What is Wikipedia's home time zone - in other words, what is it that triggers the date on the Main Page? I live in San Diego in the US Pacific time zone (GMT-8), and usually find that the page displays with tomorrow's date. Can a feature be added to query the browser/operating system (assuming that the user's operating system has these set correctly) so that Wikipedia sends the page for that day?
Anonymous
Wikipedia uses UTC (similar to GMT). BrokenS 02:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The time used by Wikipedia is UTC (Coordinated Universal Time), which is a slight modification on Grenwich Mean Time. So this follows the time zone of London. I am not sure about your feature request:
You can change your preferences (if you have a username) to give you some information (like "last modified" dates) in your own timezone
Changing the times may be confusing: some times, like the one I am about to sign below can't be fixed to your timezone because they are hard-coded into the page. So to keep it universal, you're better off just finding yourself a UTC clock some how (or putting one on your user page, which is what I did).
For California Wikipedians, "tomorrow" begins at 4pm. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it means we're still awake to see the new "today's" content. :) Jamie(talk/contribs) 18:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why is original work discouraged/banned at Wikipedia? Halcatalyst 05:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, because it falls outside our scope. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that is, a tertiary source that reports on things that are already documented, not a publisher for new ideas. Wikipedia is not the way to present research that needs to be peer reviewed by other members of the appropriate academic communities, nor the way to bypass the scientific method. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should be careful, Halcatalyst, to use the term original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia (see also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought), while original work is nearly always what Wikipedia is producing, as long as it is compiled from prior (and preferably citable) research and knowledge. jnothmantalk 05:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merci bien de vos promptes réponses. Halcatalyst 13:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (oops, wrong Wikipedia =) )[reply]
bit of a newb here.. I am uncertain about making a disambiguation and would like some help on the issue. I have gone through the disambiguation article but it tells more about when and less about how. Did I miss something or can you folks help out.
Someone else asked about disambig pages yesterday. You can find the answer that they got about 12 questions up from yours here. If that doesn't help, by all means, ask about what specific things that you don't understand. There's also a similar question that was asked on the 18th. You'll find that farther up the page as well. Dismas|(talk) 09:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i am not a member of wikipedia. however i posted a question in the 'humanities' section and i would like to see how people have responded. however i do not know how to find my article now. this is probably a stupid question. so i appologize if the answer is very obvious and im not seeing it. thank you!--- Chloe
Are you sure it was Humanities? I just read your question about Arthritis (if you're the same Chloe) in the Science section. It's at the bottom of the page. All new questions get tacked on at the bottom. For an older question, older than the last few days that is, it would have been put into the Wikipedia:Reference desk archive. Dismas|(talk) 13:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My question is this - as the two "Spiritual Healing" titles are so similar, would it make sense to change the redirect page to a disambiguation one with links to both "Faith healing" and a renamed Spiritual Healing (album)? I appreciate in the latter case, I'd ideally need to track down pages that link to the album and update them but I'm happy to do this.
Or am I missing a point of etiquette here and the capitalisation alone in the original article titles is enough to differentiate them?
Thanks for any help on this. IainP(talk) 13:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The capitalization already handles this for you as you can see when you click on the links in your question. If there were a third instance then there would be need for a disambig page to keep them straight. If you wanted to create such a page at Spiritual healing then you could click on that link, get automatically moved to Faith healing, then click on the link back to Spiritual healing at the top of the page where it says "redirected from..." That will allow you to edit the page at Spiritual healing.
You could also put a notice at the top of Faith healing that says something to the effect of "Spiritual healing redirects to this page. If you were looking for the album by that name see Spiritual Healing." Dismas|(talk) 13:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of Faith healing, you might like to put a message that goes along the lines of: "Spiritual healing" redirects here. You may be looking for the album entitled Spiritual Healing by Death. -- enochlau (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both. I'll add a mention to the top of Faith healing article. IainP(talk) 15:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Over at the 1911 Encyclopedia topics page we are enjoined to put the {{1911}} tag in any article that contains material from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. It doesn't say where in the article. I am guessing at the top so that it appears before the overview. Is this right?
I couldn't find the specific ref in Manual of Style but I believe it goes at the foot of the page. --Alfmelmac 13:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's conventionally somewhere at the bottom, along with any other sources listed. Shimgray | talk | 13:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IOW it can go anywhere and still appear in the right place on the page? Halcatalyst 13:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so; templates tend to go where you put them. You can put a category (eg Category:Foo) anywhere in the page, and they are automatically listed at the bottom, but I haven't seen a template work like that. pfctdayelise 14:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the replies. In further answer to Halcatalyst I know for sure that the {{1911}} tag goes where its put because I put one at the head of an article and that's where it stayed. Stroika 15:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
display of sub-comments on user pages, including here[edit]
On the French Wikipedia, as for example here ("Wikipédia dans Le Monde"), the sub-comments are displayed with cool left and top margin lines. This vastly improves readability. The WP edit boxes look the same as here. How dey do dat? Could the same thing be implemented here? Halcatalyst 14:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is only a matter of stylesheet. Indeed there may be a skin to Wikipedia that already does this. Anyway, you can make this change for yourself, by editing User:Halcatalyst/monobook.css. Add in the code from User:Jnothman/fr style monobook.css and then you'll probably want to change the colours. (This code can be shortened a lot if your web browser is new enough to support CSS3 selectors.) jnothmantalk 14:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, jnothman! It worked! Halcatalyst 01:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, all. I posted this on the talk page to the GDFL a while ago, and no body answered. Is there a difference between liscensing something under the GDFL, and releasing it into the public domain? If so, what? Which one is less restrictive to future users of the work? Where should I use one or the other if I want to release something? Can anyone help?
Also, where could I go to find the edit count for myself or someone else? Thank you! --Trevdna 17:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The GFDL is a license. When you release soemthing under unt, you retain the copyright. You can still do anythign that you want eith it, such as sell it, although its value ism likely to be much reduced, sicne anyone can get it for free by complying with the GFDL license. When you release work under the GFDL, thsoe who use it must comply with the terms of this license. These include a requirement to acknowledge the authorship. The terms also require that if the user publishes copies those copies must also be relsed under the GFDL, including any m,odified copues, and including any derived works or composite works that include GFDL content. This is what makes the GFDL a "copyleft" license. There are other requirements as well.
If you place work in the public domain, uyou are giving up all rights to it. you have no control over what anyoen else may do with it. Someone may take public domain work, change it very slightly, and publishe it under their own copyright eith no acknowlegment of the original author. (This may be unethical but is legal under U.S. law.)
For most text that a person might contribute to wikipedia, the practical effects are not very different. If you are publishing a complete work of your own, there are advantages to retaining copyright but grantign a broad license. The GFDL is not the only suchn license. The details of the requiremetns each license imposes on reusers varies. Some people think one is better than another. DES(talk) 17:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Articles so technical they're impossible to comprehend[edit]
Is there a way to flag an article that is incredible technical and provides no layman introduction, leaving the general person confused as to what the subject matter even pertains to? --Bad carpet 22:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Add the template {{technical}}, IIRC. Leave a note on the talk page as well, describing the problem. Shimgray | talk | 22:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I created the page Liel Kolet today. Later I dicovered that the page Liel does exist already.
So there are two pages for one and the same person.
Question is now which page has the better name and should stay and which should be deleted?
Thanks!
--torusturtle 13:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest keeping Liel Kolet as the main article, merging in any additional information from Liel. I say this simply because the name Liel Kolet is more specific. Liel could then be made a redirect. --Rcsheets 01:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think with each article only having a very small number of edits, it's fairly arbitrary. But I agree that keeping Liel Kolet with a redirect from Liel would be the most obvious answer. jnothmantalk 02:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the text from Liel to Liel Kolet but did not enter a redirect yet. --torusturtle 04:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds about right. No point in calling them by one name if they have more unless that's the name they're known for (i.eMadonna) karmafist 04:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my oppinion it makes sence to use the artificial or short name for people that are know by a very different name. Example Sting who's real name is Gordon Matthew Sumner. For articles about artists who just only use there first name to make it easyier for the audience to memorize it, I think the full name would be better as wikipedia is limited in keywords. --torusturtle 04:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note a page move is different to a copy-and-paste move. Copy-and-paste moves destroy the page's history, which violates the terms of the GFDL. When you have been at WP "long enough", a "move" tab appears at the top of pages. If it hasn't appeared yet, you can ask an administrator to move it, but you should never do a copy-and-paste move. pfctdayelise 01:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I put a note on the admin's noticeboard here. pfctdayelise 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How do you create sub-pages on your user site? Halcatalyst 01:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simply go to a page such as User:Halcatalyst/test. When you get the message that it doesn't exist, clcik on the link to create it. Then edit as any other page. DES(talk) 01:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simply edit them! So I just created User talk:Jnothman/Mar-Oct 2005 by simply editing that page. (If you want you can create the link first, preview and then click it to edit it.) Some tips:
If you want to link to a page that is under your page (ie, following a /), you don't need to link with a full reference. Ie, on my User talk:Jnothman page, I could have just made a link [[/Mar-Oct 2005]] which would have linked to the correct page. Here, though, /Mar-Oct 2005 links to Wikipedia:Help desk/Mar-Oct 2005. This is called a relative reference (as opposed to absolute).
Often it is useful (and neat!) to create templates within your own user space. It allows you to neaten your page's code, and also to provide the same content on multiple pages. Note, then, that relative references mentioned above aren't usually appropriate in such templates. I just created the template to the right in my own user space: to include it all I needed to do was use {{User:Jnothman/Template:archives}}: only if another namespace (such as User, Image, etc) isn't given will MediaWiki assume the Template: namespace. I didn't even need Template in the name.
I don't know if that was clear enough, but I hope so. jnothmantalk 02:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me (indirectly) that I was overdue to archive some of my stuff. I copied your template as given. I not see it looking as nice as your illustration so I suspect
There's more to do than you say here;
I am somewhat dense when it comes to getting it;
The lovely effect might not kick in until I got more than one archiving going on;
It may be related to the actual text used ... I have multiple sub-pages already, with different text conventions.
On Talk:Tree of life (Kabbalah) I noticed a couple instances of vandalism--though to me it more along the lines of graffiti--and I took it upon myself to clean it up. The changes I made are here. All I did was go back to before the first instance, open up edit this page and then save. My first question is: is that the way it's normally done in trivial cases like this? and second: can you point me to an Help article that explains the reversion process? I've looked in Help, but couldn't find it. I want to be sure I'm doing this correctly. I'd hate to be guilty of doing the very thing I'm trying to defend against and end up doing more damage than I'm repairing. < Puck 05:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much what you do. The page you're looking for is Wikipedia:Revert, and the instructions there are pretty much what you did. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks < Puck 05:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure that you re-enter any valid information that was lost in such a revert. It is always possible someone made a valid edit after the vandal struck. - Mgm|(talk) 05:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Through the Wikipedia Help desk Mailing list, I've received a notification about abovementioned site not complying with Mirror guidelines. Could someone with a little more experience on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks than I have list them there and send some boilerplate messages to ask them to comply? - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've never looked at this mirror business before, but I sent them the standard letter just through the form on their site. It certainly is a GFDL violation. jnothmantalk 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
on the german wikipedia I found a list of tools for evaluating articles (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bewertungsbausteine) - I remember, that I have seen something like that on the english page, but I can't find it anymore ... sometimes wikipedia is a bit difficult to orientate in (on?), maybe someone could help me?
desperatly searching,
--Enfiladissa 17:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is is possible to relocate pages I edited? I've only made a few edits and want to locate one, but can't remember enough to find it. It was within the last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.200.4 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 22 December 2005
If you can remember any key words or phrases, you might be able toi find it with a google search of wikipedia. If you had logged in, all your edits would be listed under your user ID. if you consistantly used the same IP address, the edits would be listed there. But only one edit is listed for User:171.66.200.4, so i'm afraind the google search is the best i can suggest. DES(talk) 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Although, if you had an account and had made the edit while logged in, this could be solved very quickly... :P pfctdayelise 01:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How do I create a template that can be implenmented using a simple {{word}} code?[edit]
How do I create a template that can be implenmented using a simple {{word}} code?
