Help desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 12 >

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.

January 11[edit]

List of wikimarkup using < and >[edit]

Is there a list of all the wikimarkup that begin and end with "<" and ">"? If part of the answer is that all or most HTML is allowed, then is there a list of this type of markup that is unique to Wikipedia?

At the moment, I'm particularly interested in what <cite> is all about, but a list would be handy for the future. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a complete list, too. I'm familiar with <ref> (see Wikipedia:Citing sources) and {{cite book}} (see Template:cite book) (and similarly cite web, cite news, cite journal) but not <cite> in angle brackets. For various html and other codes, see for example Help:Editing and Help:Wikitext examples. Codes like {{cite book}} etc. are templates; ordinary users such as you and I can create templates like that too. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<cite> isn't wikimarkup, it's just the html tag. Algebraist 02:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help:HTML in wikitext documents which HTML is allowed (I got curious myself and tried Help:HTML, which is a redirect). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

colored username[edit]

i've seen some users' names colored, and would like to know how this is done. -Paradox King (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's done in your preferences (the my preferences link at the very top of the page). This link: Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature will guide you in how to customise your signature with colour and font etc. Astronaut (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanx-Paradox King (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, again) Sorry, didn't notice until too late you changed your reply - you asked "exactly how to change the colour

The easiest thing is to use the page editing function in Wikipedia to take a look at a signature you like the look of - ie. learn from what other people have done. In practice, you use HTML to change the colour. In theory, you can use any colour you want. However, it is probably best to stick with those considered "web safe" in the Web colors article.

For example, I put:

    [[User:Astronaut|<span style="color:green">Astronaut</span>]] [ [[User talk:Astronaut|<span style="color:blue">talk</span>]] ]

and ticked the "Raw Signature" in my preferences, and it produced a signature like this: Astronaut [ talk ] 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.....Or like this BonesBrigade 04:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now reverted back :-) Astronaut (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Deleting[edit]

How do I delete my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolai460 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been marked for speedy deletion - if you don't object to it being deleted, then you don't need to do anything. An admin will check that it meets the criteria for speedy deletion, and then delete it. I will give you a "welcome box" on your talk page, which has lots of useful links to help you find your way about. DuncanHill (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded Image requesting deletion[edit]

I uploaded an image and I can't figure out how to put it on my page, so I need it deleted entirely. What do I do? My page is Royal District Nursing Service and my image is RDNS Logo.jpgKat7202 (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a demonstration of how to do what you want in my sandbox. I decided not to edit the article, because I don't think a logo adds much to the article. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blend color[edit]

how exactly do i "blend colors into each other?

So Bluetored becomes a smooth blend from blue to red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradox King (talk • contribs) 03:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is no way to do this support by Wikimedia software; a letter cannot be more than one colour. However, you can make each letter a slightly darker or lighter shade than the one before it, which gives the illusion of blending. To do this, just give each letter a different hex triplet value. It might take a bit of experimentation, though. For example; Test turns into Test. Hope that helps! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, great help

-Paradox K. 06:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)_{it worked!}

Bluetored Feedback ^☎ 08:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking our Enlarge Function[edit]

Thanks Gerry! Is there anyway I can delete the box enlargement option around the logo?Kat7202 (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not experimented much with ways of presenting images in Wikipedia articles. I suggest you copy it to your sandbox and experiment. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, Kat7202; if you've ever got questions for a specific editor, please leave them on that editors talk page. For example, Gerry's would be User talk:Gerry Ashton, and mine would be User talk:Master of Puppets. Thanks! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

text edit[edit]

does anyone know hoe]w i could change the font and size of a section of text? -Paradox K. 07:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You can use HTML, many of the HTML markups work in Wiki also. Experiment off the page first though please, use the Sandbox. SpinningSpark 08:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this question relates to an article (rather than your own user space) then you migh want to also look here in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. SpinningSpark 12:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clasifications of Water[edit]

what are the classification of water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.211 (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A better place to post this question would be on the Science section of the Reference Desk. This page is for answering questions on how to use Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 08:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living person not in "Living Persons" category, and maybe it should be deleted anyway (the article not the person)[edit]

Rick_DiMaio is not a very good article IMO. I just undid some vandalism and noticed that it is not in the category of "Living Persons" (the main purpose, as I understood it, of which was to help prevent vandalism). Looking more at the article though, it is unreferenced and has some dodgy (libelous?) text, and I don't know if this broadcaster from Chicago is that notable anyway.

