Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 December 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.

December 15

Fair use

If an actor, model, or other celebrity is dead, can we use an image of them taken from a magazine in the infobox for their article? Dismas|^(talk) 00:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Fair use images typically get deleted because they're replaceable with free alternatives. Unless someone with a free image comes along that is less likely for dead people and you can't go out and take one. You should be okay with fair use here. =Mgm|^(talk) 00:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks. Dismas|^(talk) 01:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

However, fair use images create problems, because for example we cannot upload them to Commons to allow other language Wikipedias to use them. (While the English Wikipedia is the largest single Wikipedia, it only accounts for about one quarter of the total articles, and most of the other Wikipedias cannot use fair use images, as "fair use" seems to be legal quirk in the United States and few other countries. Very roughly speaking, for every user helped by a fair use image, perhaps three are inconvenienced.) One should only use a fair use image if all of the following are true:

• An article really needs an image.
• No freely-licensed image exists anywhere.
• We don't care about maximizing the efficiency of the other language Wikipedias.

Commons already has millions of free images, many of them under-utilized on the English Wikipedia, on a huge variety of topics (but probably not the one you want, due to Murphy's law). It's often easier to browse through Commons to see what images are available, and look up articles to put them in, than to start with an arbitrary article and try to find images for it. After you spend lots of time on Commons, you might eventually find an image suitable for some article you were thinking about in the past. For example, in the course of some quasi-related image sorting on Commons, I recently found some images that are suitable for Wind power in Ohio, an article that I had thought about improving some months earlier. On Wikipedia the obvious approach is not always the most fruitful in the long run. Often it is easier to adjust the goal to fit the available resources, than to try to find the resources to advance a particular goal. Things often work better when we opportunistically pick the low-hanging fruit. So you might spend some time on image sorting on Commons, and keep the current frustrating image search on the back burner for a while. Later, you might discover more sources of free images, and find one that satisfies your original goal. --Teratornis (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I might add that Wikipedia could tighten (or, possibly, loosen) its rules for fair use images at any time. If you can find a free image, it is less likely to go poof at some future date when the rules change. (Wikipedia has made sweeping rule changes in the past as a result of problems resulting from content on Wikipedia, for example see: Seigenthaler incident. Wikipedia might be just one lawsuit away from banning all fair use images.) Also, the definition of what is OK on Wikipedia really means whatever is OK to whoever decides to edit an article next. Using a fair use image might set you at odds with some anti-fair-use crusader at some point. That is, just because the Help desk says it's OK doesn't automatically convince the other 47,335,279 users. Even if it is OK, you might still have to convince some of them. --Teratornis (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The death of the subject make no difference. The copyright belongs to the photographer, or whoever they assign it to, regardless. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The current policy is at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (which has the interesting shortcut: WP:FUC). --Teratornis (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've been through WP's legal/image mumbo-jumbo before and it's all Greek to me. I'm not a lawyer and I don't intend to be one. I just wanted to add some photos of dead Playboy Playmates to their articles. I wanted an explanation that a five year old can understand and that's what I think I've been given here and I thank you guys for it.

For a long time, I just gave up on images entirely. I didn't even upload movie posters and use them on the article for the movie because of the hoops that I had to jump through. I took a trip to Boston and uploaded some photos from that thinking that it would be easier because I was the photographer. That went poorly as well and one of my photos was nearly deleted.

So, now I've been told that I can add a small photo from a magazine of a dead person if I add the fair use template and fill out the information. Once I get it right on one image, I'll just copy, paste, and change the names. I realize that it will only be good enough for the English WP, but that's all I can handle right now. I don't have the days that it would take to comprehend even a page worth of WP image policies. /rant Dismas|^(talk) 01:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So I can't figure out what this is called to look it up...the +/- thing

So I keep seeing things like this:

(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Imperialism‎; 03:35:07 . . (+96) . . Theeagleman (Talk | contribs) (→This article needs major revisions: thanks)

And I can't for the life of me figure out what the bolded part means. Who assigns those numbers? What do they mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeagleman (talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Read Help:History and Help:Recent changes. --Teratornis (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the difference in bytes between the new version and the previous version of the article, calculated automatically when the edit is saved. (+3) means somebody added a few letters, (+1,256) means somebody added a substantial amount of text, (-32,886) means somebody probably blanked the page... you get the idea. --Fullobeans (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is my page designated as "vandalism"?

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Helpers at Wikipedia,

I added an article to Wikipedia including my bio and list of compositions. Although I do not see anything wrong with it I am getting the following message:

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you."