--Ac1983fan 19:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean you want to create a template named "word" that can be activated simply by entering {{word}}, simply go to Template:word and create it. If you want to crreate a new template with any particular name simply enter "Template:NAME" in the search box and click GO (replacing NAME with the name you wish. If you are not conversant with teh tempalte syntax, study some similar templates and read Help:Template or ask for advice before tryign to create and use a complex tempalte. DES(talk) 19:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now I get it. thank you very much. --Ac1983fan 19:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Help Requested re: how to get a blocked entry back up and running?[edit]
Hi, I am a newbie, and have wet my toes by creating a couple small entries. The second entry Craik Sustainable Living Project was blocked within a few minutes for possible copyright violation. I fixed the section, but don't know what happens next. Its been a couple days now, and I've posted to the user talk page of the person who blocked my entry, I've put the revised version on the temp subpage, and I've posted on the talk page for my entry. Is there anything else I can do besides wait? The violation was inadvertant (had been using text from a website as a placeholder while I worked on my layout), and I've corrected it. Before I contribute anything else, I want to figure this out. I'd appreciate responses on the talk page associated with the article I created, if possible. I don't mean to sound impatient, but it took only minutes before someone blocked the entry; surely it can be rectified quickly too...
--Delzen 00:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I might actually discuss with Nandesuka who "blocked" the page, listing as a copyvio:
It is not clear whether his complaint is about the whole article, which is often just lightly paraphrasing sections of the copyrighted web site, or whether the complaint is on only the one paragraph, which you have fixed.
The article is currently very close in content to some paragraphs on the CSLP web site. I'm not sure if a long quote on mission statement is appropriate, either.
I don't know, though, how departed the article needs to be to still be considered a copyright violation: can any other users here please check the revised article at Craik Sustainable Living Project/Temp and compare with various pages at [1] for copyright violation?
Hopefully once you've fixed it, it can be moved back in place. jnothmantalk 01:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks jnothman. I had emailed Nandesuka, and posted to the user's talk page; must be busy, although not 'away', since it appears almost 2 dozen contributions have been made by this user since mine. Is this block up to the single user who did it; what if they don't bother attending to it again? I think the revised version should be acceptable, although a bit brief; I intend to improve on it over time. I will delete the mission statement just in case. I hope others users can help advise. This is my second contribution and first new entry, so I want to do it right. Also, I want to learn the proper etiquette; I already can see there is a certain amount of 'tension' out there (though not bad, considering what's being attempted). Thanks for the support! --Delzen 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect Nandesuka to reply shortly. Anyone can tag a page as a possible copyright violation (instructions are at Wikipedia:Copyright problems). The articles so tagged are reviewed by one of Wikipedia's administrators. If you've resolved the issue, there should be no problem. BTW - you could ask for personal assistance (on this or any other matter) from the user who left you the welcome message on your talk page. I hope you don't find this experience off-putting. Wikipedia has had continuing problems with users including copyrighted material. It sounds like you understand the issue and are eager to fix it. Thanks! -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rick Block. I've tried a couple other small contributions, and will keep trying to learn the ropes.--Delzen 03:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked it out, and although the article seems to follow the introduction on the web site, you have done a careful job of summarising and not copying the material. IMO, it should be fine to move in in place of the copyvio. But it seems to be implied that only administrators should do this, and I'm not one yet. jnothmantalk 04:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to move a page back to its correct placement and got an error message:
Not logged in
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
You cannot move pages because either you are not logged in, or your account is too new. In the latter case, please list the page at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please do not attempt to "move" the page via copying and pasting its content, as that destroys the page's history.
Something wrong there - I am logged in (and am not 'too new', having been around nearly 2 years!). Anyone know what might have gone wrong and how to solve it? - MPF 00:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Try clearing your browser cache, and then restarting the browser. enochlau (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip; tried it but it didn't work - MPF 00:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Try log out and log in; make sure you have cookies still set on properly... But I really don't know the answer. jnothmantalk 00:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gave that a go . . . no joy. - MPF 00:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, the box-header was opening a <div> in HTML, but this wasn't being closed in the box-footer, so all the different sections were being nested in HTML, and so looking rather haphazard. I fixed this by simply making the box-footer a redirect to the standard Portal:Box-footer. jnothmantalk 01:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WHY IS MY MOVE ABILITY DISABLED!!? I AM GETTING PISSED! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have been here since January, and some stupid MESSAGE pops up saying that my ACCOUNT IS TOO NEW!!! I am trying to write African American military history and I want to move it to African American Military History, don't add anything about putting this to requested moves, I have been here long enough to have a simple function like this!!!εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know, but if it's any consolation, I'm having exactly the same problem - and I've been here since January 2004. I'm hoping it's a temporary quirk that'll be sorted soon - MPF 01:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict means I didn't know about MPF's post:) This is curious: MPF complains of the same above, and yet I just moved it without a problem. I don't know why you wanted to move it to that capitalisation (ie African American Military History), but now that I've moved it for you, you can fix up the double redirects =) If this doesn't get cleared up, though, we may need to see what the developers can say to it. jnothmantalk 01:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the bright side, you probably shouldn't move that article to the new title anyway—Wikipedia's manual of style indicates that words in article titles should be capitalized only if they are proper nouns, or if they are the first word in the title. The current title is correct.
I agree, however, that being unable to move pages after your long history is unusual. Is it possible that the page was protected from page moves due to vandalism? (after edit conflict) Oh—I see that jnothman has fixed it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it or not, you are probably right that I shouldn't have moved it (I think you are correct that the first name was more proper). I needed something to test move abilities on, and maybe I should have created something in my user space. The annoying thing about such moves is you need an admin to revert them. jnothmantalk 01:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yippee!! All back to normal now - seems it was some temporary blip - MPF 01:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
GUYS! I was just playing by acting angry: ), I only did that to attract attention to the problem, I am glad that is sorted. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dharan is the most beautiful city in the eastern region of Nepal. Beautiful roads, remarkable homes and natural beauty aren't all that makes Dharan. It embraces cleanliness, openness, friendly people and their smiles.
Dharan stands as a junction between the Terai and the Hills. It is the gateway to many beautiful hills in the eastern region. It offers some spectacular sight-seeing places and pilgrimage site.
Dharan is the most fertile land for the arts, literature, and culture. Dharan has given birth to many famous personalities, who have always endeavored to maintain her fame at the highest level.
Things that make Dharan known for.
Dharan is known for having B. P. Koirala Institute of Health and Science, one of the major health care and educational Center in the south Asia.
Dharan is fortunate to have the only food technology campus in the county.
It is also known for remarkable roads, beautiful homes and friendly people, their smiles and their speech which is unique.
Dharan is gateway to Bhetetar, one of the most beautiful hills famous for picnic spot.
Dharan has over 39 Temples and holy sites, making it an important pilgrimage destination.
Profile
Land Area: 1,223 Hect.
Population: 110316 (1998 est.)
Male: 55.514
Female: 54,802
Administrative Break Down:
Zone: Koshi
District: Sunsari
Number of Wards: 19
Covered halls: 2
Temples: 39
Sports/Cubs: 28
Cinema Hall: 2
Others:
18-Hole golf course, swimming pool, tennis court, billiards hall, basketball courts, football ground.
History
Dharan is known for its brilliant history and culture. The places inhabited mostly by Kiratis, migrated from northern districts.
Vijaypur is a historical town from where the rulers in the historic age used to exercise their kingship as the capital. It is equally holy place for pilgrimage as many famous temples like Pindewhwor, Dantakali, Panchakanya, Budasubba and other pilgrims sites are existed there.
The British aided the growth of Dharan in 1953 by opening the Gorkha Recruitment Center. This added many new developmental facilities.
People & Culture
Dharan, the place inhabited by different people has almost 110,316 (1998 eat.) total populations. Dharan is homeland of kirantis (Rai & Limbu) however, other peoples like Newar, Brahman, Chetris, Tamang etc. can be found here. Dharan is multi-lingual place. Deferent languages and various dialects are spoken here. However, Nepali is the official & common language. Because of the multi racial structure, Dharan has been the meeting point of different cultures. The people in it share respect to each others culture. Not only the Kiratis but other people also enjoy Chandi and Dhan Nach like wise Kiratis and people from another tribe enjoy Lakhe Nach. The people believe in different religious. Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and Muslim, all the people are treated equally.
Laxlaxman has a point here, even though it is not clearly put (something I don't blame a new contributor for at all) - he is talking about the town Dharan in eastern Nepal, whereas on Wikipedia, Dharan is currently a redirect to the Saudi Arabian city of Dhahran. This should really be changed to add the Nepalese town (I'll do it tomorrow if no-one else gets in first) - MPF 02:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted - we already have a page on the Nepalese town at Dharan, Nepal, so I've changed Dharan into a disambig - MPF 02:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, MPF! How amusing: User:67.161.32.248 has now been revertedtwice for trying to make Dharan the city it is... Vandal fighters check too little that what's being changed isn't nonsense. But I think it would be better if the article with title Dharan was the one in Nepal, with a disambig link, rather than being a disambig page... jnothmantalk 02:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By all means! I'll not do it now as I'm already way too far into the small hours here - MPF 02:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add Leonardo DiCaprio to the category of sex symbols, but I can't figure out for the life of me how. HE is already listing on the sex symbol list. kralahome 6:26 UTC, 23 December 2005
While the real help desk folks should chime right in if I get this wrong, you just need to add [[Category:Sex symbols]] to the other categories on the page in question. You might want to read Help:Category, Wikipedia:Category and Wikipedia:Categorization as well. < Puck 07:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To add an article to a category, you don't edit the category, but instead you add a category tag to the article. - 131.211.210.11 08:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody tell me what i have to do? i am trying to create a new namespace (i followed the instrucions at Custom Namespaces). i now have to move articles that are already written and that are linking one to another. how can i do this? i want the links to be working still. thank you so much for your help!
Just move like you would to any other location (the move button at the top of the page). Just to be sure, those instructions referred to what you can do with your own MediaWiki run wiki site. Namespaces in Wikipedia are decided on by developers. - Mgm|(talk) 18:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add a graphical family tree to an article of a famous family. That would be a tiered set of pictures, or boxes, showing generational relationships. Born, died, married, children... I have done a bit of looking, but have not found a good example to use. Any help or reference pages would be appreciated. Thanks. --Drussel3 13:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re-worded, (un)signed, and image =>image wikilink by --Commander Keane 15:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because there are many Jews, Hindus and many other religions on Wikipedia. They don't all celebrate Christmas. Thelb4 15:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to celebrate; that's no reason for it not to be commemorated, is it? Sbz5809 16:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is not transparent and would therefore look Very Ugly. [[Sam Korn]] 16:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I created my first article Super City and I noticed that when I saved the article, I was no more logged in. So I don't have the credit for the creation of the article, only for the addition of the picture done later.
Please can you tell me how this article can be added to my contributions ? Thank you.
