Help desk
< February 13	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 15 >

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.

February 14[edit]

display options[edit]

So I have a link: Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's individual#Men's individual ranking round. Now, I want this link to display on the page like a bullet (●), so I just appended |●]] to the end of the link so it came out like this: ●. No problem. Now, here's the problem: I want, when the link is moused over, for the yellow link box to display "Men's individual ranking round" and not the title of the original article. For the purposes of what I'm doing, it it important to do this, or else there'd be no reason to put the links there because the person wouldn't know what they're linking to, exactly. How do I change what's in the pop-up box to show this? _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can, for all practical purposes. Wikipedia attempts to (somewhat) standardize the way pages look, and how the user interface will work. While what you're suggesting sounds kinda neat, the results won't be consistent with how Wikipedia works everywhere else. –RHolton ≡– 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well...there's no article called "Men's individual ranking round". So you could turn Men's individual ranking round into a redirect to Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's individual#Men's individual ranking round and link to that redirect instead. That way, the yellow box will pop up with Men's individual ranking round. It will work. But...i'm not sure whether this is really an appropriate useage of our redirect function... --`/aksha 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be done: ●. Admittedly, the markup isn't very obvious:

[[Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's individual#Men's individual ranking round|<span title="Men's individual ranking round">●</span>]]

. (Yaksha's right in that the redirect would work, but be agaisnt policy.) I hope that helps! --ais523 10:50, 14 February 2007 (U T C)

O.o I'm quite sure i never saw this when i was looking through all our help pages, back when i tried to do a similar thing. IIRC, we have a editing help page on links don't we? I don't remember what it's called, but someone should probably go and add this in. --`/aksha 12:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much, ais523 (and others!). _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 14:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the information on how to do this to Meta's help page at m:Help:Link; it'll be updated over here at Wikipedia next time the help pages are updated. --ais523 09:09, 15 February 2007 (U T C)

I need to create a Tim Johnson disambiguation page[edit]

There is Tim Johnson (politician) and Tim Johnson (baseball), but if you type in Tim Johnson, you are redirected to the politician. There may even be other Tim Johnsons. DandyDan2007 22:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the Tim Johnson link to the Tim Johnson (politician) page, you'll notice a message at the top saying "(Redirected from Tim Johnson)". Note that "Tim Johnson" is a link, and that link will take you to the redirect page without following the redirect. On that page, you can create a disambiguation page. See Wikipedia:disambiguation for more information. –RHolton ≡– 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created it, see Tim Johnson. I'll add in other Tim Johnson named folks soon. For more info, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Dooms Day349 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I'll know what to do the next time something like that comes up. DandyDan2007 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a followup from earlier. I also discovered a Tim Johnson (disambiguation) page. I've figured out how to merge articles, but I don't have time at the moment. Can I ask someone to merge Tim Johnson with Tim Johnson (disambiguation)? DandyDan2007 01:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the two pages and arranged the merged disambiguation page in alphabetical order. --`/aksha 02:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an issue on the "Circus" article[edit]

