Help desk
< August 2	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 4 >

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.

August 3[edit]

why was A great reference book deleted[edit]

The most outstanding and exhustive book on Cape Cod is the "History of Cape Cod" by Freeman... 2 volumes 2000 pages.......

I had added it to the reference section a while back and noticed it was deleted....... the book was published in the 1880s and is still available through Higgenson Books ..... I have a copy in my library... 72.220.76.244 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Lewis Brackett[reply]

Which article did you add it to? If you look at the history page, the edit summary for the delete might explain why the other editor deleted it. RudolfRed (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without having seen the edit I can't be sure, but it sounds like you added it to the references section because you think it is a good reference, and not because it was used as a reference in the article. Reference sections are not for listing references, good or otherwise, but for listing those sources that are actually used as the source of the information in the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but instead of deleting it, it could have (and should have) been moved to a "Further reading" section, which is exactly for such a purpose. See WP:FURTHER. --Jayron32 04:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Users[edit]

How do I go about reporting users who are "vandalizing" pages by purposefully adding untrue/false information?

Thank you

Jluca1976 (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can report obvious and persistent vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Before posting there, a final warning in an escalating series should have been posted to the user's talk page (for example {{Uw-vandal4}}, {{Uw-spam4}} or {{Uw-speedy4}}), and the user must have vandalized within the last few hours, including after the final warning was given. Various warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Your block request is unlikely to be acted upon unless you follow these steps. Cases that are not simple vandalism can be reported at WP:AN/I. Of course, in conjunction with warning against and reporting vandalism, you have the ability, mandate and are encouraged to revert all instances of vandalism you find yourself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in this case I would use the warning series {{uw-error1}}, etc.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to comment on the particular case without seeing it, but please be aware that there's a difference between vandalism and disputed content. Hoax information that can be proven to be an unambiguous hoax is vandalism, for example. However, in other cases editors disagree over wording or content in articles on controversial subjects, both citing sources to support their preferred versions. Accusations of vandalism often arise from both sides in such cases, but in fact this is a content dispute and various processes are available to try to achieve consensus. Identifying which scenario you're dealing with will help you decide how to proceed. - Ka renjc 08:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice re marine boiler needed[edit]

Dear Sirs,please advice us because we need marine steam boiler cap.5 t/H with working pressure 10 bar,using for heating CPO on ship,thank you. <email redacted>,thank you.

Dear Sirs,

Our client need 1(one) unit Marine steam boiler install on ship, with capacity 5 T/H, working pressure 10 bar (actually using 4-5 bar) and this boiler using for heating CPO on ship, fuel MFO or LFO its oke.

Thank you for your kindly cooperation, looking forward reply from you soon.

Regards,

Antoni Sulaiman

PT. Agung Perkasa Rekapratama/ <email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.138.17.201 (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Jayron32 04:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to add my organisation details[edit]

Hello sir thank you for assisting. Actually i am a employee of OHPC as Jr. Manager (Electrical). I searched my organization details at wikipedia. but unable to find then i thought to add this article and let the other people know about our organization Odisha hydro power corporation is a gold rated state PSU, it is the one of the best profit making organization in state government PSU. it has 7 hydro power project working in state of odisha so i want to edit the article .. plz help.. (www.ohpcltd.com) My organization web site thanks Sincerely your ChinmayBastia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinmay bastia (talk • contribs) 05:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, it is a very bad idea to try to add your company or organization to Wikipedia, since you have a strong conflict of interest, and may have difficulty maintaining the obligatory neutral point of view. If your corporation is genuinely notable, some third party will eventually write an article about it. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bodo, sports writer and blogger about Tennis[edit]

== Heading text == Writing and 'Truth'

{Suggested for a box feature}

Before Mr. Bodo joined Tennis Magazine, I was a co-worker with Peter Bodo on the Passaic-Clifton NJ Herald-News where I was a newspaper reporter for seven years and covered county courthouse, city beats and general assignment news and features.

Your article mentioned how Mr. Bodo looked upon how writing should reveal "truth". One time, I faced a problem on how to describe why the tiny borough of Wallington NJ wanted to ban blue jeans from public schools, and I was stumped. Mr. Bodo suggested the conflict could be summed up in the lead: The Wallington Board of Education wants to zip up the age of the blue jean by passing a new dress code for public schools.

It was a perfect suggestion and I adopted it. (I rarely was stumped for lead graphs.)