Ther was a procedure for this, but it hasn't been running for months. It required a developer to directly modify the database. What you can do is leave a note on the talk page indicatign that you created the page, and make a small edit or a null edit (changign nothing) with an edit summery that says you created the article. Not the same, but nearly as good. I have left a note on the IP that I usually get when i'm not logged in that its work is mostly mine. DES(talk) 16:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that someone used my account to create an article called Wikipedia is Poop. Is my account being hacked? Macintosh User 16:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created and then blanked within the same minute (at 16:17 23-Dec), and then you noticed and posted a question here less than two minutes later. I would guess chances are your account has not been hacked. If you're actually concerned, any of the users in this list can track down the IP address from which the article was added (and from which your question was posted). If these are the same IP address and you have clicked "remember me" someone else quite close to you (anyone else in your household?) may be using the computer you generally edit from. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems at least as likely that someone got ahold of a computer where you were logged in. Do you ever use communal computers, such as at work or the library, for editing WP? Was someone in your house able to get up to mischief, possibly? Just trying out Occam's razor... -- nae'blis(talk) 16:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When your computer connects to others via the Internet, is the connection made over lines that can be easily tapped? Examples:
The phone line that the computer is talking on, is also associated with a portable or cell or mobile phone in which there is a handset some place in the same building, broadcasting to the world, in the clear, everything you are keying.
There are people who like to monitor police calls and private civilian talk, for their entertainment. There are easily accessible technologies (illegal some places, but unenforced) that can take the computer signals and convert them to text, or make available to another computer to use.
Modern portable computers come with WiFi (radio) turned on by default, with WiFi security turned off by default. This means that if you have a modern PC, and you have not yet got around to figureing out how to fix the defaults from a security perspective, the odds are that everything you have done on it is known to a ton of people you know nothing about.
You might want to ask about additional possibilities over at WP:RD or computer insecurity talk pages.
Yes you can. I have. You have to uplaod the photo and put proper source and copyright info on it, juist as with any other photo. DES(talk) 16:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed the article Slave Market for AfD and I did step one and two, but when I tried to do the third step ... it did not worked. Instead of creating the link to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slave Market the text just apeared as such (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slave Market) on the preview. I tried it a couple of times, but it did not worked. I don't know, how to deal with it. Delete the AfD entry and start everything from the beginning??? Would this cause problems? Is there any way to fix the thing?
I think you miscapitalised. If you typed in "Slave Market", it wouldn't have worked because everything is case-sensitive here. You would have needed to type "subst:afd3|pg=Slave market". I've added it to the AfD page now. Hermione1980 18:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Enfiladissa: Actually, you did it right the first time. But you were confused by the template "transclusion" . The afd3 tag that you used does not insert a "link" to the AfD subpage you created -- instead it uses a template command to include the entire contents of the subpage into today's AfD list. This is how all AfDs are done, as it allows each entry to be edited separately (avoiding edit conflicts when voting), while showing that status of all the nominations on one page. Jamie(talk/contribs) 18:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merci for the help!--Enfiladissa 19:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My watchlist has recently gone from viewing the past three days as the default to viewing the past 12 hours. Any idea how I can reset this? Shimgray | talk | 19:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That happens when your watchlist goes over 1000 items. You could unselect some items from the list, or select the time period you want the list to use, and then set this page to a favourite. Doubtless you could also change your user JavaScript so the navigation bar links straight to that page. smurrayinchesterMerry Christmas!(User), (Go Carolling) 21:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was a size threshold - I've recently gone from 800 to 1200 thanks to Special:Unwatchedpages, so whilst the watchlist has grown the actual number of "hits" hasn't changed much. I've corrected the link I use in the browser shortcuts, which should solve the problem; thanks. Shimgray | talk | 00:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Normal procedure is to add {{nowcommons}} to the image and it is deleted in time. Thanks/wangi 21:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, yesterday I read they need to be tagged this way for attribution reasons. So as far as I know they shouldn't be deleted. Then again, images are not my speciality. - 82.172.14.108 11:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello wikipedians. Have been contributing on and off for a while now, just a question about where a picture I uploaded (and, afaik, had the rights to do so [1]) went? Check out KCLSU and scroll down to Mascot - there ought to be a picture of 'Reggie' there but there is only a link to a picture requiring upload.
Do please drop me a line, so I can sort out any issues or perhaps take a new picture to go up as it's a nice touch for that page. Naturally comments and improvements welcomed!
I am a trustee of said organisation, photograph was taken for the organisation by either a staff member/fellow trustee.
You originally tagged the image {{fairuseunknownsource}}, and never updated this to provide source information. It was later deleted under item 4 (Lack of licensing) of WP:CSD. You need to provide source and copyright information for image you upload to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Uploading images Thanks/wangi 21:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the deletion log:
19:12, 9 December 2005 User:JesseW deleted "Image:Reggie.JPG" (WP:CSD Image #4 - "Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status"which have been on the site for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded.")
It appears that you failed to indicate on the image page either the source of the image or it's copyright staus. Note that all new images must be under a license that permist free reproduction by content reusers, includign commercial reusers, and all images must have an explicitly specified source, includign the copyright holder if copyrighted (as most images are, by default, at creation). See Wikipedia:Copyright and WP:CSD. Ifyou re upload, please be sure to include a proper image copyright tag, and to specify the source. DES(talk) 21:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks - I couldn't get at the deletion log for some reason, but I will go ahead and sort out a one fixed for copyright to upload --Coffeelover 00:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the Disadvantages section of Enterprise resource planning article. Is this good Wikipedia:Manual of Style? It seems to me that it may have the kind of failing that I was criticised for when I tried to write some articles in the area of Computer security, or it just may be that I am too sensitive, having been burned several times for failing to meet WIKI's high standards. ERP is an important subject to have an article about, and I think I can improve the content here.
My concern is whether the presentation method is appropriate to WIKI standards, and perhaps that should be cleaned up before I explode the content that is in that format. But I still consider myself too much of a newbie in WIKI standards to be placing a cleanup tag at ths beginning of the Disadvantages section. Perhaps that format is perfectly within WIKI accepted standards. User:AlMac|(talk) 21:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with using a list in particular. You should be mindful, however, of WP:NPOV when writing about disadvantages/advantages etc. enochlau (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
putting speedy tag if article already in afd[edit]
if an article matches all criteria for a speedy delete tag (e.g. db-club) is it ok to slap the db-club tag on it, even if its already in afd? i guess it just means adding a comment that its been tagged as such on the afd page right? Zzzzz 22:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd recommend letting AfD handle it once it's already there. -- SCZenz 22:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
doesnt that add extra unnecessary burden though? if someones mistakenly put something on afd when they should have marked it for speedy wastes a lot of peoples times. Zzzzz 22:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I frequently add a speedy tag to an articel if IMO it clearly matches a speedy delete criterion. If I do so, I always make a comment on the afd, usually of the form "speedy delete and so tagged." (see User:DESiegel/A7V). If Someone else has added such a speedy tag, adn i agree that the articel is clearly speedy deleletable, I will delete it. In such a case, I always clsoe the AfD, with the result of "Speedy Delete". Not everyone agrees with this, and if there is significant debate on whether soemthign is a valid speedy, or if there is any significant number of people indicating a desire to keep the article and presenting IMO plausible arguments, i won't do this. DES(talk) 23:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a syntax that allows images to link to articles and not to their respective page in the image namespace? CG 22:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean; you can just use [[this]] kind of syntax on the image description page to link to an article? Or do you mean linking to an image instead of embedding it - in that case use [[:Image:Logo.gif]] (put a colon in front), which renders as Image:Logo.gif instead of . enochlau (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops I just re-read your question. No, that isn't possible (it was discussed at length on the Main Page talk page before). enochlau (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's discouraged. Having the image page redirect to the article works, but it is strongly discouraged. [[Sam Korn]] 23:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, I understand by your answer that it's possible. I was going to use it with [[Template:fr icon}}, which was created to warn readers that some external links are in the French language. But it was rejected because the user is likely to click on the template which links to the image page. The solution would be the image links to French language. Is it possible? CG 08:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have found this frustrating with language markers, too. Currently, though, this is not possible. It may be worthwhile to add a clear explanation to the image page, though. jnothmantalk 15:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've found Template:Click that appears to answer to my question. Take a look. CG 15:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Could you please tell me the procedure for adding a photograph to a Wikipedia article? Are there particular requirements for the size, file-type, etc. for the photo to be added?
Thank you.
M. Dufy
In order to add a picture to the article, it has to be already on the Wikimedia image servers. To upload a file, you have to go to Upload file and follow the instructions there (make sure you have permission to use the image and have source information about it, though, or it may be deleted). Then, in your article, you can just add the image by typing [[Image:Filename]] to the article. To customize the appearance of the picture on the article, you can see our Editing help page.
As for the file type, ideally, you should use JPEG files for photographs, or PNG files for logos. You can also upload GIF files, but they're not the preferred format. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You should upload images at the highest resolution you have, unless they're fair use (if they are, read that page for more info). And if they're not fair use, please upload to the commons! See Wikipedia:Commons for some tips. pfctdayelise 14:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But if I or others enter "processed book" or "processed book project" (or with the first letters capitals) in the Wiki search box, we don't get the page in the results.
What, as a clueless newbie, have I not done?
Thanks,
CML
Try this link: Processed Book Project. Careful, WP is case sensitive for all but the initial letter, so you need to enter "Processed Book Project" in upper case (because that's how the article was started. You can make a redirect called "Processed book project" if you like. --hydnjotalk 00:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remember also that the search (as opposed to the direct like with the "GO" button) runs off cached data, so new articels do not appear no matter what case is used. try a google search of wikipedia] instead. DES(talk) 00:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Would that actually help? I didn't think Google instantly updated their records of WP...) pfctdayelise 14:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These comments have been helpful, in that it is now clear that Go and Search choices (for the Wiki search box) are different functions--Go finds links, Search finds words. Go does not seem to be case sensitive and the new article is retrieved using Go. But the new article does not show up using Search--neither directly on Wiki or via Google. I will have to stay posted to see how and when the new article shows up using Search.---CML
Google may not find your page for a while as there are few links to it. None on Wikipedia but here on the help desk, that is... The article, though, seems to be an advertisement, and not necessarily encyclopaedically notable. Please provide a defence of the project's notability in the article's talk page or it will be nominated for a vote on its deletion. jnothmantalk 16:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
About the question of the notability of the article--a brief and incomplete answer. The article is not intended as an advertisement but was posted because I think the ideas are important. If you Google <"processed book"+Esposito>, the 200+ hits indicate that the project and the FirstMonday article are starting to appear on the radar screen. I do know Esposito but do believe he is articulating in a new and different way how authored content of the future will more resemble the Wikipedia than the traditional books or articles we have known in the past. I will try to say more under User_talk soon.
CML
A footnote to all of the above: "Processed Book Project"--both the article and this discussion thread here--now show up in a Google general search (as of December 29, 2005), I suppose because the idea was already on Google's radar, which may also be an indication of its notability.
CML
Specifically, I edited Lord North and nearby PMs of Britain to have a consistent style for the biographical infobox on the right side. Is there a specific policy on how these boxes should be built and what colors to use? Quantumstream 00:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I've seen many infoboxes around, and there is quite a large variation. Just make it look roughly similar to the others you've seen around. As for colours, any will really do, but please no pink and purple! enochlau (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Colors in infoboxes can mean different things. It's best to check the infobox's discussion page. For instance, see Wolverine and Superman. One is a Marvel Comics character and the other DC Comics. According to the Comics WikiProject they should (and do) have different color bars at the top of the box depending on the publisher of the comic book. So look into what other pages have for other PMs to see if there's a consistency there that should be followed. Dismas|(talk) 14:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate title - different subject: how to deal with[edit]
I have skimmed the FAQs and delved into help pages but can see nothing that suggests that there's a set answer to this particular problem.
I want to add an article about 'Joe Scarborough' an artist based in Sheffield, UK. There is an already existing entry with the title 'Joe Scarborough', apparently a North American politician/political commentator; there is also a disambiguation page for 'Scarborough' which lists the exant 'Joe Scarborough' article.
Advice appreciated on a) how I create a new article on 'my' 'Joe Scarborough'.
I think I could then deal with the disambiguation side of things; but advice again appreciated.