A user going by both PDH and Peta is placing a cleanup tag inappropriately on a section merely because he/she doesn't like the information found therein. He is also clipping words from a subheading which accurately describe the information found thereunder. Now two others have locked the article in his biased state. I have asked if he is interested in a mediator but there's been no response. This is abuse of Wikipedia policies in my opinion. Please read the dispute and help out someone. Thanks. 63.196.193.173 00:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've made the right steps by trying to address your dispute on the article's talk page. However, nothing will get done if each party simply engages in revert wars to push his own opinion, even if you think you're right (I'm sure the other side does, too). There are several processes of dispute resolution which can be used to develop more of a consensus. I would suggest trying one, and also making every effort to engage in civil dialogue with everyone involved. At the very least, if you're polite and explain all your actions, you will be the bigger and more mature person, and you are more likely to develop support for your opinions. Good luck! —Keakealani·?·!·@ 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I HAVE tried reasoning with this person quite a bit. In addition to my own discussions I've quoted Wikipedia policy comments. His replies are short responses without substance or Wiki policy references. Also as I said I asked for mediation but there's been no response. I've done what I can. Now the page has been locked in this biased state without good cause or further discussion. Is this good Wikipedia policy? 63.196.193.173 00:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is that one looks for compromise wording, and that the value of Wikipedia articles are in their content, not their headings, so headings should be as neutral as possible. So that's one mistake you made. A second is to use the phrase user going by both PDH and Peta, implying a violation of sock puppet policy; in fact, policy on signatures allows a user to have a signature that varies slightly from his/her account name. A third mistake was to violate revert policy by doing four reverts within 24 hours; you're lucky that you didn't get blocked for this (a block is pretty much automatic, once you're warned - which you were not). A fourth mistake is to come here to complain about one user, when in fact a second user - Blnguyen - also got involved, on PDH/Peta's side. A fifth is to have asked for mediation, when in fact the proper action, per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, is to ask for a third opinion if two editors disagree. A sixth is to say the page is "locked", when in fact it's only semi-protected, which means that anonymous IP addresses (you've apparently used at least two, since your first edit to the article had an edit summary of "reverting again", implying you'd edited under another account) are blocked from editing but registered users are not.

Please try to focus on the larger picture here: one section heading, in one article out of 1.6 million, isn't worth fighting about. You've posted and edited at least 15 times on this minor point. You sound like you could be a very constructive editor if you worked on adding sourced information to articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that I missed this reply though I thought I'd checked the next day. Anyway, I should like to respond to you comments here. About the neutrality of subheadings that you mention, I'd say then that Wikipedia has a problem as I suspect there are LOTS of subtitles which certain subjective persons or groups whom the article may involve would say are non-neutral. For example the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals article has a subheading Animal euthanasia and criminal charges. I don't see anyone critisizing that. Again the subtitle policy as I read it should summarize the content to follow. About your comment on the sock puppet thing, it never occured to me about such a policy, thus I was not making the policy violation accusation which you assume I was. I did think it odd and possibly deceptive that the user was bouncing back and forth between usernames as if to give he impression that their were two persons arguing his/her case. That's all. Next you said that I violated Wikipedia revert policy "by doing four reverts within 24 hours; you're lucky that you didn't get blocked for this". Hmmm, seems to me that I added the original words to the subtitle and it was PDH who was doing the reverting, and I count just as many by him/her. Funny that you don't say anything about that.

Next, the user which you mention who got involved on PDH's side. How do I know this wasn't a "sock puppet"? How dare I ask this? How dare you suggest that I was editing under a separate account. I tried to find what you were talking about here but couldn't. I do see the words "reverting again" with MY IP at 23:09, 13 February 2007. Could you enlighten me (note that I am using a different one at the moment) (I have gone back to look again at the issue you mention, looks like you somehow did not notice that I had reverted PDH's deletions of the information before at 01:29 and 13:26 on the 13th also on 16:21 the previous day and at 07:24 and 14:55 on 9 February, thus my use of "reverting again" is not inappropriate).

About the mediation policy, as I read it mediation was a next step I could choose, If talking to the other parties involved and taking a break fails, you should try one of the following methods to resolve the dispute. Which ones you choose and in what order will depend on the nature of the dispute, and the preferences of people involved Wikipedia:Resolving disputes Wikipedia:Requests for mediation says Requests for Mediation is the second step in formal dispute resolution on Wikipedia.... Before requesting formal mediation, parties should have made an attempt at some form of informal resolution... which I felt I was doing by repeatedly asking PDH to provide reasons beyond his/her single sentence ones for his/her actions on the talk page. These were refused (BTW, it does seem that Wikipedia should clarify their pre-mediation policy). I did not see anyone else weighing in to ask an opinion of, so I chose mediation.