That is what Mr. Bodo means by truth.

REDIRECT Target page name

I loved tennis, played it regularly, and subscribed to Tennis Magazine for years before I discovered to my delight Mr. Bodo joined the staff covering the rivalry between Jimmy Connors and McEnroe and many others to come.

That is all. I don't know if this "fits" Wikipedia's standards to be included. I submit it humbly for your consideration. Thank you. bob podesfinski

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address. BigNate37_(T) 06:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're trying to tell us a personal anecdote about Peter Bodo for possible inclusion in the article. Unfortunately, this counts as original research unless the anecdote has previously been published in a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a primary source and can't use unpublished material, I'm afraid. NB: I've fixed the two headings generated for this question, to make it clearer. Ka renjc 07:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Dear Wikipedia, I’m very sorry, I seem to have irritated you guys. It’s certainly not what I intended. I have rather confused myself. Please try to understand that my IT and internet skills are rather poor. I think I have written a good article, but I panicked first of all when I had not cited it sufficiently, and then when my name appeared alongside the title. Again my apologies. I am still rather confused, but I will try harder. Maya Frida Barr (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot irritate Wikipedia, only some people among them. Rest assured, that we understand how difficult it is. Do not feel discouraged. Creating articles from scratch is very hard. Writing a good article from scratch is much harder then you probably ever imagined (Think submitting an article to scientific publications-kind of hard). Just participate, do small things, learn and improve. Apologies are not needed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When asking for help please be as specific as possible and include links to other pages that might be relevant. Oh and try not to be so sorry! :) Roger (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with a Merge[edit]

Hemimelia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Congenital absence of the fibula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (non-redirecting link: Congenital absence of the fibula)

Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK the article Congenital absence of the fibula needs to be merged into Hemimelia. The only content of Congenital absence of the fibula that might need to be kept is the external links, some of the categories and one of the WikiProject templates on the Talk page - the rest is duplicated (and better written) in Hemimelia. I've never done such a merge before so I'd apreciate some help completing the process. Roger (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to redirect Congenital absence of the fibula to Hemimelia and add the external links, cats, and wikiproject templates separately. The complicated part of a merge is making sure the authors of the content are attributed in your edit summary, and on a talk-page template, this is not necessary here, because you are not copying prose. If you need any further help, give me a shout. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 09:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I copy-paste the templates, cats and exlinks then replace the content of Congenital absence of the fibula with a redirect. That's all nice and simple, but what do I do with the content of Talk:Congenital absence of the fibula? Roger (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the wikiproject templates allow class=redirect, replace the class=stub with that, otherwise delete them. There is no need to merge the content of the talk pages, I would just put a note on Talk:Hemimelia to let editors know it's there. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 09:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please check that I haven't made any mistakes. Thanks for your help. Roger (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Glad to be of help. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added {{copied}} information to both articles' talk pages as well as adding redirect templates to Congenital absence of the fibula, which also gave me the opportunity to mention the target article explicitly in the edit summary, which is very much necessary for licensing purposes. Please see WP:SMERGE for details. And yes, Quasihuman was not only correct that talk pages do not need to be merged, but they should not be merged. BigNate37_(T) 15:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best to do that to be on the safe side, but there is unlikely to be an attribution issue where no text has been merged, all that was merged was a cat, a stub template, and some external links, not content that I would have thought requires attribution. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Company info[edit]

How do I add our company information to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waxselection (talk • contribs) 11:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to request that a page be made.

Went through all the prompts without creating an account.

Was directed to the category and subdivision to the area of my interest.

I was only shown an alphabetical list of, maybe pages that are already requested and in progress????

How can I REQUEST (a direct link maybe?) that a PAGE be MADE and not a list....because the page I want is NOT listed?.

For example, If I wanted to request a page be made about John Doe, JR an actress, why am I being directed to: Select category: Film -> people -> ABCD....-> I select "D" -> There is no Doe, John, Jr. But no LINK to ask for the page about John Doe, Jr to be made?

How can I do that? More simple and direct directions please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.220.194 (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, ensure your company meets the notability requirements. If it does, go to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies and add the title of your proposed article under the appropriate sub-heading there, ideally with a line or two of information or a weblink. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article declined, reviewer doesn't answer/talk[edit]

I wrote an article and a user declined the submission. I contacted him on his user talk-page and saw that many other users had contacted him (for the same reason) but he never answered. Looking into the history of his talk-page showed me that he keeps on deleting the page every couple of weeks or so... What can i do? 194.95.117.68 (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This decline by User:Phantomwiki is I assume the one that you're talking about, and was not unreasonable.