Something is terribly wrong with my userpage. Can someone here help, or is this a question for another help page on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by schyler (talk • contribs)
better? One problem was that you hadn't closed a table in Template:AmE-4 or Template:woodwind-0. You may want to take a look at Help:Tables if you don't know it already, and just be careful of how many tables are closed and how many aren't. You closed too few and so your page text was inside other tables, a true mess. You also don't need to create a template in the public template namespace everything you want something for your userpage. Consider creating templates in your own user space- see #user sub-pages above. I also stuck the babel stuff in a right-floated <div> as this seemed the easiest way to make them all stick together. jnothmantalk 15:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I suggest you move all your babel-like stuff (although the name Babel is technically for language stuff only) to somewhere like User:schyler/Babel and place this in your page as a template: {{User:schyler/Babel}}. This will keep your page code clearer and make it harder to mess up. jnothmantalk 15:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I want to put Template:User religion|jew (it won't format into a link) in my Babel template but because it uses a pipe ("|"), it doesn't work. As such, I want t track down the code for that template and either create a copy at {{User Jew}} which is compatable with Babel, or move it there permenantly. However, I cannot seem to locate the source of this elusive template. Can someone provide a link to the source code (or if you're feeling really generous just do the above action) for me? Thank you. --HereToHelp (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My first note is that Babel is intended only for languages (thus its name). If you still want to stick it in something like Babel, the template in question can be found at Template:User religion, and the code for the Jewish one is:
{{userbox
|border-c=#adadee
|id-c=#e9e9ff
|info-c=#fafaff
|id=[[Image:Israeli blue Star of David.png|35px]]
|info=This user is '''[[Judaism|Jewish]]'''<includeonly>
[[Category:Jewish Wikipedians|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>
}}
You could stick this in Template:User Jew, or maybe just create your own template under your user page. jnothmantalk 21:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know that Babel is for languages, and I put them first. But Userboxes are cool, too, and a lot of people (ab)use it like descibed above. Thanks, though. You guys are really helpful for the nuances like this.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised creating it in your own user space would not be useful for babel. You can either include that code or just {{user religion|jew}} at Template:User Jew. The reason maybe you couldn't find the template is that the template is {{user religion}}, and jew is just an argument. See Help:Templates. jnothmantalk 21:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and created the copy, thanks. A quick search for "argument" in Help:Template turns up nothing. the important thing is the source code. By the way, there's no period at the end of the info; I'd like to add that in if I could find where the heck you got the code. I fixed that with the copy, though. Thanks for your help.--HereToHelp (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't I think of looking in the source code sooner? Thanks anyway.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know when Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion created their solution which I am displaying here(not displayed since it includes a categorization - Rick Block (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)), in case you have not yet got what you need perfected. The code used is {{user religion|jew}} . I am still struggling to learn how to work this stuff as you can see at Userbox design kit and 2 pictures reverse engineering.[reply]
On the page Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing someone has converted all the browsers into nasty words, I do not know how to fix this it would be nice if someone else with more knowlege of Wikipedia could fix it. --80.2.239.50 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1995 NFL draft: This link is red. Yet when I type it into the search box and hit "Go," it takes me right to 1995 NFL Draft, without so much as a "Redirected from" note. What's going on? --zenohockey 23:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is because page links and article titles are case sensitive, but the search box isn't. AIUI if the search finds an article with the same capitalisation as the query entered, it takes you there. If it finds no matches then it will try alternate capitalisation. I'll create a redirect from 1995 NFL draft to 1995 NFL Draft. If you come accross anything like this in future you can create a redirect yourself - Wikipedia:Redirect has the very simple instructions. Thryduulf 01:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone point me a document explaining what effect the "Enhanced recent changes (JavaScript)" item on "my preferences" page actually does? Please put a link on my Talk, thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 10:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having moved a bunch of stubs into one article, I then altered a template which contained links to some of these stubs. However, the "what links here" tool still shows that every article containing that template still thinks it links to the stubs, and it's difficult to find the pages with links that need changing. How long does it take for "What links here" to update? Merry Christmas. smurrayinchesterMerry Christmas!(User), (Go Carolling) 15:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, after a change in transclusion like this, the "What links here" doesn't update until the article is next saved. This can be done manually (with a null edit) or with a bot, which can touch each of the articles that used to have the template on them - removing then from the "What links here". My bot will happily do this for you, just give me the details.--Commander Keane 16:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; someone seems to have sorted it out. smurrayinchesterMerry Christmas!(User), (Go Carolling) 16:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Several days ago, non-admins could see the edit history of the deleted article with the user(s) who edited it, just not the actual text of the deleted document. Why can't I view them now? Was anything changed, or are the servers having an error? -- King of Hearts | (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the news, there was a major scandal with respect to a prankster posting a totally false article that libeled a VIP in the USA. The policy changes were not by accident. User:AlMac|(talk) 21:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The following may reflect a bug that the admins will fix now that I have brought it to everyone's attention, but there is a back door that I explain here how I am able to browse my deleted edits. As of a few days ago I had 1800 edits and 60 deletes, according to
... the code for this is {{tonofedits}} ... notice the link "browse" just beside the count of deletes ... that gets to where you want to go ... first off you need to put {{tonofedits}} on YOUR user page or talk page, then use the link to get to YOUR user statistics, then you can browse your deleted edits, until the admins fix this loop hole. You can follow the instructions on the page to browse edits deleted associated with some other user.
I figure over 3/4 of my edits are to fix el typos that I made, and did not see promptly, so that would put my real count like 300, with a ratio of 5 still good edits for each 1 got deleted. I figure that ratio will drop as the admins catch up with my flaws.
Well this back door has been closed, a short time after I illuminated it. If you use the {{tonofedits}} link from your user page to see the important statistics (which are still there) then click on browse, there is a mesage about the change in policy. Click on that, then follow the associated thread in the WikiTech ciscussion list. You can see that there may be something in the works to give back some access, while not exposing the vandalism data to the general viewing public. User:AlMac|(talk) 02:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I was wondering why the picture of Bo Diddley on the rapping article cant be resized even when i change the specification of how many 'px' it should be? Thank you, --Urthogie 22:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S When someone mentioned jewish wikipedians, this page got categorized that way.
The Culture of Asia article includes a template Template:Asia in topic which gives links to articles such as Culture of Iraq. However, it also included red links to Culture of the West Bank and Culture of the Gaza Strip, whereas there is an appropriate article, Palestinian culture, which should in fact be linked to. As an immediate fix I have created the two red-linked articles as redirects to that, but how can the root problem be fixed? The template looks technically very complicated, the Templates FAQ is no help, and i simply have no idea how to proceed or indeed whether the problem is replicated over a whole range of "Asia in..." template applications. Help! Palmiro | Talk 04:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When using Wiki:Babel (see the example) - Why doesn't "Uk" link to Ukrainian Language section while "En" does link to English language section? I tried to find an answer to this for an hour and am finally hoping that someone can help. Thanks--Riurik 08:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know answer to this question, but you might like to know that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes is quite active upgrading the capabilities of this stuff. User:AlMac|(talk) 09:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Enochlau, Thanks--Riurik 17:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Recent changes page: what is exclamation mark?[edit]
I've installed MediaWiki in my office. In the recent changes page, there's a red exclamation mark for each change. I've looked in the [MediaWiki help] but the mark isn't even mentioned there. What could it mean, and why isn't it documented? Thanks Gil_mo 10:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I started archiving my talk pages (pushing 50k) and I put "watch this page" on everything I working on, then I noticed my new archives were red link on my Watch list. I clicked on the link. My efforts there all right. Would it be a fair statement that sometimes the WP server tasks get stacked up, so that in time all will be Ok on my new page(s)? User:AlMac|(talk) 11:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is some caching going on. To force the Wikipedia servers to purge the cache, append "?action=purge" to the end of the URL. enochlau (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you archive a talk page to a page named "user talk:AlMac/anything" (which is typical) this page is the talk page for a page named "user:AlMac/anything" which likely does not exist. If you watch such a page the user page (not the talk page) shows on your watchlist, and since only the talk page exists the user page is a red link. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered WP Portals. (I am forever stumbling over wonderful stuff here). Would it be correct to say that a Portal is a directory of all articles on a related theme, to make it easier to navigage them than having humongous link farms on each and every article in the collection? User:AlMac|(talk) 11:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's too narrow a definition. A "directory" over a service might have to be infinite, for example. Anyway, see Web portal. HFuruseth 14:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm editing an article where the source text has no newlines between sentences in paragraphs, but would prefer that it did.
(My own fault - it originally had just a few paragraphs of text, and without newlines - so I continued in that style.)
So I'm wondering - what is the "cost" of changing such details - is it worth bothering with?
If so, do I do a single separate edit with reformatting?
Or is it better to insert newlines in a paragraph when I edit that paragraph? Or does that muck up the diff feature or something?
Making this change will show up as a difference, and will permanently appear as a change in the history of the article (so takes a database update). I'd suggest not doing this at all, but certainly not as its own change. One reason to not have newlines after every sentence is that various formatting functions are sensitive to line breaks (indent, bullets, etc.). Getting in the habit of not using linebreaks for each sentence is probably not a bad idea. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Using images from wikipedia article in a different language[edit]
I'd like to use an image from a dutch article in an english article. I assume I should reupload the image to the english server, right? How should I cite the copyright info? Thanks for any help, sorry if this question is addressed somewhere else, but I couldn't find it. --Osbojos 14:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you need to reupload it here, if you want to use it. You need to provide the images with English language copyright tags that cover the Dutch ones and copy its source information as well. If either of these is missing, they need to be tracked down before you can use it. If the image is available under a free license (like GFDL or PD), you can upload it to the commons. Uploading to the commons allows for use in ALL Wikimedia projects without uploading multiple times. Can you tell us what image you are talking about? - Mgm|(talk) 16:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a list of things I can use for my userbox? Like that I use Mozilla Firefox, I welcome newcomers and am apart of WikiProjects? --Thorpe | talk 17:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to download Bonzi Buddy(the purple gorilla), but when I click on "Download Bonzi Buddy" either nothing happens, or it just erases the page. How can I download Bonzi Buddy?
Factual questions should go to the Reference desk. You don't want Bonzi Buddy anyway, it's just spyware. Hermione1980 18:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
English speaking country indication in articles[edit]
Sometimes I read an article about an individual, organization, or other topic, and it is clear by the Anglo-Saxon name that one of the English-speaking countries is referrred to, but the article does not indicate. Is there a guideline as to how, where, and to what degree such articles should be placed in context into the country they refer to? I have looked around in FAQs and the Manual of Style, and other references, but I cannot find such (there is a lot of reference material!) SailorfromNH 21:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Example: "Clint Bolick is the President and General Counsel of the Alliance for School Choice, a national nonprofit educational policy group advocating school choice programs across the country. Bolick is a co-founder of the Institute for Justice, where he currently serves as counsel for strategic litigation." (from Clint Bolick). Note that as an American I recognize enough references to infer the subject is an American, others might not. SailorfromNH 22:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example? Policy is to avoid geographical ambiguity by being clear in the text. Fix it if you find it, or ask on the talk page and one of the contributors will doubtless be able to clarify. Along the same vein, how is the sailing in New Hebrides at this time of year? alteripse 21:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, in particular the section titled "state the obvious". It sounds like this is a case where the lead section does not provide a clear context. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know how to cite in my references section a posting on a bulletin board (not Usenet). Could somebody give me an example? --Joe King 22:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to create an infobox for the Califonia community colleges, but also want to avoid the infobox for American Universities because some of the fields are inappropriate (e.g., graduate enrollment). How can I create a new infobox? –Matt 22:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I read that already, but it looks like a catalog of examples, rather than a how-to guide for creating and using new infoboxes. In any case, I couldn't figure out how to create a new infobox from there. –Matt 04:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have contributed to the article on the old west figure Mysterious Dave Mather and would like to include a photograph. I'm afraid I'm out of my depth, both in knowledge of copyright law and in technical expertise.