As to the page only being semi-protected, I note that another user, Ms408, has attempted to edit the page but is also being blocked. He/she has asked for a reason why but no one has responded. I believe that PDH/Peta's edits to page are clearly POV. Note that he/she originally twice deleted information which was sourced on the abuse of animals on 9 February 2007 and placed cleanup tags only around the controversial information (including links - one can guess the "cleanup" he/she has in mind), thus his/her agenda is clear. P.S., re your last comment, "You sound like you could be a very constructive editor if you worked on adding sourced information to articles", you'll note that everything I said was sourced. Finally, you'll note that in the spirit of compromise I agreed to the alternate subheading "Treatment of Animals" but the suggestee has not followed through, thus it reamins the inaccurate "animal acts" which gives no hint of controversy. 4.246.201.254 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, meant to say something about this. I agree that the issues I disputed are seemingly minor and somewhat petty but I spent all this effort on them because of the principle of the thing: I felt that an editorial injustice was occurring here and was being backed up by others. If allowed to happen here it can and will again and again on controversial pages. Wikipedia should apply their rules consistantly, it is a great resource. 4.246.203.167 17:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hereditary disease[edit]

Is there a treatment for hereditary disease —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.32.196.27 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia does not give out medical advice. However, it if it something that has been researched, Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. -- Natalya 00:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fonts - licensing[edit]

When creating an image, are there some fonts which are free use and some which are not? Can I use any font as long as I don't use every letter or something? What is the deal here? Thanks, and please don't send me to a WP page with pages and pages of legal information. =) I just need a straight answer. Goyston talk, contribs, play 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert with copyright stuff, especially when it comes to images >_> but I'm pretty sure it would be okay. A lot of the fonts these days are PD anyway, from memory. Should be fine. The worst that will happen, is the image is deleted. Be Bold! — D e on555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 01:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought fonts where only copyrighted in very rare circumstances. I mean, most advertisments (as in commercial advertisments) include writing, and the writing is generally in a few very common fonts. So logically, i can't see how those fonts are copyrighted. I'm no expert in copyrights, but i'd say your fine as long as you're not using anything *very* weird. Just pick a common font and use it. If there's a problem, you'll get told and the most you'll probably have to do is change the font. --`/aksha 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All fonts are copyright unless they have specifically been placed into the public domain (although there's some question as to their copyright status even then). At least in the US, copyright is not something you need to apply for, it is an automatic attribute of a creative work. Many, many fonts are copyright and not freely redistributable--you must license them in order to use them. Generally speaking at least, once you have the right to use a font, you have the right to publish items that make use of that font. (Standard disclaimers apply.) –RHolton ≡– 13:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song lyrics?[edit]

Can someone point me towards a Wiki policy article that deals with song lyrics? Thanks. Captain Infinity 01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia:Copyright? In general song lyrics are copyrighted and therefore can't be added to articles. Garion96 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been all over it; there's no mention of lyrics. Captain Infinity 02:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a poem. More than a couple of lines, and you've probably crossed the line. Xiner (talk, email) 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I understand the theory, but what I'm looking for is an actual Wiki policy page that states this. Captain Infinity 02:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is one. Is there a reason that you need a page stating that specifically? -Amarkov moo! 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen lyrics in a good number of Wiki pages, but when I added some to You Got F'd in the A I was told they were not allowed by WP policy. Just wondering where the policy is (I've searched dozens of help pages and FQA's, and came up empty). If there is one I'll happily remove lyrics from other pages when I see them. Thanks for everyone's help. Captain Infinity 23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright policy is the relevant policy. It says that works created by others are copyrighted, and that copyrights are to be respected, and that includes not copying things which you have no permission or licence to copy. There is also a guideline at Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thank you! Captain Infinity 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also, no getting around this by posting links to lyrics sites, unless the lyrics are out of copyright or the site is official (legal). Again, no specific policy for lyrics but Wikipedia:External links applies. Notinasnaid 09:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant sections of the Wikipedia:Copyrights policy are "Using copyrighted work from others" (for lyrics in articles) and "Linking to copyrighted works" (for linking to lyrics). Mike Dillon 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Religious Unitarian Universalists[edit]