So, what's the best way to get more experienced Wikipedians to look at these issues? TresÁrboles (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant the category "Living people". TresÁrboles (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was speedy deleted, because the person was considered not to be notable (important) enough. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lost article[edit]

There is an article in the English Wikipedia on a popular cultures to each other, I find it difficult to reach them now because Non Remember title, Can anyone guide my, Thanks and Excuse my English--87.230.169.131 (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think everybody would love to assist you but with over 2 million articles it is kinda hard to make a guess. Perhaps Popular culture studies might interest you. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can remember any exact words from the article, you can Search Wikipedia with Google for articles that contain those words. For best results, try to remember some uncommon words that the article contains. You might also check your Web browser's history feature. For example, if you are clever enough to be running Mozilla Firefox, you can click View | Sidebar | History and see lists of pages you have visited recently. You might also be interested in Desktop search software, if you are in the habit of forgetting where you saw some Web pages that you wish to see again. --Teratornis (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a value calculated from more than one source[edit]

I was wondering how to cite the info in this section that says Columbia has "a physician density that is about 3 times the United States average". I cited two sources that I got that info from, but that's not the whole story. One source says how many physicians Columbia has and the other is data on the physician density in the U.S. There is a third source here that says what the physician density is in the U.S. until 2004. There is a significant increase from 2004 to 2005 between the sources, so I'm not sure which is correct(hence the use of "about" in the sentence). Finally, I just took the amount of physicians in Columbia divided by the population given in this article to find Columbia's physician density- 8.48 physicians per 1000 people compared to the values given in the sources (2.4 or 2.9). How can I say all this in an in text citation? Breakyunit (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not try to cram three references into one citation. Instead, it would be better to add an explanation to the article similar to what you wrote above, and cite individual sources to go along with the individual claims. If it takes a paragraph to explain what's behind that number, then the article needs that paragraph. Especially when sources conflict, it is better (and more honest) to show details of the inconsistency, rather than mislead the reader into thinking the final result is cleaner than it actually is. On Wikipedia we are to strive for the neutral point of view, so if sources disagree, we should present the disagreement, rather than taking a side on which number is right. --Teratornis (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template citeweb[edit]

I tried to sort out ref 33 on Abdullah_Öcalan and can't see what I have done wrongly. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assisted the editor with his editing. Should be solved now. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges and dams[edit]

please tell me any website about bridges and dams? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.101.32.57 (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A better place to post this question would be on the Humanities section of the Reference Desk. This page is for answering questions on how to use Wikipedia. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a Web site about bridges and dams, among other things. See: Bridge, Dam, Category:Bridges, Category:Dams. --Teratornis (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with categorization[edit]

An article I created (euan heng) shows as being uncategorized, indeed shows as the bottom as being included in a category named 'uncategorized'. However, I did attempt to categorize the article and it does show at the bottom as being in those categories. I wondered if I have done something incorrectly or whether it is just a question of waiting and the page will eventually update so it no longer shows as being uncategorized.--80.192.42.183 (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page had the template {{uncat}} in its text. This template was the source of the message on the page that said the article was uncategorized, as well as for causing the addition of an "uncategorized" category :D Basically, you did nothing wrong. I removed the template for you, but if we would have let it stay, a robot would have eventually removed it automatically once it would have noticed your changes. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy that covers numbered labeling of diagrams[edit]