The other issue is one of computer skills. I have read the tutorial on uploading imaged several times and don't have enough background to understand how it works. The information on formatting is very clear but I do not understand how the picture is loaded into the article.
Thanks for any guidance you can offer.
Matthew Baugh Mbaugh 21:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided doesn't go to an image only to the google search page. Most images on the web are not free. You could go back to the site and look for an email address for Kansas State Historical Society and ask them permission to use the image if they hold the copyright to it. The age of the photograph (1800's) might mean it's public domain but it may not be.--Dakota~ε 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The website the photo is coming from ([3]) says 'The historic photos in this exhibit are copywrited by various organizations'[4]. So probably not PD. Donar Reiskoffer 14:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to put HTML forms on user pages? My attempts have only produced source listings rather than active forms. I've noticed that Help:HTML_in_wikitext does not list <form></form> as permitted. Perhaps there is an alternative? <Puck 00:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to do?--Commander Keane 06:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Google site search form with radio buttons for sites I often use for references. It is hosted here for now. I'd like to put a copy on my user page so I have it handy while I'm working on stuff. <Puck 08:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I may have found what I'm looking for: Help:Inputbox. I don't know if it will be applicable for what I want to do, but in case anyone else come here looking for information before this pages gets archived I'm putting this here.--◀Pucktalk▶ 22:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, doesn't do what I want, but it's still useful for other things.--◀Pucktalk▶ 01:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may be some confusion over very similar article names. There is a Snow_day & a Snow_Day article. One does refer to the other one, but they are only different by the small/capital D of "day". I am not sure what to do, or how to change. Snow_day -- Snow_Day--Drussel3 04:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can pick one to be the actual article (probably Snow day if they're really both about getting a day off due to snow), merge in text from the other one, and change the unwanted one to a redirect; syntax is #REDIRECT [[otherarticlename]] Elf | Talk 04:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They are (2) seperate articles that need to have (2) entries. What is the process for renaming them, etc. My Guess would be: Snow_day_movie or something like that. Please help--Drussel3 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They are indeed two different articles. You could have a disambiguation page at Snow day (the second initial letter being lowercase due to our naming conventions), which points out to both entries. But ideally, what you could do is place the article about the day at Snow day, and then put a notice (like the one at the top of Glacier or something similar) at the top of that article pointing to Snow Day (film). Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They are two distinct articles but there is no need for a disambiguation page. I put a disambigatuon notice at the top of each article - readers should find their desired location quickly enough now.--Commander Keane 06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a bit of a query regarding Images. I'm writing an article about an educational system, and I would like to include a picture of the system's crest. Now I understand from reading this FAQ, and other pages that the creator of the image is required to release it to free domain for it to be able to be included. I remember from a discussion on another article's talk page (the name escapes me now) that such a declaration can be requested for in an e-mail and is valid. As this is the first time that I'm doing this, I'd appreciate a bit of advice as to the type of e-mail request to write and what exactly is required. Thanks in advance.
Thanks, I'm assuming that the policy would then be the same for an educational board's crest and proceeding.Kaushik twin 08:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BRP for some help writing 'form' request emails or letters. pfctdayelise 14:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across User:Deeceevoice and thought the sentiments were contrary to the "Be Nice and considerate of other people sensibilities" sense of WP that I been finding elsewhere. As a newbie, I feel I not yet learned enough about policy line crossing to know what's acceptable.
I think there is a law in Europe that bans this kind of thing on web sites accessible there. User:AlMac|(talk) 10:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The user is recording sentiments expressed by others, not expressing them herself. Placing them at the top of the page without much context is obviously intended to shock, but I still think it's a way to legimate comment on life at wikipedia. Kappa 11:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"linkspam" request for clarification of policy[edit]
To cut to the chase: the girl who runs www.fisheaters.com linked a lot of Wiki articles to her site, all on relevant pages (for ex., linking to www.fisheaters.com/epiphanyeve.html from the entry "Twelfth Night") She made many links like this, all relevant and specific (to specific pages on that site, not to the index page).
A person she had been debating with on a Talk Page for a Catholic entry had it in for her in a big way and alerted his administrator friend who labelled all of these links "linkspam" and deleted ALL of them, getting other administrators to do that with him.
On the RfC the girl asked how can it be linkspam if it's a non-commercial site, if the links are totally on topic, if no bots were used to add links, if no java is required to use site, etc., and she really didn't get a good answer as far as I can see.
She asked how many links are "too many" if they're all relevant and was told by a non-admin "maybe 7."
She asked what would happen if she added 7, but someone else were to add links to the site, too (which others have; she didn't add all of the links mentioned). She got no answer.
As things are, that site is now on some sort of unofficial black list, and almost every link to it is taken down as soon as it goes up. I tried to add a few links back in and they get taken down.
The question: what is the policy about this? How many links are "too many"? What if she does add the limit and others add links, too (her site is a popular one)? How can she get administrators to back off and stop deleting every link to that site?
While I don't know the girl in question, I do know the site and its forum, and I guarantee you she's no "spammer." If you look at the links involved on the RfC (and again, there ARE a lot of them), you will see that none are irrelevant except for one mistake when she or someone who likes that site added a link to a disambiguation page. If you look at the pages at that site, you will see they are extremely informative and useful. It is starting to feel like an anti-Catholic bias around here because lesser quality links to other sites are left untouched while anything to fisheaters.com is taken down. The girl in question is no longer an editor here as far as I know, but I would love to write to her and tell her that things are cool over here and that she can post relevant links if she wants to. Thank you.
We've had a similar discussion on a dog-related site and decided that while the person seems to be nice and not doing anything awful on their site, none-the-less there's no overwhelming reason to have dozens or hundreds of links to the site. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds#The question of external Links for arguments, rationale, related data. Elf | Talk 00:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information, Elf, but it still doesn't quite clarify what the problem is with links such as these:
Removed a link to the page "Religious Life" www.fisheaters.com/religiouslife.html from the entry "Nuns."
Removed a link to a page on Twelfthnight www.fisheaters.com/epiphanyeve.html from an entry called "Twelfth Night".
Removed link to Epiphany customs www.fisheaters.com/customschristmas8.html from the entry "Epiphany."
Removed another link to the page called "Religious Life" www.fisheaters.com/religiouslife.html from the entry "Religious Order."
Removed link to page on the Feast of St. Anthony www.fisheaters.com/customstimeafterpentecoststa.html from the entry "Anthony of Padua."
Removed link to page on the Feast of St. Brigid www.fisheaters.com/customstimeafterepiphany2a.html from the entry "Brigid of Ireland."
Removed link to page called "Votive Offerings" www.fisheaters.com/votiveofferings.html from the entry "Ex-voto."
Removed link to page on the Day of the Dead www.fisheaters.com/customstimeafterpentecost12ac.html from an entry "Day of the Dead."
Removed a link to a page on Catholic funerals www.fisheaters.com/funerals.html from the entry called "Requiem."
Removed link to page summarizing Catholic doctrines about Mary www.fisheaters.com/mary.html from a page called "Immaculate Conception"
Removed link to page on Purgatory www.fisheaters.com/purgatory.html from the entry "Purgatory"
These links, and others equally relevant on relevant pages, were removed and labelled "linkspam." So how many is too many? The site is a traditional Catholic megasite and it has some of the best information on these topics out there (I know because I think I've been to every other Catholic site on the internet, and definitely all the big ones).
Is there any way to go on a case by case basis and get administrators to not be defensive about this site just because it got the label "linkspam"? Right now the traditional Catholic view of a lot of these topics isn't being represented at all on the pages in question and every time I or someone else adds a link it gets taken down almost immediately. Thank you. Malachias111 00:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am not getting a crystal-clear policy, what I will do is go by the spirit of it and add some links to 6 or so pages, referring people to this page in the edit summary. I hope that works. Malachias111 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't feel you got a satisfactory answer, let me try, since I think I am somewhat selective in allowing some links that others might delete. There is no universal standard. Those editors who have invested the most effort in putting together an article are usually the ones who have the most persuasive "say" in a disputed link. Some editors are quick deletionists but will yield if someone who has already made major contributions to the article has inserted (or re-inserted) the link. Most of us who are invested in specific articles will look at a link and see if it offers anything to extend or complement the contents of the article. Most of the links inserted by anon IP numbers or editors who make no other contributions are real crap, often containing less info than the article does and consisting mainly of advertising. Check the linkspam I just deleted from cryptorchidism for a typical example. I looked at your links and they don't immediately fail the commercial site/advertising sniff test. I didn't compare them to the info already offered in the articles in which they were inserted-- that would be a strong factor in my decision. I didn't judge whether they contained controversial info without making the POV clear in the link, another possible grounds for rejecting a link. I didn't check to see if the articles already had plenty of links. I didn't look to see whether the linked site had other material that might put editors off. Here are some suggestions on increasing the chances that a link would stay.
Don't act like you have a right to insert a link because you found another article with a link that seems worse.
Don't accuse removers of being "anti-Catholic", especially if they have been major contributors to a catholic topic.
Earn forebearance and respect for your opinion by contributing to articles. Your contributions and reputation around here definitely affect the response of other editors to your offerings. People whose major purpose here is link insertion may be quickly labeled as linkspammers and their insertions reverted quickly without anybody even considering the aspects I mentioned above. alteripse 01:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this information, Alteripse! I don't think it was done because someone was being "anti-Catholic" (though I think it started because one user is anti-traditional Catholic). The links had been there for a long, long time without any problem. Then the girl in question got into a really long dispute with User Dominick who started removing links to her site (he called the links you saw "blogs" and everything else). She brought up an RfC against Dominick because he was taking down links so she obviously didn't think she was breaking any rules or she wouldn't have brought it up in an RfC trying to get Dominick to stop. She tried to find out what the policy was, but meanwhile Dominick alerted an admin who saw the the number of links, thought "spam," and the site got "blacklisted" or something. I think they're good links and I think if other editors looked at them, they will, too. And things seem to be easing up some, so there is hope for the Fish Eaters site after all. Thank you for your time, Alteripse. I appreciate it. Malachias111 02:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
THis is being used to justify linkspamming all kinds of sites with Fisheaters links. The biggest referral for this site was WIkipedia, about 5% of the total traffic according to the Sysop at fisheaters. I am sorry but the policy is clear, sites need to mee tthe WIkipedia standard. Dominick(TALK) 12:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But Alteripse makes an excellent point...add to the text and value of articles...really, work with the community on article improvement...and folks will probably be far more likely to accept links. KHM03 18:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KHM thats the biggest issue. The problem is that we assume we are working on articles to meet the goals of Wikipedia, NOT to twist PoV to a "traditional" Catholic perspective. The position is the narrow traditional position of the fisheaters site. ALl the edits serve that position and that alone. This person seeks to portray orthodox mainstream Catholic positions as novelties, which is hopelessly PoV. Adding the links is the cherry on the PoV twist. The Catholic Church is clear in its positions, the Malachias111 edits that make the Catholic position as something other than what comes from Rome is the issue with the PoV twist. I made a detailed proposition where I thought they were appropriate, Malchais refused to even discuss consensus. Dominick(TALK) 18:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The site does meet Wikipedia standards, Dominick. You just don't like it because you are a conservative Catholic who presumes to know better than anyone what is "official Church teaching." The traditional Catholic view can be heard just like the conservative view. I am not following you around deleting your links and information; it is you who are doing that to the traditional view -- and the links are clearly labelled "traditional." So please stop what you are doing and think about something else. Malachias111 18:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe Malachias111 is being distinctly selective in the above description of this issue.