I would like to know is there is something wrong with my article titled "'Ofer Ben-Amots (Composer)'" .

Thank you so much for your help.

Ofer Ben-Amots —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obenamots (talk • contribs) 04:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:N, which explains our notability requirements. You do appear to be notable, but you need to assert that by providing links to reliable third-party news sources. I just did a Google News search and saw quite a few. Once you've added sources to confirm your notability, you should probably leave the article alone and let other editors work on it, since we discourage people from writing autobiographies due to the obvious conflict of interest. I'm sure the editor who warned you about vandalism assumed you were one of the many people who write fake articles every day, but sorry about that. Just read the links in this paragraph and act accordingly, and you shouldn't run into any problems. --Fullobeans (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank Fullobeans for the above reply and also add this additional information:

It looks like you made a technical error, and someone thought you did it on purpose, that's probably why they called it vandalism. When you first made the new page, you erased an existing page at this location:

• Osborne (computer retailer)

You can see the list of edits you have done on your "contribs" page, that you access by clicking the link the says "User contributions" in the left-hand navigation list that is visible when you view your user page. You can also see your contribs by clicking on this link: [1]

Because you erased information that had previously been in that article, it looked like you were doing "vandalism", even though in this situation, it was just a mistake it seems that you did not actually intend to replace the page that was there before.

Don't take it personally! There is much to learn about editing Wikipedia. Start at this page:

• the Five Pillars

...to learn about the basic policies that guide the writing of the encyclopedia. Good luck with your editing, and feel free to ask more questions any time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the vandalism warning is from 31 July 2007.[2] I saw that by clicking the "history" tab. The editor should have signed the warning so the date appeared, but failed to do so. It was a few days earlier, 28 July 2007, you (probably by accident) replaced the content of Osborne (computer retailer) with your biography in this edit. It was reverted on 31 July in [3] by the editor who warned you 5 minutes later. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To all of you guys, Thank you very very much! I am new to Wikipedia and I have absolutely no idea what I am doing and if it is correct of not. Thus, any help is greatly appreciated and if I keep making all kinds of errors please forgive me in advance :) , about the vandalism: I noticed one day in 2007 that my page was actually hijacked by some Osborne (computer retailer). This appears in the history of my original page. Additionally Osborne's page stated clearly that it was redirected from the Ofer Ben-Amots page. I also read that the Osborne page is not active anymore and maybe I was a bit too hasty but I went into my own page with my original password and re-edited it. I hope this is not vandalism but if it is, it was never meant to be. Another issue is the "autobiography" subject. I understand that there might be a conflict of interest and that it's better for a third party to do the editing. My intention was to forward the editing and maintaining job to a publicist but it was too early without any article whatsoever. I keep editing the page and adding sources and links to it. I am not sure how much is enough and what exactly is missing. I know for a fact that there is nothing offensive about the information provided, no copyright violations and that everything there, while not amazing and awesome, is at least accurate and factual. Again, many thanks for past and future help. I am not sure if this is the way to respond to this thread but I am going to save it anyway :) Obenamots (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How does the average reader report VERY BASIC vandalism?

I've been looking for half an hour for a way to report a plain-old case of writing bad words down for fun, but I can't find a place to report it.

The entry, by the way, is THE GIVER. Which, I assume, is does NOT have a setting of "a fag utopia, where all possible steps are taken to eliminate phins gayness."

But perhaps that is an issue for the discusion board?

04:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.56.223 (talk)

If someone writes nonsense, you can simply "undo" the change yourself to put the article back to the way it was before. You can click the "edit" tab at the top of the page, and then remove the extra words by editing the page, just like when you asked your question here.

To learn more about editing pages, go to this link: Help:Editing.

If the vandalism is repeated and becomes a problem, there are ways to report that, but for now you don't need to do that. If it turns out you do need to report it, you are welcome to post a new question here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

after undoing the vandalism, if you want to leave a warning on the vandal's talk page, you can find instructions for that here: WP:Warning. Sssoul (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have reverted the vandalism ([4]). Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Icewedge (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to figure out what the original wording was, click on "history" (it's right next to "edit"); there you'll find a list of all the edits which have ever been made to that article, with the most recent edit listed first. Click on "last," and you'll be shown the difference between the most recent version and the one before that. And I believe The Giver was about a poop utopia, where all possible steps are taken to eliminate phins kelli wuz here.--Fullobeans (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Offering photographs to Wikipedia authors