The Young Religious Unitarian Universalists article was an unassessed religion article, until I assessed it as a start-class religion article. But even thou it now is listed as a start-class religion article, it is also still listed as an unassessed religion article. I have tried removing the article from the list of unassessed religion article, but was unable to. So how do I get it to only be listed as a start-class religion article? --Devin Murphy 02:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what i can see, it's a glitch with the way the template works. I don't quite understand how adding categories in templates work, so i'm not going to mess with it. But it seems when you take up the class, it keeps the old category. If you go look at the page now, the "unassessed" category should be gone now. --`/aksha 03:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] 19:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Chimpanzee?[edit]

I wasn't sure where to put this so I'm going to put it here in case it's the right spot. I just wikipediad (verb?) Chimpanzee and all I got was :{{Taxoboxpoop. However when I searched for Chimp I recieved the page titled Chimpanzee with the sub-heading (Redirected from Chimp). I didn't know who I should tell or where I should post this so hopefully this is the right spot. Also since I have never edited wikipedia I thought someone with more experience should.

65.184.43.6 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this and bringing it to our attention. You were unlucky enough to load the page right after it had been vandalized, and right before someone repaired it (usually happens pretty quickly). If you see this again, please feel free to revert it yourself, that would be most helpful. Thanks again, Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. delldot | talk 06:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where i can find the devoloper tools?196.218.190.135 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[edit]

where i can find the devoloper tools?196.218.190.135 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific with regards to 'developer tools'? Shadow1 (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mould working[edit]

How mould work in moulding machine ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.17.160.150 (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You might want to see the article on Molding (process). You can also try asking your question at the Reference Desk—they specialize in answering knowledge questions. Hope this helps. —Xhantar^Talk 10:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding image[edit]

How do i put a picture to some article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somen2k (talk • contribs)

Looking at your contributions, I assume you're talking about Swanand Kirkire, so I added the image that you had uploaded to this article Pea ceNT 14:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To learn how to do this yourself, see WP:PIC. --Teratornis 16:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

templates and headers, editing[edit]

When one creates a template for a header, for example:


{{my header}}

where {{my header}} contains:


== my header ==
:''explanation of what might go in this section''

When one clicks on the 'Edit' link, the template {{my header}} is what is edited, not the article itself. How can I use templates to create headers, and have the article edited instead of the template? -- Ff1959 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

templates and view source[edit]

In an attempt to learn how templates work I wanted to have a look at the wikitext of some of the more complex/popular existing templates. However several of them are protected (for example Template:babel)

I don't want to edit the template, but I would like to be able to see the wikitext that produces it.

In short: is there a way to view the wikitext of a protected page ? --Eivind 14:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit it, just do not save anything. If you just close the window, go back to the previous page, choose another url, etc... nothing will be saved! Cheers Lethaniol 14:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of protected page, we see 'view source', not 'edit' (unless you're an administrator). Jacek Kendysz 14:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, I guess I was tossed out by the fact that Template:babel itself claims that: The page you are now reading is the actual Babel template. If you click "edit this page", you will see a bunch of computer code that makes the Babel boxes work. which is sorta silly advice since clicking "edit this page" ain't an option for most of us (non-admins) --Eivind 14:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly someone wrote that instruction before someone else protected the template. You might leave a request on Template talk:babel for someone who is able to edit the template to update the outdated instruction. Note the instruction at the top of the talk page on how to request an edit to the protected template. --Teratornis 16:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with key words.[edit]

How can a find every article with certian key words, ie: Sons of Liberty. I am attempting to compile reasearch on the Sons and would like to find all articles including the Sons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.51.11.2 (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