I found over 100 links; [5] shows 140 links to fisheaters from Wikipedia, and here [6]) you see that there are just over 400 offsite links to that site - in other words, Wikipedia accounts for over one third of external links to this (allegedly MEGA???) site, which has an Alexa rank in excess of 400,000 (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=fisheaters.com), quite aside from the fact that in some cases the links were pushing the "traditionalist catholic" point of view (i.e. the somewhat idiosyncratic POV of the site author). The policy on adding links to your own site is pretty clear: don't do it. Dominick was not the only person involved, several other editors (including myself) took part in reverting what I still see as a substantial campaign of linkspamming. Looking at the Alexa reports for both the old and the new domains, Wikipedia was the primary site linking in and following reversion of the links the site traffic appears to have bombed, leading me to believe that Wikipedia is being used as a core part of the promotion for this very evidently non-notable site, which has, moreover, no evidence to support the idea that it is especialyl authoritative. Note that many of the articles linked only to this non-notable site, not to more authoritative sites such as catholic.org.
See what happened to the old domain name when the links were switched over: [7], and what happened to the new domain name when the 100+ links were removed: [8]. Now call me a suspicious bastard, but that really does look to me as if Wikipedia is the major promotional vehicle for this site. And yes, I do openly acknowledge that this is the festive period and traffic may well be down anyway. I could be reading it all wrong, but it sure looks bad, doesn't it?
What I did was exactly what I'd have done if any other minor site was added to very large numbers of articles for no apparent reason other than that the site owner had some opinion on that subject; Wikipedia is not a link farm or a promotional mechanism. Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt I am not an administrator. Nor had I ever heard of any of the parties to this dispute before the RfC. Nor am I a Roman Catholic, traditional or otherwise. Finally, we had already reached agreement that a few links could go in, but the definition of few seems to be being stretched, and I believe we should put the foot down early before we once again take our apparently desired role as the major promoter of a site with no obvious claim to authority. If the site authors and fans think they have some unique insight to add to these topics, they should be adding it to the articles not spamming their own site.
The debate is already open at the Dominick RfC, and this request looks suspiciously like a case of "keep asking until you get the answer you want". - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD? 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there doesn't seem to be a lot of unity in the American Football area. If that's not specific enough, it's because there are several, unconnected area you could get to if you were to search for such a subject. Ideally, they should all flow from one category, right? Ever since discovering the section, I've kind of tried to consolidate things and make them messier, but that was before I noticed the other section talking about football.
Primarily, my beef has been with the pages talking about football positions. There is a category for positions, and then there is a page talking about the defensive team in football which also has an inline discussion of positions.
So my question is, is there somebody you can get to pull all this together, or should I?
--Intrepidus 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's really nobody "to get". We all just sort of fell into this like you have and edit as the muse takes us. You could post your query on the talk page of a couple of main pages related to that subject, or the talk page for a main category for that subject, to see whether anyone else who is interested in that stuff is particularly interested in sorting it out, but I'm guessing that, since it sounds like you've got ideas and enthusiasm, you're likely to be the designated hitter. (Ooops, wrong sport...) Elf | Talk 23:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to rally support of others, this is exactly what Wikiprojects were designed for. Once you have gotten a group of editors together to work on it you might consider making a Portal. --WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs) 08:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I made some additions and edits to the Colgate University page. I wanted to explain why I made the changes I did, but when I click on the discussion tab, I'm told that wikipedia doesn't have an article called "Colgate University," which is obviously wrong, because I just edited the page. How do I create/recreate the discussion page? Thanks!
It didn't say that. It said: "Wikipedia does not yet have a Talk page called Colgate University." which is entirely correct. If you can't create it, click talk in my signature and let me know what text you want to put there. - Mgm|(talk) 20:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cared to explain on Wikipedia talk:Article Improvement Drive, so I'll ask here: How does "stays until" margine function? I doesn't seem to be explained anywhere... If I want to vote, what do I do with it? If I want to propose an article, how do I set it initialy? --Dijxtra 20:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to nominate an article, you copy the template at the bottom of the nominations section in the edit screen to above the comment line and fill out the details. If you want to vote, you add your signature to the list like all the others did (four tildes ~~~~). "Stay until" shows how long an article will remain listed. They require a certain number of votes in a certain period. But I'm not familiar with those numbers myself. - Mgm|(talk) 22:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aham. Aaaaaaaaaaaand, who is familiar with those numbers? It seems to me this isn't expained anywhere... which is somewhat amazing. I'll put the numbers on the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive page as soon as I find them out. Who could I ask? --Dijxtra 23:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It says on the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive page Articles need three votes per week to stay on the list. The number of votes displayed is the cumulative number an article has received over its tenure on the list. The stays until date is extended in week intervals if it has had three votes in the preceding week. If it is nominated on day 1 and recieves four votes by the end of day 7 (168 hours after nomination), then it is updated to stay until day 14. This check is then performed for day 8 through day 14. If it has received at least 3 more votes it is relisted until day 21, ad infinitum. Every time a new vote is made, the total vote count is updated. WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs) 08:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, stays "until margin" is edited only on Sundays? Or it is edited when the article reaches 4, 7, 10, 13... threshold? (I suppose its 3*k+1 because nominator doesnt count, right?) And, if I nominate the article on Wednesday, I put the "stays until" on Sunday, right? And, another one, it article collects 6 votes on week one, does that mean it stays on th elist for one more week or 2 more weeks? Sorry for asking that many questions, but I promise to write plain and simple explanation of this procedure when I understand it, so you won't need to answer these questions any more :-) --Dijxtra 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your first 4 questions, no. It is confusing and, not being involved in the project myself, took me a while to figure out. The problem is that there are two different sets of weeks being talked about. There is the calendar week beginning on Monday and running through Sunday, which is the length of time an article is featured by the drive, and there is the nomination week. Every Sunday, whichever article has the most votes at that time becomes the current article for improvement. The "stays until" date is based on the day that the article was nominated. If it is nominated on a Wednesday, the stays until date will be the date of that Wednesday plus multiples of 7. Under my previous example, Wednesday would be day 1; the first chance it would have to be promoted would be day 5. If it hadn't received 3 votes by the end of Tuesday (day 7) it would be removed on Wednesday (day 8). The votes do roll-over, so getting 7 votes in the first day means that it needs only 2 more votes over the course of the next 20 days. I feel like my explanation is only making it more complicated, but as I am not particularly familiar with it myself, I can't do much better. WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs) 22:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Using 'Message_box' in a template doesn't work[edit]
I'm trying to define a template that uses 'Message_box', not it Wikipedia but in a wiki I've installed at work.
That doesn't seem to work, and displays what I write explicitly. What am I missing? Gil_mo 22:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to add 2 pictures to madness combat. When I try to upload them it says ".bmp is not a recognized extension" to which I change it to .jpeg and it says "the file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension". The correct extension is .bmp becasuse I made them in paint. What is wrong with it?schyler 22:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The file needs to be in Jpeg, Gif or PNG format for it to be uploaded. If you are using a reasonably up-to-date version of paint, select File -> Save As and there should be a drop down menu under the file name that will enable you to save the image in one of those formats. --GraemeL(talk) 22:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like what you were doing was manually changing the file extension to match the one requested. That doesn't change the Bmp information inside the file itself, so when the Wikipedia software tries to process the file as a Jpeg, it doesn't work. You need to save the file directly into the correct format, as outlined above. --Kwekubo 00:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Viewing all unwritten articles that are referenced[edit]
How can I see which articles are referenced from other articles, and need to be written?Gil_mo 22:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have two questions.
How am am I limited in adding information about my residence of Center Township, Pennsylvania? What is too far or inherently biased?
Also are there any Legal troubles with me giving up my work to the public domain or letting wiki do whatever they want with it? I'm a minor currently and I think there are some laws against minors giving up certain rights aren't there? Eugman 05:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In trying to determine what is too biased, try to keep in mind WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. As long as you keep personal opinion out of it, you should be fine. Make sure to stay away from advertising, covered in WP:NOT, and overt promotion. As for the legal question, most people here on Wikipedia can't give you legal advice as that would be practicing law without a license. Parenthetically, we aren't even sure if adults are legally allowed to release their work into the PD. It is my personal belief that you can claim to release any rights you wish to, that is to say put any of the release templates on your user page, without consequence. The deal with contracts is that minors can't, wihtout parental consent, enter in to binding contracts. If a minor signs one without a guardian's signature, it is non-binding and invalid. So the worst thing that could happen by your claiming release to the PD would be that it didn't mean anything. There won't ever be any negative consequences to you. WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs) 07:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note, in particular, that WP:NOR basically says don't include anything that you know from your own personal experience but rather include only things that you've read somewhere else. The issue is not whether what you say is true, but whether someone else can verify what you say by checking the same source you used (which you should cite, to make this easier). A personal observation of yours, although it might be perfectly true, is not verifiable. Something you read in your local newspaper might or might not be "true", but anyone can verify that it actually is in your newspaper (or on your town's website, or in a magazine, or ...). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On Lord Namis, user Godofperfection keeps removing my speedy delete tag. The article is nonsense (and the only google hit for "Lord Namis" is CAT:CSD). Maybe it should have been deleted under cleanup-verify, but no matter what deletion tag gets placed on there, Godofperfection removes it.--Wasabe3543 09:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, it seems to have been taken care of. Thanks, whoever did that.--Wasabe3543 11:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Template:Cite, but it really isn't very clear. Does it take parameters? If so, how are they passed? ◄Pucktalk► 10:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather confusing and the template doesn't have a talk page showing how to use it. From some experimentation, passing the parameters like this seems to work:
Produces: Fred Bloggs (2004-07-31), A book, A Publisher
As the date is a single parameter, using something like date=July 31, 2004 doesn't work. Hence the unusual date format used in my example. --GraemeL(talk) 11:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that seem to be clear enough. I'm figuring out templates can be wonderful things, but I'm just starting to get the hang of them. --◄Pucktalk► 12:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add an image to Johann Kaspar Kerll. The image is a portrait of Johann Kaspar Kerll, made in 1685-1688. I reckon that the portrait is PD (is that so btw? The author died more than 100 years ago and so did Kerll), but my actual .jpg image is a scan from a CD booklet. Can I still upload the file to Wikipedia and label it PD for the reasons stated (ie. copyright expired) or should I refrain from uploading the picture altogether? (articles about Kerll in other Wikipedias have the portrait but in smaller, blurry/photoshop enhanced versions. All list the images as PD) Jashiin 10:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See Public domain. Once an image's copyright has expired, simply reprinting the image doesn't make it "start up" again. Any claims to copyright can be considered copyfraud.
When you upload the image, please upload it at as hi-res version as possible, and provide as much information as possible about its source. Also, as it is "free", please upload it to commons:. See Wikipedia:Commons for information about uploading images there. pfctdayelise 13:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Jashiin 14:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure. The image is on a CD booklet. If the makers of the CD booklet took a photo of the portrait then they would own the copyright and image wouldn't be public domain. Are you sure the image is a reprint, I'm not sure than you can tell?--Commander Keane 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"If the makers of the CD booklet took a photo of the portrait then they would own the copyright and image wouldn't be public domain." No, that's not the case. Taking a photo of a 2d object isn't a creative act, so the photographer (or scanner operator) didn't create a copyrightable work. The only copyright is that of the original 2d work; if the work is uncopyrighted (as would be the case, given the date) then the image isn't copyrighted. This is the case in most first-world countries; it was always the case in the US, and the landmark Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case (which reaffirmed this) really shouldn't have been necessary. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Though remember that they may have reworked the original image for the CD booklet, creating a new and original work - so if you're confident the image is a close copy of the original, you're fine, but otherwise... Shimgray | talk | 00:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it's intended to be a faithful reproduction of the original, it's considered to have the same copyright status. If it's part of a "derived work", that might be a different story, but I didn't get the impression that was the case here. pfctdayelise 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I uploaded the image already (my bad, didn't expect anyone else to respond after I got the first reply) and you can go and take a look if interested: [9]. I'm pretty sure its just a photograph, no reworking done. Jashiin 13:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a real Wikipedia on A-Bomb spy Klaus Fuchs? When I search under his name, I just get an article about "Hackers."
