. According to Internic Whois, the owner of this websitre is anonymous and undicosed. In addition to displaying copyrighted content, it appears this web site is placing links on Wiki to promote questionable purposes. I then did a search for other links from this website on Wiki and found several. How should this be dealt with? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.153.133.115 (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I suggest that if the site is malicious, you remove any links to that site. But make sure that in your edit summary you make it clear that the website is dangerous otherwise people might undo your edits suspecting you're vandalising or just deleting randomly. I found 190 pages [1] that contain a link to jt.org which means that it might be too overwhelming to remove them all. I couldn't find any discussion of what to do in this situation so I will create a discussion at WP:EL. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted to m:Talk:Spam blacklist on Meta. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki syntax[edit]

I have been studying HTML and understand that Wiki is an abeviated HTML. I have yet to find a section on the actual elements and syntax used. The only thing I found is the Cheatsheet. Isn't there a more extensive Cheatsheet that I can study that I can edit some articles. --Jack 12:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try the tutorial at Wikipedia:Tutorial - PocklingtonDan 12:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found I had a similar problem. Usually if you know what you want to do, you can find a page that tells you how to do that, not a big list of code. Try Wikipedia:How to edit a page which has a bit more. I learnt by editing a sandbox and testing things out, copying the code of something interesting and messing with variables and such. If you have questions feel free to ask me. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

info[edit]

hi in the steroid skeleton what does the a, b, c, and d rings mean email at [email removed] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.117.234 (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Based on my own knowledge I would guess that they are highlighting the alicyclic rings of carbon. I'm not entirely sure however. If you can't find out, I suggest asking the uploader (who made the image), User:Shaddack. Just edit his talk page to give him a message. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Malicious Spammers[edit]

There is a person (I suspect it's just one unless they are converging on this article) using several IP addresses who has been making frequent malicious edits (and just generally fueling controversy) with little or no explanation. I researched their IP history here and have found a history of these edits, reverts and warnings against them. I place these links here in case the info is deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Kay#Three_Revert_Rule

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Kay#Spamming_Wikipedia

I am not an adminstrator, can he/she be blocked? 4.246.207.14 14:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia/Commons images?[edit]

Can images from Commons and Wikipedia be used on other websites providing that there is a link back to Wikipedia? 0L1 Talk Contribs 14:24 9/12/2006 (UTC)

I reccomend asking at Commons help desk. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 14:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nternet connectivity Gprs[edit]

I want to know gprs fecility in Tata mIndicom Kindly reply to <e-mail removed> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.2.194.100 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

editing already posted text[edit]

Hello,

I have added text to one of the entries and would like to edit it. How do I get back to the text itself? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pf7875 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

If you are talking about reverting all you have to do is click the history tab and then click the version you would like to edit. — Seadog 15:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Log-in Issues Related to Satellite Modem[edit]

I explained the problems I've been having a few months ago and somebody had said they'd heard of others who connect via satellite modems encountering similar difficulties, but had no idea what the cause might be or if there was a solution.

I connect using Firefox on a PC running Windows 2000 Professional. I have cookies enabled and I always check the "Remember Me" box when I sign in. But every time I sign in to WP, I get the "Log-in successful" page, but when I click a link or run a search, it inexplicably signs me out. Occasionally, it'll let me view one or two pages before it boots me, but never more than that. It's impossible to edit a page under my account.

There was a time when, on the same satellite connection, I was able to log-in and stay logged in just fine, but one day, for no apparent reason, this started happening. Since then, there have been occasions when it started working correctly again, but those occasions have always been short-lived.

If anybody has any idea why this is happening and what I can do to fix it, please let me know on my talk page. I would really appreciate any advice anybody can give me. Thanks. 67.142.130.12 14:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (My user name is Raoul-Duke)[reply]

Log in to the secure server, and it should work fine. There have been several messages from people using your ISP (Hughes Network Systems), and this will fix the problem. Prodego ^talk 15:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million. I wish somebody had been able to tell me to do that four months ago. I really appreciate your help. Raoul Duke 04:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

author[edit]

who is the author of wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.253.162.78 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

everyone. Cbrown1023 16:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also this. Jacek Kendysz 16:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you're asking because you want to cite an article, please see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how do you create pages?[edit]

i don't understand how to use wikipedia --cat 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

See: Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article. WODUP 16:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every time i edit a Moderator will change it back[edit]

All i am doing is trying to add my knowledge but every time i do, one of you lot change it back :(Stefish23 17:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm it depends on what you were adding. Wikipedia is very strict on the Manual of style guidelines, and Original research will always be deleted. Can you give us some examples. — Seadog 17:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is no such things as "moderators" on wikipedia as this is a collaborative project and every editor can revert others contributions. You may be thinking about Admins however. They have the ability to delete pages if that is what you were thinking. — Seadog 17:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a specific example. To ensure your edits aren't deleted, make sure you cite your sources, apply neutral point of view and don't insert too much granular/trivial details. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Some user is reverting his actions that totally mess up a page. His edit summaries state he needs help but he keeps making changes anyway. He needs some help. Check out his contributions to this post for more information. (Special:Contributions/Stefish23). Cbrown1023 22:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article contributors/administrators[edit]

Hello,

Can anyone please tell me if there is a way to find out which user has contributed and who has edited a particular article a the list of administrators managing that article/category ?