One good way to conduct specialized searches of Wikipedia is with a domain specific google search. For example, if you instruct google to search only in en.wikipedia.org (see here for an example) and search for "sons of liberty" (in quotes), you will find the following 446 pages.[2] For more information on searching wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Searching. Thanks, TheronJ 16:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier information[edit]

I am trying to identify were my Grandfather was enlisted/served. I only have pictures of him in uniform but no other information. I know he served prior to 1930. His name was Oscar James Carr. Can you point me in the right direction? Can your site help me? Thank you Jennifer Buczek [email removed for your protection] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.226.138 (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there.

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. —Xhantar^Talk 16:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admindship[edit]

How does a person become a Wikipedia administrator? 'WiiWillieWiki→^{(Talk) (Contrib)} 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ADMIN and WP:RFA. Pea ceNT 16:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard you have to edit zillions of articles, walk through fire, and beat the man himself in a wrestling match :) Seriously though; what he said --^ —Xhantar^Talk 16:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! That was new, I didn't know :P Pea ceNT 16:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(disclaimer: I am not an admin) Not to be disrespectful to the questioner, but one of the skills an administrator needs is knowing his or her way around Wikipedia's policy and procedure documents well enough to find the answer to this sort of question. Many of those documents have shortcuts, so a good way would to start is to get familiar with the list of shortcuts and all the pages linked from there. Obviously that takes some time and work. A good way to test one's knowledge of these documents is to look up answers to questions here on the Help desk. Wikipedia is one of the most comprehensively-documented systems I have seen, so the answer to almost any question a new user is likely to ask (about how to use Wikipedia) will already be written down somewhere. Usually it is better to answer such questions by citing a reference than to rely on one's inexact personal recollection. --Teratornis 16:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, who are you making remarks on? Pea ceNT 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the questioner's question, and on your (laudable) manner of providing the answer. You replied to the questioner by citing Wikipedia policy documents via shortcuts. I explained that knowing how to do what you just did looks to me like something an administrator should know how to do. If a person has to ask how to become an administrator, he or she might not be ready to become one yet, because an administrator has to know how to look up lots more things that are harder to find. --Teratornis 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner may have asked only for further information on the issue s/he isn't sure about, I didn't notice that s/he wanted to become an administrator. :) Pea ceNT 02:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are correct. The questioner asked: How does a person become a Wikipedia administrator? Thus my remarks should not be on the questioner, but on a person. I apologize for my carelessness, and I'll see if I can find a microtome, to let me keep up with this level of hair-splitting. Just to clarify, so we avoid any diplomatic crisis, if a person wants to become an administrator, then first that person ought to be able to find pages such as WP:ADMIN and WP:RFA without asking another human specifically. Perhaps I would have done better had the question been, How did the existing administrators attain their lofty perch? But even then I might have mentioned that I suspect most of the existing administrators probably did not have to ask how to become administrators at the time they requested adminship, snarky as that may sound. Of course I have no way of knowing whether they did; I'm merely generalizing from my understanding of how the world works, as far as I have observed it. In purely meritocratic systems, the people with most of the answers often have some sort of power over the people with most of the questions (although some answers are more powerful than others, such as those pertaining to obtaining and operating the superior weaponry). This will probably hold true unless Moore's Law produces a technological singularity that renders all of us omniscient and therefore equal. --Teratornis 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam[edit]

Is this linkspam, or good stuff? Can I have a second opinion or two? AndyJones 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO good stuff, and probably in good faith - the website link gives access to a number of I believe free resources to help understand the plays better. Leave it up to other editors concerned with those articles whether they want to keep or whether they want to find other/better website resource guides. Cheers Lethaniol 17:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further reading I think there is likely better resource websites out there - but for the example I looked at - Taming of the Shrew - there is currently no other guides linked so a start at least. Cheers Lethaniol 17:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!!![edit]

I am make a user box & i have an image i want to put in it, but i cant figure out what do i put in it,help!--Lolicon(Down With Child Porn)Saikano 18:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried copying an existing userbox and changing the image to yours? It'd be easier. Xiner (talk, email) 18:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Warnings?[edit]

Why do I keep getting these messages about it being my last change and that I'm vandalizing the articles when I'm correcting information.