Neil
I don't know what you did, but searching gets me an article on Klaus Fuchs which starts:
Emil Julius Klaus Fuchs (December 29, 1911 – January 28, 1988) was a German theoretical physicist who was convicted of surreptitiously supplying information on the British and American atomic bomb research to the USSR during, and shortly after, World War II.
Sounds like the article you're looking for. - Mgm|(talk) 15:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
how many users does wikipedia have from the good old us of a. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meatboy3 (talk • contribs) 21:37, December 28, 2005
It is impossible to know, at least to us, how many people access and use the encyclopedia from locations in the U.S. Some Wikipedians (registered users/editors of Wikipedia) choose to add themselves to the Category:Wikipedians_in_the_United_States, although many, like myself, are Americans and do not appear in that category. There are also categories for editing by state. WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs) 23:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's also numerous Wikipedians who choose not to register a username and remain anonymous. - -Mgm|(talk) 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't I no longer view deleted edits of articles?[edit]
When I go to [10], there is a link there called "View 12 deleted edits?". I know this link worked a few days ago, why has this functionality been removed? What can be gained by removing people the right to view just the history of old articles and the reasons why? Peter S. 00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was removed because people were posting confidential info, such as addresses and phone numbers, in the edit summaries themselves. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are still able to view deleted articles, both the content and the edit summaries. We will just have to hope the 750 or so admins we have won't abuse any information they find there. — JIP | Talk 11:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Peter S. 18:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can we leave notes on talk pages citing that talk pages are for serious discussion of changes of the article only or are the users free to talk about anything they like on talk pages (related to the article?) - Andrew Northall 02:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can put something like {{Talkheader}} at the top of the page. You can find a semi-uptodate list of templates at WP:TM. Discussion should be about the article, not the subject. Keeping WP:BITE in mind, though, unaggressive OT discussion rarely causes problems. You could maybe leave a gentle reminder on the discussers' talk pages. pfctdayelise 02:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that clarifies stuff for me. I agree with WP:BITE strongly. We want to welcome people, right? - Andrew Northall 02:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that reference desk type question on the article's subject are also a good thing on article talk pages if the questioner wants a response from people who worked on the article instead of the big ref desk mass. - Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You know about that donation notice at the top of the screen? The one that says that I can give the gift of knowledge? I do not like that notice there. I would like to remove it. I tried adding this code to my monobook.css file:
#siteNotice {height:0px; visibility:hide}
That did not work. How do I remove it?
You're not supposed to. jglc | t | c 04:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the "do not erase warnings" policy?[edit]
Where is the "do not erase warnings from your user talk page" policy located on wikipedia? I have been having trouble finding it.
It's in the text of {{vblock}}. I haven't found it anywhere else. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"...do not erase..." Really? So, if I make a series of blunders or get particularly heated over an idea and devolve into childish edit warring, I have to bear the mark on my user page forever? TheLimbicOne 18:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's considered a bit secretive to quietly edit away negative comments, but it's not something you'd be shot by the community for unless you were patently playing silly buggers (like removing successive level-4 vandal warnings repeatedly on the same day). It might be a good time to tactfully archive the page, though ;-) Shimgray | talk | 19:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After the flames die down–give it at least a few days, if not weeks–then you can archive your talk page. Though you don't have to bear the edit war or administrator warnings on your current talk page forever, it does make it much easier for other editors to understand the course of a conflict (and hopefully to aid in its resolution) if blocks of comments and warnings haven't disappeared. Good editors make occasional errors in judgement; having an embarrassing exchange on our talk page tends to remind us that we need to take care. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You might wish to review WP:TALK, especially, WP:TALK#Can_I_do_whatever_I_want_to_my_own_user_talk_page.3F and the links therein. I think it is a good personal policy to edit as though your edits will be visible forever. When you begin to write something intemperate, it is a good indication that you need to take a break or work on something else. --Walter Siegmund(talk) 19:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How many total edits (not pages, but edits) have there been to english wikipedia?
Comment: This page is categorized in some user categories it shouldnt be in.
--Urthogie 05:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Users have made 34,031,641 edits, an average of 11.51 per page, since July 2002.<-From the number of pages link on the main page. Also, I think someone asked a question that had those cats in them. When the question is taken care off, the cats will go away. If not, it's to tell the users what language this page uses.--Rayc 05:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the policy on redundant categories? Is having an observatory in Astronomical observatories in Nebraska and then adding the category Astronomical observatories redundant, or helpful? What if it isn't an exact tree, like having Category:University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Category:Lincoln, Nebraska? Thanks!--Rayc 05:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I dealt with this earlier, and you shouldnt have an article link redundantly. for example, we put rapping in elements of hip hop culture, but not in hip hop(which contains elements of hip hop culture cat). so yeah, weird rule but it seems to be good. try to stick to it but dont go OCD.
p.s cool how we answered one anothers questions.
--Urthogie 06:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some way to have an image, e.g. this one, link to a page, e.g. this one, or is that completely and utterly impossible? ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ✉ 08:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to insert the picture, edit the page you want it to appear on and type this:
[[Image:Nightstallion-sig1-white.png]]
If you want to insert a link to it, type this:
[[:Image:Nightstallion-sig1-white.png]]
Note the leading colon (:) that stops the image actually showing up. Also note the Image: prefix that is required when linking to all images. Also note you can insert various parameters such as left/right, thumbnail or frame, as well as a caption, when displaying the image. See WP:EIS (Extended image syntax) for help on this. pfctdayelise 09:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If by "link to a page" you mean that you want to have a person's browser take them to your user page when they click on the image, that isn't allowed. Something to do with the GFDL license as I recall. This has been asked before, you might want to check the other questions on this page or the archives for the specifics. Dismas|(talk) 09:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. Would it still be discouraged in this case, where I'm only trying to avoid having lots of question marks show up for users who don't have one of the few appropriate fonts installed? ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ✉ 10:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I can't really get it to work when it's in a paragraph of normal text: {{Click||image = Nightstallion-sig1-black.png|link = User:Nightstallion|width = 100px|height = 14px}}, entered like this, results in a rather page-breaking link in the very upper left corner of the page. I can only get it to work properly when it's in its very own line, which makes it rather unusable for signatures. I suspect this can't be fixed easily; if this is the case, then I'll simply have a link to my userpage separate from the image in my signature. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ✉ 12:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that having images in signatures is discouraged due to the load on servers. pfctdayelise 09:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even such light loads as SVG flags? Quite a number of users have flags or similar small images in their signatures... ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ✉ 10:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
forgive me if iam rude and this is not vandalism but i want to know if they are any wikipedians with crimnal records again forgive me if iam rude.
I'm positive, there are, but I don't know any names. Then again, it's not anything people advertise on their userpage. - Mgm|(talk) 18:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some are identified here. ;-) hydnjotalk 19:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know wiki has special markup for dates, so they show up according to local settings.
I recenly merged a page with a big number like 20000. Written in that way, it didn't look so good. I know it's 20,000 in english and american locale settings but for us this number is a round 20.
Is there a way to write numbers so they are adapted to user locale like dates?
Ahh, then to extrapolate for a moment, an article could have the reader's choice of either American English or British English text. ;-) hydnjotalk 19:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. I see this is getting too much involved for me (I've dropped a note on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)) but I guess I'll just carry on with "hardwriting" the numbers. I'm not well aware of how to point this out to the staff, I hope this is the right thing to do.
Thank you very much for your quick response! MaxDZ8 18:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Long articles get broken up with headings that allow a user to edit just a small portion of text. That's great, unless I want to change something in the first paragraph (intro section with no edit link). In that case, I have to use the "edit this page" tab and wait for the entire page to load so that I can make minor edit (like avoiding a redirect) in the first sentence. Is there some way that we can get an "edit" link to show up for the introduction of an article if it's broken into sections? TheLimbicOne 19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, at the moment there is no link like this however one maybe included in future releases of media-wiki (the program that makes wikipedia work) prehaps someone could suggest this to the programmers. Lcarsdata 19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! How do I suggest changes for future releases? TheLimbicOne 19:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of user scripts that add this functionality. Take a look at the top two items on the list here. Drop me a note on my talk page if you have problems getting them to work. --GraemeL(talk) 19:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(after section edit conflict) See`user scripts where there is a user script you cna add that puts a section edit link for section 0 (the section above the first heading) on all pages you display. DES(talk) 19:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Thank you very much (I love how fast this help section gets results). Is there any plans add the 0th section function to the main wiki engine? TheLimbicOne 19:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about possible plans to add it to the default skin. Asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might be best. A dev will probably respond if you ask there. --GraemeL(talk) 20:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The user scripts page gives a bunch of info about the scripts but I don't see anywhere that tells a person where to put the script. What am I missing? I would think the instructions would be there as well... Dismas|(talk) 20:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Go yo your user page, create a sub-page called monobook.js and paste the script there. Once you save it, there will be instructions at the top of the page explaining how to refresh your browser cache. Follow them and the script should be active. --GraemeL(talk) 20:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That worked, thanks! Dismas|(talk) 22:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was taken out last year because it interferes with the floating boxes and images that people insist on putting everywhere. :) --Brion 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the proper solution there have been to change the floating boxes and images, rather than functionality? I'm one who had to go hunting the edit top script, because i thought this wasn't technically possible for whatever reason. Now I find out it's a stylistic issue? Bah. -- nae'blis(talk) 23:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but I just put in the first script in that list and there is no issue with formatting of the pages or moving of images. There is simply an extra tab at the top of the articles next to the "edit this page" link that reads "0". Dismas|(talk) 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through Category:Requested_moves and noted that many have already been moved. Can the move template be removed once a page has been renamed/moved? Thanks! --Lox (t,c) 20:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what you're looking for. "NoMultiLicensePD" seems contradictory. You can only license works that you could copyright for. If something is in the public domain, it means no one (or maybe, everyone equally) owns the copyright to it. So no one can restrict its use through any type of license. pfctdayelise 05:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm refering to something like the MultiLicensePD template. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 19:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a forum, and a history, and info about the members. Would this count as a article for wikipedia?
That depends. If the forum meets the giudelines at WP:WEB, chances are the article would be allowed to stay. If it doesn't, someone will probably put it up for deletion. --Shanel 18:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the instructions at the top of this page. Questions like yours belong on the reference desk. This page is for questions about Wikipedia itself. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I often keep an eye on the Battlefield 2 article, as it grows very quickly because of the game's high popularity, and often the information added is not appropriate (eg. a recent section was made to promote an amateur league, which I reverted, then later found the same user had vandalised the article in response). Thankfully most people dont worry about me taking out what I would consider trivial or fluff content, but the 'External links' section is a bit harder. A lot of people who run or use Battlefield 2 sites add their respective links, and obviously dont like it when I remove them because they are not notable or do not really contribute to the article. I am certain that if nobody cut the list down from time to time, it would be full of links to people who just want to promote their site, even if they didnt come close to being included in an encyclopedia article. What are the guidelines that I should be using to tell if a link really warrants a place in the article? Thanks :) Remy B 07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How do I link an entry in English on the en.wikipedia.org site to a German entry on de.wikipedia.org
Thanks
Michael
Edit the article on en.wikipedia.org and add [[de:GermanArticleName]] at the bottom, e.g. for Imagism, [[de:Imagismus]]. I think that's it! Hope that helps! --Lox (t,c) 09:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That will add the interlanguage-wikipedia link to the box which may or may not already exist, below the toolbox on the bottom left (in the default skin). So you should do that for articles which are on the same topic. Those type of links are kind of like category links, in that you can put them anywhere in the page but they always end up in the same place at the end.