I have a large archive of good quality photographs. I do not want to edit articles or contibute photographs uninvited, I want to offer my photographs to Wikipedia authors so that they can choose whether they want to use them. How do I do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, be bold, we like it when people are bold - we like to think that this is the encyclopaedia that anyone can contribute to so you don't need an invitation to jump right in. Probably one of the best things you can do is to upload them to Wikimedia Commons if you own them and are prepared to licence them freely. Once on Commons they can be included on articles on all of Wikipedia's language versions, like here on the English language Wikipedia. Wikipedians actively scour Commons for images to add to articles so it's a good way to contribute without feeling that you're stepping on anyone's toes. Also, images on Commons can be used by anyone for anything, potentially allowing anyone in the world to see them. For more information on Commons, see Commons:Project scope and Commons:Licensing. Nanonic (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nanonic, Wikipedia and the Commons do welcome your photos and your contributions will be appreciated. But you should be aware that once you upload them, you will lose control of your photos and anyone will be able to use them for any purpose, even if you don't agree about it. You cannot change your mind and take back control later. By uploading them, you agree to the license that is used either here on Wikipedia (GNU Free Documentation License) or the license that's used on Commons (Commons:Licensing), depending where you upload them. Since you cannot take back control of your photos later after you do that, you should read the pages that describe the licenses and be sure that you understand them before you make your decision. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Issue with an image

I don't think that the image on the Kathy Shower article is Shower herself. The editor that added the image claims to be the photographer. But why is this the image, that doesn't show the subject's face very well at all, being used here? And this is supposed to be a recent photo of a 55 y.o. woman? I don't believe it. What can/should I do to raise my suspicions somewhere? WP:PUI doesn't seem to apply since I don't doubt that the image is free. I just doubt its veracity. Dismas|^(talk) 06:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• The article talk page would be a good spot. Personally, I don't think there's much reason to doubt the image accuracy. Based on the subject, it's not unlikely she had a few plastic surgeries done and if you look at her skin, an age of 45-55 isn't unlikely. As for the image not showing her face well. I'm guessing it's the best we've got. - 131.211.211.251 (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it's fair to be suspicious, and I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be an established protocol for such situations. I would think there'd at least be a Commons template, but no. I'd say comment on the talk pages for the image, the article, and the uploader (both here and on Commons), and/or ask at the Commons help desk. For the time being, I just removed the image and put up a less objectionable one, which was uploaded by the same editor but which looks more like a standard fan photograph. --Fullobeans (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

131.211.211.251, I'm guessing you were looking at the new image; this is the one Dismas was referring to. --Fullobeans (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• That anon was me. Yes, the original image was very suspect. I wish you put a not safe work warning up, though, I forgot the subject's topic... - Mgm|^(talk) 11:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that. She wasn't really showing anything, so I didn't even think of it. Dismas|^(talk) 11:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I can't vouch for the photo's veracity, but the Kathy Shower article claims the subject was a PMOY at age 33, which would mean she must have looked a dozen years younger than her age then. Considering that the PMOY is supposed to represent the most attractive woman who can be persuaded to disrobe for the camera in a given year, it's not out of the question to suppose the woman in the File:Kat barcelona 08.jpg photo could be that same woman 22 years later. Different people age at different rates, and a PMOY at age 33 is probably on a slower aging schedule than the average person. --Teratornis (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Self assessment of articles

There is a discussion on WP:SHIPS at the moment about self-assessing articles. As this is something relevant to all articles, it is deserving of a wider audience.

Q: Is self-assessment of articles allowed, allowed under certain circumstances, or not allowed at all?

My view is that self-assessment is OK for Stub class articles, and non-article classes such as List, Disambig, etc. Start/C/B class should be assessed by an independant editor who has not substantially contributed to the article (minor spelling/grammar changes are OK).

Comments please. Mjroots (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment says (for instance), B, Start and Stub class "May be assigned by any reviewer". I see no problem in anyone assigning them to articles they have just been working on - it saves everyone effort. If a mistake is made, then anyone else can come along and correct it. It is not like B, Start or Stub are particularly sought-after honours (unlike GA, A or FA...) The Land (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Following on from the answer above, I would agree that self-assessment is fine. You may not review your own GA nominations, and FA nominations are reviewed and approved/rejected by FAC. But I personally have reviewed by own articles between "stub" and "B"; as long as you understand the criteria for each assessment level, you should be fine. If you can, look at your work with neutrality, and if you aren't sure, consult another user to look at it independently. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"It is not like B, Start or Stub are particularly sought-after honours" - I always feel it's been a job well done when an article I create gets an initial assessment of B class. Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