Question from User:Mphifer254, added by Cheers Lethaniol 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have answered at User talk:Mphifer254. Cheers Lethaniol 18:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT[edit]

Hi, I am trying to redirect Derek to Special:Allpages/Derek but without success ... maybe because the latter refers back to the former. Can anyone help? Abtract 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to redirect to special pages has been disabled. If I can make a recommendation, I think a disambiguation page would be a better idea, possibly ending with a "soft redirect" (e.g., "See also the following list of wikipedia pages with titles beginning with "Derek"") Thanks, TheronJ 19:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I will ponder and may have another q :Abtract 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of content[edit]

I am sure there is a policy/guideline out there that say something along the lines of - unless there is a very good reason for it, do not delete content - or something along those lines with a list of caveats. Can't find it, any one know where to look lol. Cheers Lethaniol 20:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note if anyone wants to know what this is concerning please see Talk:Waldorf education#Swedish Study, right lets go guideline reading. Cheers Lethaniol 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently quoted the very excerpt you seek. --Teratornis 03:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Anthony Union HS Alumni Websites[edit]

I need alumni websites for the high school in Bennington, Vermont. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.222.105.48 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You may wish to contact the alumni association of that school. Xiner (talk, email) 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Image[edit]

Greetings. I'm having far more difficulty implementing a random image (every time the page is refreshed a random image is chosen and displayed) on my wiki than should be necessary. First I looked for a script to do it, and found a very good php script. The way it works is you put the php file in the directory of the images that you want to randomly display, then put the url of the php file in your <img scr=> tag. Problem is, html is a no-no on wikis. No problem right? just use the [[Image:]] tag right? Wrong. Seems when you put a php file in place of an image file using that tag, the wiki creates a link to upload a file for some reason. Next I searched the mediawiki site for an extension, and found [3]. Perfect, right? I certainly had hoped so. But it seems that whenever I edit the page that I use the random image extension on, it forgets about any images uploaded before that point. Pretty useless for a user edited site, let alone the front page, where I planned to use it.

So can anyone tell me how to force mediawiki to blindly think the .php script is an image, or tell me what I'm doing wrong with the random image extension? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.12.165.210 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There is probably some other, easier, better, more correct way of achieving what you're trying to (in MediaWiki itself?), but this might do the trick:

If you're running Apache with mod_rewrite installed and enabled, plus have the necessary AllowOverride directive set to allow .htaccess files to override earlier access information, try creating a .htaccess file in the same directory where you have your PHP script, containing (for example):

RewriteEngine on
RewriteBase /somepath/
RewriteRule ^blah\.jpg$ blah.php [T=application/x-httpd-php]

Then, in blah.php, you'll need (and might already have) something like this:

header("Content-type: image/jpg");

Now, when you open (e.g.) http://www.whatever.com/somepath/blah.jpg in a web browser, the web server should actually execute blah.php instead, but send a header that tells your web browser that it's serving a JPEG image. So as far as your web browser is concerned, the file requested (blah.jpg) will also be the file your web server served (blah.jpg)—even though blah.php is actually what got executed...tee hee!

Hope this helps. —Xhantar^Talk 22:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Xhantar. Looks like that would have worked, but unfortunately, my host doesn't allow mod_rewrite. Any other suggestions?