This recent edit by User:Phantomwiki appears to be an occasion of them interacting with an article creator after a query. However, it's misplaced (on the user page instead of the user talk page) and at least moderately inaccurate ("If others vote for your article to be accepted, it will be" - there is no such voting process).

Phantomwiki makes a lot of AFC declines, but after looking through half a dozen, they look mostly OK, this one is one that I would be a bit concerned about.

Roy Benson was an AfC submission that Phantomwiki accepted during this period, so they are not exclusively declining submissions.

This is an example of Phantomwiki responding to an article creator on their talk page, but the response is upside down (at the start of the talk page not the end), and tells the creator to "put embedded references (the little numbers in brackets) in your article to support the information", without explaining how or providing a useful link like WP:REFB.

This was the state of Phantomwiki's user talk page immediately before they blanked it yesterday. It has outstanding requests for feedback or help, regarding Phantomwiki's AFC declines, from the original poster of this thread, and from User:Realestateone, User:Pierre.Hardin, User:Aliaretiree, User:Tatratea and User:Siobhanstirling. As far as I can tell, Phantomwiki replied to none of these queries before blanking them.

I don't think it's appropriate to deal with AfC submissions while ignoring the majority of article creator queries in this way. I would like input from Phantomwiki as to whether they can change this approach. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: Thank you, Demiurge1000! Don't get me wrong, I don't deny that my submitted article had (and probably still has) its flaws, but nevertheless I would have liked the reviewer to at least give me a short comment oder answer etc. I felt quite "deleted" and I guess others may have felt the same way... 194.95.117.68 (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit to the above, and left a note on Phantomwiki's talk page asking them to comment on this. Can now wait until they have time to do so (or not). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stivemeister (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)August 6, 2012 I submitted and resubmitted an article on Ward Morehouse III and the original editor, Matthewrbowker, was responsive and helpful after it was first rejected in how to correct those problems in the article. I was able to make all the corrections as he outlined they should be made for acceptance, and the article was then rejected by another editor, Excirial (according to Matthewrbowker), who didn't even inform me of this until I finally checked with Matthewrbowkeras as to why I'd not head any response on the most recent resubmission. I've queried Excirial TWICE with not a single response. Even though Excirial states that he is busy both ON and OFF Wikipedia, this is poor operation on his part. If Excirial can't return queries and provide necessary information that is helpful, can someone else who edits please do so for me? Mr. Morehouse hopeful this article will be published here since, as an author who engages in speeches and presentations for his livelihood, he has been told that a Wikipedia bio would increase his allure, given that the arenas in which he would speak hold Wikipedia in such high esteem. I have put together an honest and unbiased biography for him and (according to the last editorial conversation with Mattewrbowker) amended those questionable 'reliable sources' delaying acceptance. Since Excirial can't find the time or industry to take up where Mattewrbowker left off, can someone else -- anyone else -- please help me and Mr. Morehouse out with finalizing this article? Many thanks for your time and energy in reading and (hopefully) responding. Stivemeister (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Stivemeister[reply]

"a Wikipedia bio would increase his allure," but this is not the goal of Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stivemeister (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)August 8, 2012 Dear Vchimpanzee -- I realize that allure is not the goal of Wikipedia, It was a compliment extended to an organization of growing prestige. The point of my earlier writing is the non-response from Excirial about the last revision of Mr. Morehouse's biographical article. It was revised after reliable sources were implemented based upon the approving nod of the earlier editor, Matthewrbowker, once I asked if such a source method would be considered valid. I would simply like to know what is considered objectionable about this article now, so that it can be corrected in a timely fashion and (again) re-submitted. If Excirial is simply too busy, both within and without Wikipedia, it would be appreciated if someone else could assess the article and detail to me specifically what is wrong and how it can be corrected. Stivemeister (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Stivemeister[reply]

Dead Birds film by Robert Gardner[edit]

Hi,

I'm trying to get some information corrected on the documentary film, Dead Birds, by Robert Gardner. I am the studio assistant here for Robert and he asked to have this date corrected on all websites as the actual release date was in October 1963 at the Loeb Drama Center at Harvard University. I was able to edit the release date on the site, but the title of the page still says Dead Birds (1964). I was wondering if it would be possible to get this date changed as well as to not confuse readers.

thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jade s7a (talk • contribs) 14:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sort that for you now - the refs available do suggest that it was released in 1963. Valenciano (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Page has now been moved to correct title, the error appears to have come from IMDB, but I've added a reference for the 1963 release. Valenciano (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there's no help for me, unfortunately[edit]

I really can't believe no-one wants to do this 1-minutes' job. It's already been 4 days. Please update Serbia#Religion per Religion in Serbia and Religion in Vojvodina. So, please change

{{bar box
|width = 250px
|float = left
|title = Religious groups in Serbia <small>(excluding Kosovo)</small> in 2002<ref name="popis2002"/>
|titlebar = #ddd
|bars =
{{bar percent|Orthodoxy|blue|84.1}}
{{bar percent|Catholicism|purple|6.24}}
{{bar percent|Islam|green|3.42}}
{{bar percent|Protestantism|yellow|1.44}}
|caption =
}}

to

{{Bar box
| title=Serbia <small>(excluding Kosovo)</small> religiosity (2002)
| titlebar=#ddd
| float=right
| bars=
{{Bar percent|Orthodoxy|blue|85}}
{{Bar percent|Catholicism|purple|5.5}}
{{Bar percent|Islam|green|3.2}}
{{Bar percent|Undeclared|yellow|2.5}}
{{Bar percent|Others|grey|2.2}}
{{Bar percent|Protestantism|orange|1.1}}
{{Bar percent|Irreligion|red|0.5}}
|caption=<small>source: [http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/axd/en/popis.htm 2002 census]</small>
}}

and

to

With regards, 109.93.148.134 (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for this update? Ruslik_Zero 08:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason is that the latter informations are fuller and referenced, whilst those already present are obsolete and conflicting with the new, referenced informations. Another reason is that the article is semiprotected and can't be edited by unregistered users. 178.223.199.235 (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any mention of religions in any of the files located at the link you cited. Can you provide a more specific reference, like the pdf file and a page number, so the updated numbers can be verified. Thanks. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information is found in the Book 3: "Confession, Mother Tongue and National Identity or Ethnicity According to Age and Gender – Data by Municipalities". Problem is that it's a zip file CONTAINING the pdf file (that should be the reference), so it can't be linked since it automatically proposes download. Note: only numbers are found in the book (page 13/409). I calculated the percents myself. For example, there were 7.498.001 people in Serbia. From those, 6.371.584 were Orthodox. So, 6371584 times 100 divided by 7498001 (direct proportionality) is 84.977102... pretty close to 85%, not 84.1% (as the already present informations state). Same goes for all others. 178.223.199.235 (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the proper course of action if you are unable to modify semi-protected pages is to raise the issue on the talk page using {{edit semi protected}} to bring it to an editor's attention. This isn't really a help desk question. BigNate37_(T) 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And repeatedly "bumping" the thread to the bottom of this page won't win you any friends either.--ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I was on the talk page, and I was told: Not done: Changes are minor. A request template is not needed. You may ask at help desk for minor changes such as this. Canoe1967 (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC) See!!! And if I don't 'bump', surely no-one will help. So, will someone help or not? 178.223.199.235 (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly can't fault you for coming here in that event. Though that doesn't change that the article talk page is where this should have occurred. BigNate37_(T) 15:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I checked the percentage calculations and your numbers seem more accurate, I also put a more precise ref in. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!!! Thousand kisses, Sarahj2107!!! I can't thank you enough!!! 178.223.199.235 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alert message is unfair and should be removed[edit]

"This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (February 2012)"

I strongly object to this subjective assessment of the content of our page. Every statement is factual, and no comparative claims are made. There are no inappropriate links.

Display of an alert request to rewrite "promotional" content is a serious criticism of the page and is unfairly punitive. It calls into question the validity of the information when there is no justifiable reason for doing so.

Please delete the alert message from this page. (The page has intermediate edits and I did not want to revert the page.)