posting some ones profile to wikipedia

hi i would like to post my profile to wikipedia how can i do this thanks charlie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonyem (talk • contribs) 12:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What sort of profile were you hoping to post? Remember that Wikipedia is not anything like MySpace or your personal webhost. However, you may put information on you user page, as long as it doesn't break any of the requirements (listed on the linked page). If you want to write an article about yourself, please thoroughly read WP:COI, WP:BIO and WP:AUTO. Though it's not technically forbidden, it is strongly advised against, as it is hard for the subject to maintain a neutral point of view. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, which means our articles must be on subjects which have been already recognized by the world by being published about in independent (meaning wholly unrelated to you), reliable, secondary sources. A core content policy here, thus, is that information in articles must be verified by citation to such sources. For the vast majority of people and things in the world, that can't be done because the subject has not caught the world's interest, so no one has done such publication. Every day we get thousands of articles about companies, bands, people, etc. which exist in the world but have no claim that makes them worthy of being the subject of a reference encyclopedia and the article are deleted. There are additional policies and guidlesines involved such as our neutral point of view policy and our policy against original research. Please see Wikipedia:Autobiography for an overview.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There options other than Wikipedia, such as Wikipopuli and Wikibios. – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

ApawkG

Somebody block ApawkG as a sockpuppet of UnrealSpiritX. HairyPerry 14:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue. Please see WP:SPP or WP:AN, and remember to provide evidence. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is, indeed, the wrong venue, but I'm familiar with this vandal so I've blocked User:ApawkG thru User:ApawkK. But Hairy, he's right, next time try WP:AIV and provide a bit of evidence so someone not familiar will be able to make an informed block. --barneca (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing my signature

Resolved

Help, please - what am I doing wrong? I want to move away from my usual signature to something else. I can get the first bit linked up to my user page, but the second bit (the "coming!" bit) has no link associated with it to my talk pafe. What am I doing wrong?.

This is the code I am using: '''[[User:StephenBuxton|Stephen!]]''' ^{<small>''[[User talk:StephenBuxton|Coming]]!''</small>}

Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming! 16:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - it does work fine. I was just trying it out on my talk page - of course the link won't work. D'oh! Stephen! ^Coming! 17:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your signature appears to work for me (i.e. the "Coming!" does link to your talk page). However, if you were testing it on your talk page, the link would not appear to work. TN‑X-Man 17:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Uploading Photos Correctly

Hello, I need help with uploading photos correctly to the Siena College wikipedia page. I am a representative for the College and therefore own all of the rights to the photos. So far I have uploaded the photos to Wikimedia Commons three separate times but each time all of the photos have been deleted with the reasoning being that they "violate copyright" and are "unfree". I need to know where to upload them and what information to supply on the upload page so that they will not be deleted. The problem isn't that they aren't valid, it's that I don't know the proper information to supply on the upload page. It is important that the photos are uploaded to the College's wikipedia page in order to complete the article. If you could provide me with the way to upload photos correctly that would be much appreciated. Thanks. User: Siena4

Hi there. You will need to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the evidence that you own the photographs, and that you are willing to license them under Creative Commons. An OTRS representative will then verify this and tag the pages. In the meantime, please re-upload them and place {{OTRS-pending}} in the upload form, and then send your immediately as soon as possible. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations in infoboxes

Is it acceptable to use the <ref> tag in an infobox? I seem to remember seeing that this was frowned upon, but I don't know for sure. Thanks, Hermione1980 18:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, perfectly acceptable to use a ref. Personally, if the info is repeated elsewhere I think it looks better if the ref is in the main body of text, but that's just my preference. 18:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I totally agree with whoever posted before me. If you can put it in the main text, it's probably better, otherwise it's better to reference something in an infobox rather than leaving it unreferenced. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Thanks again, Hermione1980

How do I

How do I input a space when before my comment when posting an answer. I see this ":" a lot. Is this how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbhoy2805 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's it! DuncanHill (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, the ":" is inserting an indent. Two of those "::" will put in 2 indents, 3 does 3, and so on. flaminglawyer^cneverforget 19:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbhoy2805 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

But don't overdo it otherwise...