I played around with Special:Random/Image a bit (see Wikipedia:Random), but couldn't figure how one would make it actually display the image it randomly links to—if that's even possible. You might want to try asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), for a broader audience. Also, the README of the script you mentioned talks about an option to do with caching. It isn't clear to me exactly what this does, but perhaps it explains the problem you're having with it "forgetting about any images uploaded before that point". I would be very interested in you happen to find a working solution. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. —Xhantar^Talk 11:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How Do I Add (Publish) A Page/Document?[edit]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolted01 (talk • contribs)

See here. Xiner (talk, email) 21:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a new user and want to start a new page. I have reviewed quite a bit of material on this page about starting a page, but I'm still not sure about one thing: does my page "go live" -- that is, is it available for public viewing -- from the moment that I create it?

I had planned to start the page by typing the page name into the Create Page box on Help:Starting a new page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Starting_a_new_page).

Then I had planned to fill it with text, formatted according to Wiki markup language.

But, do visitors to Wikipedia get to see my "work in progress"? Or is it "private" until I take some step to make it public?

And, is there some sort of approval process that my contributed page must go through before it "goes live" on the site?

In a similar vein, I'm wondering if the Sandbox is public or private.

When I go to this page and enter text and practice formatting, is it visible to the public?

Is there a way to start an article in the Sandbox, then later move it to "real" article status once the formatting has been checked in the Sandbox?

Thanks.

Ted

Ted nw 22:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can see it, everyone else can. Everything on Wikipedia is viewable by everyone else. Xiner (talk, email) 22:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xiner's right; as soon as you hit "save page" everyone will be able to see it. I think your idea of working on it in a sandbox is a good idea, because if you hit save before the article meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion for all articles, someone may delete it, not understanding that it's a work in progress. What I'd suggest doing is working on it in your userspace (see namespace for more info on what a "space" is). You can create a subpage of your user page by using a slash (/). So I'd go to User:Ted nw/sandbox or User:Ted nw/article draft or whatever you want to call the subpage, and work on it there. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. delldot | talk 22:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And delldot's right as well; another alternative is to tag the article with one of the "inuse" templates, e.g. {{inuse}} (more listed here), while you're still editing a work in progress, which will inform other editors of this fact. Just remember to remove the tag once you've finished. —Xhantar^Talk 22:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu mythology[edit]

In Hindu mythology names of Sur and Assur appears. Do they have any relation to Assyrians and Sumerians?

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. Trebor 22:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting, um, "space blocks".[edit]

This is sort of related to the very first question I ever asked here (if memory serves), way back when I was still a raw newbie (I'm more medium- to well-done now), but anyway:

When I start a sentence with a space, it gets me a block of...something, that looks like this:

This

A few questions about above-mentioned block, if I may:

What's it called?
Is it a template of some sort?
What's it officially meant to be used for?
Does it have the same effect as using <nowiki>...</nowiki> and/or <code>...</code>?

And most importantly:

Is there any way to indent this block of whatever, so it aligns nicely with any previously-indented text?

Thank you kindly. —Xhantar^Talk 22:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your initial questions, the text gets formatted by the MediaWiki software with a <pre></pre> element, which is designed to display a fixed-width font with minimal formatting (very similar to the <code> element). Pre elements can be aligned and stylised like other HTML elements. There may be a wiki markup to space it, and you can always use tables, but

you can also do this

or this

-- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks a lot. :) —Xhantar^Talk 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to make template values optional?[edit]

Say I have this template:

{{{name}}}
Owner	{{{owner}}}
Planet type	{{{planettype}}}
Star system	{{{starsystem}}}
Hunger/Thirst	{{{hunger}}}
Denari per sheckle	{{{denariworth}}}
Registered?	{{{registered}}}

Now, if on a page, for example, 'hunger' isn't defined, does anybody know how I can make the whole Hunger/Thirst line disappear, so it won't cause any problems when that specific value isn't defined?—Preceding unsigned comment added by VDZ (talk • contribs)