Best Regards, NS

Namesniper 17:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of any article page, click the history tab to see the complete list of all the people who have edited that article. Wikipedia doesn't assign specific administrators to each article or category page, though many admins have very long Watchlists—lists of articles on which they informally monitor changes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

username[edit]

hi i have a wikipedIA ACCOUNT AND CAN remember my password and email but unfortunately can't remember my username! please help me soon 86.136.252.82 17:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you think of any articles that you might have contributed to, and then look in the history of contributions for that article and you should surely remember your username when you see it - PocklingtonDan 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be my suggestion also, also if you have 0 edits it might be easier to just create a new one. — Seadog 18:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who has final oversight over edits?[edit]

I have a nagging doubt regarding the structure of Wikipedia that apparently affects many people. There was no answer in the "Very FAQ's" or elsewhere - not that I could find.

I am a fan of Wikipedia and feel it delivers truthiness I can trust - albeit with some reservation. And friends of mine say "anyone can write whatever they want in it so it's meaningless". Common sense tells me this can't really be the case. I've read too many well-researched topics to dismiss Wikipedia's veracity. So how can I respond to my friends or to my own doubts? What kind of oversight is in place to insure that entries are reliable?

Sincerely thank you, Bruce Brashear —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.124.193 (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well what your friends said that "anyone can write whatever they want in it so it's meaningless" is not exactly true. See there are many, many people who monitor something called "recent changes" and doing so potentially malicious and unreferenced statements are reverted. — Seadog 18:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best answer is: check the sources. Wikipedia is editable by anyone, which generally means that bad data gets replaced with better data as people read the articles. But, there's no guarantee. So, if you see something on Wikipedia, follow the sources cited to read for yourself. The articles here are a great place to summarize a subject and learn where to start, but the most important thing is that you can always verify what's written elsewhere. Don't rely on this site as your sole source of information, just like you shouldn't rely on a single book, or TV show as your only source. -- Kesh 18:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably interested in Wikipedia:Replies to common objections too. Plus: tell your friends that no source at all should be blindly trusted. And you can look up that test Nature did comparing articles of Wikipedia to those in Britannica. That will shut them up. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 21:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken bot?[edit]

I don't know if this is the right place to mention this, if in fact there is anything to report, or even if I have a right to be as steamed about this as I am. ;-) this edit, which I made on December 1, was immediately reverted as vandalism (attributed to a different user), which no-one noticed or corrected for 9 days. The extent of the problem solving for this issue seems to be apologising for erroneous warning templates; but what about other erroneous edits by the bot? Are they being reverted? I've already posted to the editor's talk page (as you can see), but I wonder if something else needs to be done? Or maybe it already is being done? But if so, why did my edit sit uncorrected for 9 days until I corrected it? Anchoress 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VP2 isn't a bot, it's an antivandal program that requires human intervention. Sometimes loading lags and a user will click vandalism, even though the computer thinks it is displaying something else. ST47Talk 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, but perhaps you have missed my concern. There is an obvious bug with the program, as you can see from the userpage I linked to. The response to my query has confirmed that, also. My concern is that there are other instances where the program, or person, or whatever has mistakenly reverted good faith edits (as happened to me) that have gone un-noticed. Anchoress 18:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should report any bugs in detail to the author of the program. Also, if you make an edit to an article, you share as much reponsibility as any other editor for watching that article and ensuring any further edits or reversions of your edit are positive, correct and in good faith - PocklingtonDan 18:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree with you on two points. First, the primary goal of every bot is to first, do no harm. It should not be the responsibility of good faith editors to ensure that their edits are not removed erroneously by a vandal fighting program with a bug. Second, my edit was not to an article, it was to a talk page. And it was reverted with a deceptive edit summary. I'm not saying the deception was purposeful, but it was nothing I could have used from the talk page history to discern that my contribution had been removed. Further, I don't think it's so much every editor's responsibility to ensure their good faith, on topic talk page contributions remain, as much as it is the responsibility of other editors to ensure they don't remove them. And finally, I think you are also missing the point of my post. I am not posting here to castigate the person who reverted my edit; I am posting here because I am concerned that other such mistakes are going uncorrected. I have already posted to the user's page, but the person's response did not reassure me that steps are being taken to check other edits. Anchoress 18:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you are after if not castigation. If you have found a specific problem with a specific bot, you should advise its author, giving details of the problem, and ask him to take steps to correct if. If he does so, fine. If not, you should perhaps report it at the bot owner's noticeboard. But you seem to be asking for something more general to be done - the fact is, wikipedia is a very open framework and there isn't anything that can be done to prevent all human errors in editing articles (as seems to be the problem in this case) - as I suggest the only real method is to add every edit you make to your watchlist and monitor it yourself, any edit you make on any page on wikipedia has the potential to be edit usefully or worthlessely, purposefully or accidentally - this is funadmental tot he nature of wikipedia and not something that needs to be "corrected". Cheers- PocklingtonDan 19:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my goals have not been clear up to now. I assure you I am not after castigation, in any way, shape or form. I'm asking for guidance from the community as to whether or not I should be taking any action beyond advising the editor on her/his talk page, because (if you check all the pages I linked to), it does not seem clear that any action is being taken to ensure that other mistakes that have been made besides the one to the page I posted to have been corrected. I'm trying to be as clear as I can be; the mistaken reversion to my edit happened nine days ago, and I myself caught it. The editor who was responsible for the mistaken reversion has been aware of the problem since December 5, and yet had not checked to ensure that the program, which has a bug, had not caused him/her to make erroneous reversions. It seems logical to me that there are more. The editor's response to my original query also did not lead me to believe that any checks were being made. I am asking if there is anything else I should do. Post here? Post to AN? AN/I? Do nothing? I am asking for guidance. Have I been more clear now? Apologies for any confusion. Anchoress 19:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asking for the bot creator to go back and undo the changes the bot has made erroneously. Unfortunately, that's not practical. Best thing you can do is work with the bot's creator to help ensure mistakes are less frequent, and let people watching the pages that have been edited fix the erroneous changes. It sounds like the page you were editing doesn't have a lot of traffic, or people simply weren't aware the mistake was made. There's not much that can be done about that aside from correcting such a mistake when you see it. -- Kesh 21:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