...you end up way over here! – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Or just do this. — neuro^(talk) 02:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

POV Vandalism

This guy keeps making sectarian POV edits to the "War against Islam" page. Here's his link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BoogaLouie - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.138.217 (talk • contribs)

This isn't the appropriate page for this. — neuro^(talk) 02:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Assistance regarding a controversy

Dearest Wikipedians,

This may or may not be the correct location to talk about the issue I'm going to discuss and ask for the assistance but I followed this link from Jimmy Wales user info of Wikipedia for any complaints but still I do apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause. I truly agree and appreciate the level of promptness and correctness of the articles, Wikipedia maintains. But I've a suggestion regarding a semi locked article. Recently, I visited the article "Muhammad" (pbuh) and saw a controversial conversation in the 'Talk' about removal of the image Maome.jpg. Wikipedia admins are having a strong view point that only 'fundamental islamists or extremists' are against the removal of the image; the image depicts a better understanding of the article; the image has been moved to the bottom of the article as a favor and the admins suggest to configure browser to not to display the image, if the readers don't want. But in fact, that's totally not correct. Let me explain a bit about it. In Islam, there is no picture of Prophet Muhammad. Muslims do love valuer and respect Prophet Muhammad above all things utmost and any of the images of the Prophet exhibit a lack of respect regarding virtuousness and pureness of divine and devout faith. Thus these show disrespect and are discourteous of course!

Now about the image, I'm not sure on how and where it came from and why it was added to the article (there are not solid proofs to believe that it was from the scripture of Abu Rayhan Biruni as there are no images of the Prophet in the all history of Islam). Neither does it show any subtitles nor it has any sort of descriptive information printed by the calligrapher (which as per your article is Abu Rayhan Biruni) and so it is not required to be included in the article. No Muslim will create a picture not any image of the Prophet as this will hurt the Muslims' emotions. In real, I strongly believe that this picture is of one of several 'Sufis' or saints (check for Sufism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi) that has been irrelevantly referred to the Prophet Muhammad. I've seen a lot of such pictures which describe saints preaching religion in a few calligraphic exhibitions. So, this image Maome.jpg should be in 'Sufi' article.

So, here by I request Wikipedia super moderators to please assist me in this regards by removing the image Maome.jpg from article entitled "Muhammad". In case if you strictly abide by your rules and you cannot remove the image (though I hope this is NOT impossible as the article is semi protected) then please remove the citation below the picture.

Hopefully, you'll assist.

Many Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashukhan (talk • contribs)

It's not going to happen. Removal of such images has been discussed ad nauseam. The decision of the community is not to delete them as Wikipedia is not censored. If you want to discuss the caption, please do so on the article's talk page. And by the way, there are no moderators on Wikipedia.  – ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not censored" because users are given freehand and anyone can give suggestion based on good-faith. If that has been discussed extensively in your community being 'ad nauseam' please consider the points I mentioned in my earlier post. The discussion is useless as there are no images of Prophet Muhammad in the history of Islam! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashukhan (talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia servers are located in Florida in the United States, so it's the law of that state and the US Federal Law Wikipedia should follow. Also, Wikipedia is visited by millions if not billions of non-Muslims. It's not fair to push restrictions on them when neither their country's law nor their religion prohibits showing the image. -- Mgm|^(talk) 21:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad/Images there is some information on why the images have been kept by consensus, as well as a way for you to block the images so that you personally don't have to look at them. (In particular look at the "Frequently Asked Questions" section up the top.) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 21:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

question about contributors to a page

I just have one quick question and I have looked all around without success to see if it was already answered.

On any given page, is there a way to see a list of who all the contributors were to that specific page? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quietreef1962 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the only way to see that is to click the "History" tab at the top of the article. Hermione1980 20:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• If I remember correctly. The leftmost external link at the top of the history page links to a tool that turns it into a nice list of editors sorted by their number of edits to that page.- Mgm|^(talk) 21:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a neat tool. I never even saw that. Learn something new every day, it seems. Hermione1980 21:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

When you say "were to," do you mean "edited" or "visited?" To see the edit history, click history. (captain obvious strikes again!) Fortunately, there's no way to see who's visited a particular page. flaminglawyer^cneverforget 21:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Since they specifically said contributors, I took it to mean edited. Visitors don't contribute anything. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Transcluding My Subpage

Hello! I recently installed a Javascript status changer. Everything is working fine except for the fact that my user page (where I've transcluded my /Status page) doesn't display the update until I edit my user page. I have tried clearing my cache and nothing has happened. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Purge and Wikipedia:Editor activity indicator. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:QUI > WP:STATUS. It's a fact. ;) — neuro^(talk) 02:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

server crash by deleting the sandbox?

When Scientizzle deleted the sandbox, why did it crash the servers? It seems to have no correlation to me. flaminglawyer^cneverforget 21:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• The sandbox had a history that was particularly large and the server couldn't handle the request to delete all the revisions properly. A patch has been put in place to stop this sort of thing from happening again. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• The offending bug is tracked here. —Noah 21:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)