Is there a policy that covers numbered labeling of diagrams (i.e. to make translation easier)? If so, can you direct me to it? Thanks. --137.120.3.248 (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that there is an actual policy. These kinds of issues are covered by the Manual of Style which is classed as a guideline rather than a policy. The relevant sections of the MoS are;

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Captions and,
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Bulleted and numbered lists

The captions section does not seem to even consider the possibility of numbering and I get the feeling from the lists section that numbering is deprecated. That's not to say you should not do it if you have a valid need. You might also want to read;

Wikipedia:Captions

which says the same as the MoS but in more detail.
Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) sounds as if it ought to be relevant but I could not see anything in it at a quick glance that would help you. But feel free to look yourself. SpinningSpark 13:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of See also sections from articles[edit]

I read somewhere that a recent policy is that See also sections are to be removed once the subject is mentioned in the article in question. I think that See also sections are useful in their own right, since sometimes one has neither the time nor inclination to read an entire article to discover other related subjects. Where is the policy to which I am referring (I've already checked a few help pages (found via See also that do not suggest the removal of See also sections). --137.120.3.248 (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such a policy does not exist. However, it is true that many things that are usually initially mentioned in See also sections can later be removed because they are properly "worked into" the article. For instance take a look at Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. The various related topics that originally most likely were present in the article have so well been integrated into the article, that there isn't really any use for a See also section. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the time an article reaches WP:FAC, most see also sections have been worked into the text. Lots of "see alsos" are seen by some reviewers as signs that the article is not comprehensive. Woody (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting references / footnotes to show[edit]

I have today created an article about the French flute-player and teacher Joseph Rampal (a companion piece to my entry for his more famous son, Jean-Pierre Rampal). But the footnote references I have inserted do not show on the page, andI';m not sure how to correct this. Can this small adjustment be made please? Thanks. Peter Griffiths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkgriffiths (talk • contribs) 13:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake you made was that you needed to add a reference list template at the place you want the references to appear, like this;
{{reflist}}
I have done this for you while I had the article open. However, you also need to look at reference 12 which seems to have some of the article text trapped inside the citation tags.

Couple of other points about posting here. Firstly, you should sign your posts with four tildes like so, ~~~~. This will add your signature and timestamp as, for example, mine is added below. Secondly, it helps us to answer your question if you provide a link to the article in question. You do this by enclosing the article name in double square brackets like so; [[Joseph Rampal]], which appears as a link, like so; Joseph Rampal.

Happy editing, SpinningSpark 13:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is it me...[edit]

User:Xdc-evs/XDC placed a help me on their page. I responded by setting up a talk page User talk:Xdc-evs/XDC but upon closer looking came across this User talk:Xdc-evs which has quite a few warnings attached. (Spot the difference). To me the similarity between the article and the user name(s) has confused at least me. As an aside it should be nominated for speedy deletion anyway IMO, but another editor should have a look at the request for help first. Is there a way of bringing to editors (meaning me)notice such close similarity, either by accident or IMHO in this case deliberate actions. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 13:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one user and no mainspace article. The slash in User:Xdc-evs/XDC means it is a user subpage of User:Xdc-evs. User subpages are often used to work on drafts of articles. {{helpme}} should be placed on user talk pages so it should have been on User talk:Xdc-evs. "Xdc-evs" is a problematic user name per Wikipedia:Username policy#Company/group names. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the username, as it's an obvious violation (and the editor has a COI problem as well, it appears). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm... isn't that a bit harsh? Yes there were obvious issues, but editing Wikipedia isn't easy these days. I can understand people's problem with writing proper articles and we can only get anywhere if we ourselves put some effort into assisting users that are not as knowledgeable about wikipedia than we are. I see no real issues with the users behaviour since the last time he was warned. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you blocked for username violation. nvmd :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