Thank you. Wikimonjin (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the assessment that the tone of the article is inappropriate for a neutrally written encyclopedia, and it does need to be rewritten to improve it in that regard. The entire thing reads not like an encyclopedia article written by a disinterested third party, but as a brochure trying to entice people to come to the school. It needs someone with some good article writing skills to go over it. It also appears to lack any quality, third-party references and looks like all of the information comes directly from the school itself. I have added some more clean up tags for those reasons. Look, if the article is substandard, don't complain that people note it is substandards. It needs to be cleaned up, and removing the tag does not fix the serious problems the article has. Before it is removed, the article needs fixing. --Jayron32 18:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jayron. The article needs a re-write. Oh, and it's not your page. See WP:OWN. Dismas|^(talk) 18:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, an article about a university department, written by what very much appears to be a single purpose account with a conflict of interest, and virtually no useable references, does this even need a stand-alone article?--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing[edit]

Is this editing Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.239.109 (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand. Could you please explain further? :) 18:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaminamina (talk • contribs)

Can you clarify your question? RudolfRed (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that 83.109.239.109 has deliberately asked a self-referential question. If I am right, the answer to it is yes. Maproom (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the answer if you are wrong?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The weasel rolled down the mountain in the snow. Where the weasel had rolled, there also no longer was snow. BigNate37_(T) 02:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

messages[edit]

I have NEVER edited a wikipedia page, but every time I come to read information, there is a message saying I need to stop making edits or my account will be blocked. I don't even have an account with you! Please stop threating me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.96.82 (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, nobody is threatening you or blaming you. IP addresses are generally dynamic, meaning your IP address today might have belonged to someone else yesterday who did vandalise--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing from an IP address. It is likely that that IP address was assigned to a different person in the past, and that person made an edit resulting in a warning. The way to avoid this is to create an account. RudolfRed (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that even if someone else gets an IP address blocked that you then inherit, this will not prevent you from reading Wikipedia, and should you really want to edit Wikipedia there are ways to address that situation too. As a reader, you do not have to worry about it. BigNate37_(T) 21:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100 questions by FACEBOOK members asked to anyone seeking political office[edit]

Why doesn't facebook put up an area on the site where members can submit to a list of questions they would like an answer to by anyone seeking political office. Pick out the top 100 questions asked and submit them to everyone seeking office; presidental office, congress and also state office seekers. This list should include simple questions like: 1. Do you rent or own your home? 2. Is there a mortgage on your home? 3. Did you have a student loan? 4. Do your children have or have a student loan? 5. Education level? 6. Occupation before seeking political office? 7.Do you have any domestic employees? 8. How many cars do you have? 9. What is your average electric bill? 10. Do you own more than one home(s)? 11. Do you have a saving account? 12. Does your wife hold a job? 13. What did you pay in taxes each year for the last 10 years? ------- The answers to the 100 top questions FACEBOOK member submit to an office seeker may bring to light just how far we have gone from electing someone who represents our interest and just how far the office seekers have gone in getting money and endorsements from special interest groups and bring to light their motivation for seeking office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.147.252 (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to ask Facebook. This is the page for asking about how to use Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed question[edit]

Is there a way to check and see when User:Red Hat On Head will be autoconfirmed? She has over 10 edits and it appears like she has been editing for more than 4 days. Am I mistaken? Ryan Vesey 18:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best way is to check the account creation log - in this case, the account was created at 04:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC), so she should be autoconfirmed as of 04:47 today. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some cases where autoconfirming takes longer. See WP:AUTOCONFIRM. RudolfRed (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, is there a userrights log that shows if someone is autoconfirmed? I've never been able to find one because it isn't a granted userright. Unless she is using Tor she should be autoconfirmed by now. If she is in fact not being autoconfirmed, I suppose the best thing to do would be to have an admin give her confirmed status. Ryan Vesey 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Special:UserRights/Red Hat On Head she is a "Implicit member of: Autoconfirmed users", and it's not there for everybody, see Special:UserRights/Capehorner91 our newest member--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. She's autoconfirmed Ryan Vesey 20:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special:UserRights can only be used by admins. http://en.wikichecker.com/user/ says whether a user is autoconfirmed but I assume it cannot detect Tor restrictions. Special:Preferences says whether your own account is autoconfirmed. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't know that, my bad. Well for none admins, autoconfirmed users have "Implicit member of: Autoconfirmed users" above a list of checkboxes for other rights, non-autoconfirmed users don't--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

abot factor[edit]

hi sir,

i would like to about factor in used in business purposes.please explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranadeep22 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it is very hard to understand what you are asking. Do any of our articles listed at factor (disambiguation) help you? BigNate37_(T) 23:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]