start medicare[edit]

Where do I sign up to start on medicare? William respond to <e-mail removed>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.158.118.98 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You should probably ask at the reference desk. This page is for questions about Wikipedia itself. -- Kesh 18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting a merge[edit]

There are two articles that I think should be merged as they deal with almost exactly the same thing. What's the most efficient way to suggest a merger? Thanks. --Mr Beale 19:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:MERGE. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your NSDAP page[edit]

You might want to check out your page on the NSDAP. Someone has written an expletive that stands out pretty well in the middle of the text. Just thought I would let you know. I couldn't find any contact or webmaster email addresses.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.96.144.232 (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It was just some petty vandalism, which anyone can revert on Wikipedia (and someone already has). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two IP edit warriors[edit]

I'm having a problem with two IPs warring over content in the Take Along Thomas and Friends. The article survived an AfD, but nothing there is sourced, and both IPs keep adding and removing material in back and forth edit wars. I've tried to resolve this by telling them to source any new additions, but I have been ignored. What do you think I should do? Go to WP:RFC? --W o o ty Woot? contribs 20:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that none of the IPs editing the article are reading the talk page. They are likely unaware that you posted anything. You could try posting a message to each of their talk pages letting them know about your post and requesting comment. An RfC couldn't hurt, either.

My personal advice would be to nominate it again at WP:AfD. The reason for the failure of the last AfD was that people may have been influenced by the "adcruft" on the page. Since that is no longer there, another AfD may be in order. This article as it stands has very little helpful information aside from the introductory paragraph. If all the lists were expanded to actually explain a little about the characters, it would be a better article, but an article consisting of just a list is not helpful.

—P^urple ^RA^IN 21:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Template for Deletion[edit]

On the right hand side of my user page, where the user boxes can be found, there is a green box indicating that this page has been nominated for deletion. I think the box is there in error. The only two people who have edited my user page are myself and my wife (ginkgo100) and I can't find the code that is causing this box to appear. There is no page to discuss keeping the page, so somehow I suspect this warning arrived there in error. Could somebody help me understand what is going on???Balloonman 20:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the userboxes that you have on your page (User Republican) has been nominated for deletion. It shows up on all the pages where that user box is. Cbrown1023 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, if you feel that it should be kept or deleted say so here. — Seadog 21:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding me... somebody is that petty to think identifying oneself with a political party is "partisan politics." Good grief.Balloonman 21:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a noinclude tag around the MfD. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a special *FD notice for templates/pages used as templates, so that those who use them will be more easily notified of the *FD? (I think it's because most people don't put all the templates they use on thier watchlist, but are certainly interested in the discussion.) Essjay (Talk) 02:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NASA[edit]

wiki nasa shows a graphic what appears to be a penis. please fix.

Not seeing any vandalism at NASA. Did you mean a different page? -- Kesh 01:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it was there, or more specifically Template:Spoken Wikipedia. There has been vandalism to some fairly high use templates recently, and this template was transcluded on to the NASA page. The vandalism has been reverted. Prodego ^talk 01:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. That's why I didn't see it in the edit history on NASA. Thanks for catching that! -- Kesh 02:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]