This is a question that I've been wondering for some time now... if Wikipedia doesn't count votes, but arguments, and the closing admin (in AfDs etc.) decides which the best argument is and acts upon it (so, theoretically, a majority of the votes can be disregarded), can't they close it in their favour? -- Menti fisto 14:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no "their favour" under our neutral point of view policy. (That's why the closer should not be anyone who has taken part in the discussion on either side.) An admin who is not genuinely regarding our policies and standards in these matters will have complaints filed against him/her, and in extreme cases can suffer consequences. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know but even if they don't take part they can still have an opinion - and they can close it stating some personal argument to support the close saying that consensus has been reached in that direction. -- Menti fisto 15:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can but they shouldn't. It is possible to challenge closing decisions on deletions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Arthena^(talk) 18:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

picture[edit]

hi,i have a very good picture of rhydian roberts but how do i put it on his profile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.131.100 (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you make the photo yourself ? If so than you can upload it here. If you did not make the photo yourself, than it is probably not an image we are allowed to use in Wikipedia. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme[edit]

How come I have published a page and uploaded a file and yert when I dfo a "search" nothing can be ffound on the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toolah (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page you have made is on your user page at User talk:Toolah. I would also advise that wikipedia is not an advertising medium, and would ask that you remove it from your user space. Thanks. You may wish to refer to WP:CSD#G11 as well. Pedro : Chat 14:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheMeasure[edit]

I've written an article on a local band that keeps getting deleted. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SalmonKing (talk • contribs) 15:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not being an administrator I can't see the content of the deleted page but the deletion log says that it did not assert notability try reading this and this and see if it meets those criteria. Harland1 (^t/_c) 15:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it it's characterization is as a local band I don't need to see the page to tell you that it won't satisfy notability requirements. WP:MUSIC generally asserts that a band must have a fairly good chart placement, major label album, multiple independent label albums, or any one of a few other criteria satisfied before it is notable enough for an article.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision history error; Biodiesel[edit]

There is a problem in the revision history of Biodiesel. I undid revision 183328408, [[1]], by User:68.14.36.186; If you examine the next edit, it appears as though I've added something, though in fact, I removed an unhelpful addition. Later in the history, [[2]], it appears that I re-added the same comment, though I did not, as noted in the edit comments. It appears as though a number of the editor's signatures have been transposed. I'm concerned about how this happened more than that it did happen. Any idea why? Do you know of anyone who would know? E8 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you accidently edited an older revision of the page or something. It happens. Don't worry, I don't think anyone will see it as a problem. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sport[edit]

is wwe good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.216.211 (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot really help you here with this. Please limit your questions to topics that concern the usage of Wikipedia. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please discuss this topic on another website, such as a social networking website. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WWE. The Transhumanist 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Printing Article Problem[edit]

I was attempting to print the Wikipdia article entry on (investment) "Rate of Return" and find that the article will not print correctly (tried with "printable version" button and without). There are entire sections that will not print, often leaving blank or partial pages. As you examine this problem, please do a "print preview" and examine EVERY PAGE and I think you'll see what I mean.

If I need to do something different to make this page print correctly, please advise.

ThurstonLee (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as 10 pages, with the only white space being at the end of page one because the software does not want to clip the table of contents. I would guess that this is a format issue with your printer's software or drivers. Try changing your printer's settings or page setup. If you continually have problems you can always copy the article into a word processing program like Microsoft Word and print it from there.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article has been renamed and moved; need to be reverted[edit]

I hope this is the right place to ask. I feel I ought to know by now, but this has never come up.

The article English language learning and teaching has suddenly and unilaterally been renamed as English-language education, despite lengthy (albeit archived ) discussion on the talk pages, and a specific hidden tag at the top of the article (please do not rename...blah blah). How can I revert this? Thanks for any help. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try taking it to Wikipedia:Requested moves. You will not be able to move the page back yourself because of the redirect the move created and an admin will have to do it. List it per the instructions there and make sure to include a link to the proper talk page discussion.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to just move it back? As described in Help:Moving_a_page#Moving_over_a_redirect. Arthena^(talk)