To do that, you can use a useful little function called #if. Basically, #if looks for a specific variable and will not activate if the variable is not present. So, if you wanted "hunger" to disappear if nothing was placed in that field, the syntax would be {{#if:{{{hunger|}}} <argument>, but you'd have to replace <argument> with a speciic task that you want #if to do if the variable is found. I don't know what that argument is for this specific example, though. PT O 00:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a sneaking suspicion this might have the desired effect:

{{#if:{{{hunger<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}| ! Hunger/Thirst {{!}} {{{hunger}}} }}

—Xhantar^Talk 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit while not logged in[edit]

I recently edited a page but forgot to log in beforehand, so I was wondering if there is anyway I could assign my username to the changes made? I'd prefer the IP address not to be shown but understand the mistake I made. If I were to revert the page (and then log in and make the same changes), would the IP address still be shown? Thanks!

Sbdlax22 23:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can change the fact that the IP address is shown, but one possibility is to make a dummy edit on the article, using a suitable edit summary to explain what happened. Other users here might have additional ideas, though. —Xhantar^Talk 23:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia looks small[edit]

I somehow brushed the lower left hand corner of my keyboard, and now all the fonts in Wikipedia are tiny. The whole page seems to be displayed at a smaller resolution. How do I fix it?

24.144.212.113 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Na Wikipedia is massive at 1.6 million edits. But seriously you have probably changed the text size on your browser - on FireFox or Internet Explorer go to View, Text Size and change there. If that does not work get back to us :):) Cheers Lethaniol 23:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Ah, you hit your control key. If you move the scrolling wheel on your mouse while holding control, the font size decreases. All you have to do to fix it is hold control again, and move the mouse wheel to get the text to a size that you can read. Cheers, PT O 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with information for article "St. Patrick's College, Ballarat"[edit]

URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Patrick%27s_College%2C_Ballarat

Hello,

I am a staff member at St. Patrick's College, Ballarat, and I've been asked to contact Wikipedia to obtain information and assistance. In our article, at the URL listed above, has the topic "History of Student Abuse". The topic defames the College's current operation, and I notice that a lot of people, including some that originate from the College's internet IP Address, are editing the article.

Some time ago, I asked for this to be looked in to, and someone did carry out the request. The article was tidied up for the good of the promotion of the college for the present day, and also the admin blocked our IP address from editing, which I also requested.

Could someone please review our article, in particular the topic I raised above, and the edits coming from our IP address - 203.208.66.79

We would appreciate any assistance and advice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.208.66.79 (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, I've taken a look at the article's history, and it appears as though most of the edits that introduced the defamatory material were made by 59.154.207.218, which doesn't appear to trace back to your school. Since most of the information that seems to be a problem is unreferenced, I will work on trying to remove it.

As for edits being made by your school's IP address, it does appear to be a highly abused address, and in fact received a final warning for vandalism earlier today. If it continues, I will suggest that administration place an indefinite soft block on that address. This will prevent unregistered users from vandalizing Wikipedia from your school, but will allow good faith editors such as yourself to log in to existing accounts and contribute.

If there's anything else we can do, please let us know. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 00:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image copyright[edit]

Hi,

I'm getting notices that an image I've uploaded will be deleted in a week if the copyright is not explained. I'm really not sure what to do. It's an album cover, which I see on Wikipedia all the time, and I believe it to be public domain. I saw Gflores, a former administrator, post an image for a different album by the same band. How does one normally go about choosing the copyright for album covers? The image Gflores posted was 'John Zorn-Naked City (album cover)' for the page 'Naked City (album)'. I'm trying to post 'Leng Tch'e cover' for the page 'Leng Tch'e'.

Thanks, Karl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K d f m (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm already looking for the template you need. I'll reply on your talk page. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 00:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to add the {{Albumcover}} tag, and also indicate the source of the actual image. Album covers are normally copyrighted, but usable under fair use. More info is at WP:IUP and WP:FU, and -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. :) Hersfold ^(talk|work) 01:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]