I stand corrected. Automatically generated redirects can be overwritten so long as there are not any other edits made. If I recall correctly there were some issues that prevented this in the past but not anymore. Sorry for the confusion.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I have done it. Didn't need an admin, but did it anyway. (BTW, that "consensus" is about 20 months old and the category is Category:English-language education which would suggest a new discussion would be worthwhile.) Woody (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt help. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foss Swim School[edit]

Jon Foss did not found Pure Blue Swim Shops on his own, nor did he ever actively direct its running. Moreover, he cannot legally use Pure Blue's name in any form. Contact Roger Schanus at roger@pureblueswim.com or Jeff Dragsten at jeff@pureblueswim.com Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.139.32 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a {{fact}} tag to Foss Swim School. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

imus[edit]

What does an imu look like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.78.41.62 (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Imus? Can you elaborate more on your comment? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can mean different things. Try imu or http://images.google.com/images?&q=imu. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you maybe mean emu? --teb728 t c 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entry marked for quick deletion for Verified Audit Circulation[edit]

My entry was marked for quick deletion. However it wasn't complete when I added it yesterday. Is there a way to put it up again with the revised information so it won't get marked again? I don't want to make the same mistake again. Jenniferarmor (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Verified Audit Circulation, you can file a request at deletion review to have the delete overturned on the basis that additional information that will assert significance, per CSD A7. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea to work on the article in your own sandbox, User:Jenniferarmor/sandbox/Verified Audit Circulation, until it has enough information - and references to verify notability. Then you can move it to article space. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Their is an AfD article I have been editing and I want to put a talk templet on a main article, to redirect to the AfD disucssion? I think I have seen this, can I do it and how? thanks,--Ducha mps_comb MFA 20:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could add #REDIRECT Article name but its best not to. Talk pages for articles should be left as such and if you feel it is necessary, include a seperate link to the AFD besides the one in the template on the article's main page.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your contributions. Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism is at AfD. Do you mean you want to link the AfD discussion from Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008? That would be wrong. The AfD can be mentioned on the talk page but it's already linked in Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008#Separating criticism. Sometimes multiple related articles are all nominated for deletion and discussed in the same AfD but that is not the case here. Maybe that is what you have seen for other articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the WP namespace redirect thingy?[edit]

Hi. Previously, redirects to Wikipedia pages were made as WP: , and were redirects to Wikipedia: pages, but now when you type in WP: , it automaticly changes to Wikipedia: . This can be a problem, for example WP:EUI used to be a redirect, but now that the system automaticly changes it to Wikipedia:EUI, it is now defunct. This doesn't really matter for high-traffic wikipedia pages like WP:TEST, which even though it changes to Wikipedia:TEST, it's a redirect to the sandbox. Can we have, like, a bot that uses all the former WP: redirects and then creates new redirects in the Wikipedia: format? For example, WP:EUI used to be a redirect to Wikipedia:Editing under the influence, so then the bot would create the page Wikipedia:EUI and make it a redirect to that page? Also, why do some things redirect to the Main Page, like I think \ redirects to the main page? Do links like WP:EUI work anymore? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Ok, I was wrong about the main page, \ actually redirects to backslash. However, how come when you type in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/\ , it redirects to slash (pronounciation) or something like that, but the top it says "(Redirected from Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 January 11/)", when it really should say it redirected from \ , not / . Also, it's weird because now automaticly when you link WP:EUI the link it links to is Wikipedia:EUI, which is a red link, making the former WP: links defunct. What can we do to bypass this problem? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now have a few more questions after this edit conflict. How come when someone adds a new section to my section I get edit conflict? Can't the edit conflict just be for your section and not the whole page? How come when I highlight a part of the diff part of it remains unhighlighted, then when I remove the highlighting the area is still highlighted, then when I go to highlight another area that highlighted area still there? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I was trying to type [[/]], but instead it says Wikipedia:Help desk/ . Is it because when a link has / in it it's a subpage? Isn't it on most websites putting / after the URL is still the same page? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the WP links goes, WP is now a namespace alias for the Wikipedia namespace. All of the pages should have been fixed a while ago by a maintenance script run by the developers. Unless there was a Wikipedia:EUI and a WP:EUI that went to a different page, there should have been no issues. WP:EUI seenms to have redirected to Wikipedia:Editing Under the Influence, which was deleted. Basically, WP is now just automatically expanded to Wikipedia in the software, the links will work just the same (WP:HD is the same as Wikipedia:HD, which redirects here). Mr.Z-man 21:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:EUI redirected to Wikipedia:Editing Under the Influence. The redirect was correctly converted to Wikipedia:EUI and as far as I can tell, WP:EUI still worked until January 10 where Wikipedia:EUI was deleted because the target page was deleted. It is your browser and not Wikipedia which controls your highlighting of diffs and other pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logo image question[edit]

Hi,

I work for Bingham McCutchen and I am working on a Wikipedia page on the law firm. I am having difficulty adding the firm's logo to the InfoBox in my page. Do I need copyright information to be allowed to load this image? I am very confused about the different laws around using a logo and as to why the link itself is showing up on my page and not the actual image that I would like to appear.

Thank you very much.

Leann Scibelli —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeannS (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the image by means of the firm_logo parameter for the infobox. However as a result of recent edits, this article now has major issues, including copyright violation and conflict of interest, and it reads like advertising. Please read the above links and Wikipedia:Business FAQ before continuing to edit this article. (somebody will need to fix this...) • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming an anonymous edit[edit]

Is it possible to have an edit I did while not logged in attributed to me in the edit history? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. You can however replace anonymous signatures with your own if they are talk page edits (please leave the original timestamp however). If it is not a talk page edit and you are worried it may lead to accusations of sock puppetry or attempted WP:3RR circumvention, you can just leave a note about it on the article's or your own talk page in the interest of full disclosure.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a dummy edit on the same page and write in the edit summary that you made the former anonymous edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Adele LLC was deleted[edit]

I just submitted an article titled Amy Adele LLC. I am confused as to why this was deleted? Also, I wanted to go back and add more notable references but it will not let me edit. Is this possible to do?CyndiDarnell (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see here this article has been deleted twice today; the first deletion was because it did not assert the significance of the company concerned (criteria WP:CSD#A7), and the second because it contained no meaningful content (criteria WP:CSD#A3). I am not an administrator and can't view the deleted article so I can't really be be more specific, but companies must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for organisations if they are to have an article. If you would like to try to reinstate your article, your best bet would be to contact Accounting4Taste, the first deleting administrator. They can give you more specific information on why the article was deleted, and may also restore it to your userspace so you can edit it before re-introducing it into the main encyclopedia. Be aware though, that there are no guarantees that the article will not be deleted again if its notability isn't verified by reliable sources. You might also be interested in Wikicompany which apparently aims to have articles on every company in the world.--Kateshort forbob 23:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an administrator. The second version only contained this text by you: "{{hangon}} more reliable references will be added". The first version had already been deleted before that and then it's too late to add hangon. As Kateshortforbob said, company articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria for organisations. Many small companies and some quite large cannot do that. Press releases and advertisement by a company or its business partners don't show notability. If you work for or are connected to the company then see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. If you don't have a copy then you can enable email for your account and request a mailed copy from me. The deleted article is far from suited for Wikipedia. It reads like an advertisement for a non-notable company. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

I want to use some of Wikipedia's photos (but no texts) in my upcoming book. Is this legal? If so, are there any qualifications or restrictions? Thanks!

Steve Morgan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.230.129 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which images you are talking about and the licences that they are released under.

Those images that are here under "fair-use" cannot be used at all.
Those that require "attribution" need to have the author referenced in you book, otherwise it is breaching copyright laws.
Some images are completely in the public domain and can be reused freely.
Reusing content outside Wikimedia is a good link to start with as well as Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content.

If you list the images you wish to reuse, I can help work it out for you if you wish. Woody (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]