If you want to provide a link within an en:w: article to a de:w: article, you do the same thing but with a leading colon (:), ie. [[:de:Imagismus]] --> de:Imagismus. (You can get rid of the de: prefix by using a trailing pipe | .) But this is usually discouraged, although right now I can't really think why - I guess because it is inappropriate to assume anything about the language knowledge of the reader. pfctdayelise 14:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I couldn't find anything on this in the documentation, so I ask here: Can I vandalize my own userpage (or its discussion page)? That is, if there is something on the userpage (or its discussion page) I just don't like, can I just remove it or do I have to use the usual process? For example, does 3RR apply to myself on my own userpage (or its discussion page)? Thanks in advance --Yooden
You can do whatever you want to your own userpage, except include copyright violating material. -- Mac Davisญƛ. 11:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can't do whatever you want to your talk (discussion) page, however. You may not delete others' comments, unless they are personal attacks. You may archive your talk page once it gets particularly long, but you are a ways away from that. WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs) 12:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, the userpage is solely mine, the talk page adheres to the usual talk page rules, right? Thanks! --Yooden
Actually, I don't think there's any clearcut policy about that. User pages don't normally fall under the 3RR rule, but if you put insulting comments about a user on it and someone removed them, you might well find yourself blocked for violating 3RR. With regard to user talk pages, a fairly-new admin recently posted a warning about something on a user's talk page. The user removed the message four times, and the admin blocked him. The block was undone by a more experienced admin. I don't think there's policy on it, though. To play safe, if you're a user, don't revert your talk page four times. If you're an admin, don't block for it. Maybe you should post the question here. It would be nice to have a discussion that would lead to some kind of agreed policy. AnnH(talk) 15:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I (or someone else) has merged two articles that were listed on the Wikipedia:Proposed mergers page, should I delete the proposal for deltion, or give a reply that I have merged it? -- Mac Davisญƛ.
It's best to just remove merged articles from the list and leave an edit summary to the effect of rm foo and bar - merged or something similar - that way, everyone knows what's happened, and the list is not unnecessarily cluttered -- Ferkelparadeπ 11:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do I do after tagging sock puppet? I tried to figure out what action we should take, but only guideline I found (this one) says I should present the case to ArbCom. Now, did I get that right or can I ask some admin to inspect the evidence and block sock puppets? I mean, if the evidence is obvious, why going through such a complicated procedure as ArbCom? --Dijxtra 13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unsure about what to do, you can always ask an admin for help. There are several admin noticeboards. Try posting on WP:AN/I. pfctdayelise 14:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Usually it's best to ask a member of the arbcom to confirm your suspicions as soon as possible. They use time sensitive info in their checks. - Mgm|(talk) 17:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
command to see system configuration utility in windows 2000 server[edit]
i want to see system configuration utility in windows 2000 server by using command in run of startbar
Please read the prominent information at the top of this page, about the purpose of the Help Desk. pfctdayelise 14:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
msconfig, I believe. FLaRN2005 17:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, as long as it's relevant to the project or your work on it, you can pretty much store anything there (except copyvio material and personal attacks). It's download times that can cause problems if you put it all on one page and don't use subpages. - Mgm|(talk) 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My question was whether there is a limit as to how much data one can store, not what kinds of data.
And the answer was "no, as long as it's relevant". -- Rick Block (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In an article that uses footnotes, is there a way to cite the same footnote multiple times? --HappyCamper 18:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Cite_sources#How_to_cite_sources says "the same footnote cannot be used multiple times with automatic numbering". So it seems you will need to either switch to Harvard style references, or duplicate listings. pfctdayelise 03:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't allow paedophilia on your website,,....[edit]
Glasgow Rangers fans have hijacked and locked a thread regarding a young Celtic player called Aiden McGeady.
I'm not sure if I should create an account on Wikipedia.
I'm always thinking "What's the catch? Is it like BSB Weird World Fan Club membership, where you have to pay money to keep the membership?"
Tell me, what IS the catch?
Misoka
There's no catch. The only downside I can think of is that editing Wikipedia can be addictive, and creating an account makes editing (and thus giving in to editing) easier. Wikipedia is entirely free and creating an account has numerous benefits for you. In fact, it will obscure your IP address and make you more anonymous in a way, which is a good thing if you worry about privacy. - Mgm|(talk) 21:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are no fees or "catches" of that sort. If you create an account, and use it, other people can see what edits you have made. On the other hand, Your IP address is not publicly visible, so this can actually increase your privacy. Edits from logged in users are given greater respect by many people. You will get a user page and a user talk page, so it will be easier for other people on the project to communicate with you. You will be able to create pages and move pages, and edit semi-protected pages, none of which can be done without logging in. You don't even have to provide an email address, although you may chose to. You get to set various display and editing preferences. Please register. DES(talk) 21:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks! I was just worried that there were hidden fees. thank you very much! Happy New Year 2006! -Misoka
I just did an edit (a minor change to d20 System in case it matters) and now all of a sudden all internal links are underscored rather than simply being a different colour from the surrounding text. I do not want them underlined; I think it's ugly and distracting. I certainly did not knowingly make any such change. How did this happen, and how can I undo it? PurplePlatypus 21:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Whatever was doing this, it just stopped, as suddenly as it began. An explanation would still be nice, if anyone has one. PurplePlatypus
It's been an intermittent issue for the last few weeks although with most it was that the underscores were now gone. Clearing your cache or closing out the program has been fixing it in the past. Don't know why it does it though, sorry. Dismas|(talk) 21:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer: yes. --IByte 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The slightly longer answer: not only is it free, it's a lot easier than on many other Web sites, such as the average message board. Wikipedia asks for much less information than most other sites. PurplePlatypus 23:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, there's no tax at all? None at all? --anon
If you want to donate, go ahead. If you don't, no one will think less of you. This "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs) 10:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Upon signing up, you must pay a staggering 12,500% (twelve thousand five hundred percent) of the registration fee as tax. The registration fee is $0 US, or €0, or £0. — JIP | Talk 17:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean there's no tax? --anon
I just said there is a tax, and a rather large one at that: 12,500%. When signing up, the actual amount of money you have to pay as tax is $0 US, or €0, or £0. — JIP | Talk 14:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What JIP is trying to say that signing up is free without tax. However, this is as close as I could get to translating whatever language he is speaking into plain, normal, understandable English. JIP, you are welcome to help me "translate" for anon. --Misoka
So to sum up: yes, getting a username is free. There is absolutely no charge or tax (but you can donate if you want to to help keep the site running). Getting a username is also very quick and easy, and should take you about 20 seconds - just fill in the four boxes on Special:Userlogin. --Kwekubo 20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, you have to pay for the time of all those responding to this question. No, no, just kidding! Halcatalyst 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is there any way to keep for example a serial killer from gaining knowledge about a specific group of people he wishes to target. does wikipedia have any systems of that nature.
Um, your question isn't really clear. Wikipedia articles are freely available for everyone to read, even serial killers. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what you're looking for. "NoMultiLicensePD" seems contradictory. You can only license works that you could copyright for. If something is in the public domain, it means no one (or maybe, everyone equally) owns the copyright to it. So no one can restrict its use through any type of license. pfctdayelise 05:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm refering to something like the MultiLicensePD template. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 19:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried several times to post a photo from my collection to Wiki's bio entry for Lucy, Lady Duff Gordon. It is a JPEG at 72 dpi. After submitting each time, I am informed it is not a "recommended file" type.
Might be a bug. Report it here. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 00:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the image has just been 'renamed' to a JPEG (from, say, BMP) then Special:Upload will reject it. Otherwise, it's pretty weird. Can you upload the image to somewhere else on the web (eg putfile) so we can have a look at it? pfctdayelise 03:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hi, what are serial codes exactly? are they the code you enter in the program to unlock it? and also, what are those sites that give you serial codes? are the codes random, or could someone else use them, so multiple people could use it that they could be tracked?
Please see the instructions at the top of this page. Questions like yours belong on the reference desk. This page is for questions about Wikipedia itself. --Kwekubo 01:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1.serial codes, in the context of software refers to the codes required to unlock the program, which can either be cracked (illegal), or bought from the company (legal). the sites that give you serial codes will usually give your computer viruses and cookies, the only relatively safe way to get serial codes (aside from in person from someone you know) is to get them from file sharing software like emule in the form of text files.
2.The codes are sometimes random, and sometimes based on specific variables in your computer, and sometimes universally set for everyone. unless the program uses the internet, you cannot be tracked (although illegal downloads can be). Don't break the laws of your country, by the way. This is only information, and you should support good programs by buying them.--Urthogie 01:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I'm clumsy and forget to put in an edit summary despite making a great edit. Is there any way to tweak my wikipedia interface to somehow make it force me to not enter a blank edit summary. Much thanks, --Urthogie 01:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a user script that add this functionality. Take a look at the list here to find it. Go to your user page, create a sub-page called monobook.js and paste the script there. Once you save it, there will be instructions at the top of the page explaining how to refresh your browser cache. Follow them and the script should be active. --GraemeL(talk) 01:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
does accepting an arbitration mean you agree with the prosecuting party or that you agree with the defense? thx, --Urthogie 01:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now, thanks. I confused the process for accepting an arbitration with the result of the arbitration itself.--Urthogie 06:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I joined Wikipedia in April or May of this year. I've enjoyed helping others with grammar and style, and was rewarded in September with a Featured Article, Dogpatch USA, one that I edited extensively in collaboration with a fellow Wikipedian who researched and wrote the bulk of the article. In October I began writing my first article, titled Adelle Davis, and imported a picture that I found on two websites, which I included in the article. To make a long story short, it was removed a few days ago by Admins, and I have no idea how to 1) find the copyright holder, 2) determine if it is in the public domain, or 3) get it placed in the public domain if I find an owner. Adelle Davis died more than 30 years ago. I need help. --RogerK 04:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Firstly, congratulations on your work in the 'pedia so far. The learning processes continues evermore, no?
Looking at the article history, I found the image was Image:ADAVIS1.jpg. By going to the logs (at Special:Log, and searching for this filename, I found that the image was deleted by User:CLW with the reason given being: Unconfirmed copyright status for over a week. So far, so good.
Have a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy. WP can only use images that are compatible with the GFDL (such as: public domain, GFDL and Creative Commons licenses) *OR* are being used under the terms of fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and Wikipedia:Fair use. Unless you specifically read that an image is PD, or have good reason to suspect so (eg it is very old - 30 years is not old enough), chances are it is under copyright. In that case, WP can only use it under a fair use rationale. Please read the pages on fair use, and then you upload an image provide it with a tag from WP:ICT to avoid it being deleted. HTH. pfctdayelise 05:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. The image was circa 1925, and I found it initially on the the website "The Adelle Davis Foundation". My attempts to contact them were unsuccessful, as the site appears to be in disrepair. Adelle Davis is survived, perhaps, by two adopted children, but I know of no way to find them. So I've run into a deadend. I want to upload the image again, re-introduce it to the article, and tag it properly. What tag should I use? --RogerK 22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Responded on user's Talk page. pfctdayelise 03:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not only for the tallest, highest, longest...[edit]
I seem to recall reading a nice section somewhere in the WP: namespace, about how "boring" things are worth writing about too. Like, not just the presidents, but also the vice presidents. Not everything needs a superlative to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. (I'm not an inclusionist, but I believe this is true.) But reading over WP:NOT, I can't find this section. Does anyone recall it, or where I can find it? TIA, pfctdayelise 05:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the article on Leonard Peikoff, should the category "20th century philosophers" go after "1933 births" (because it's a number) or after "Objectivists" (because of how "twentieth" is spelled)? --zenohockey 06:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... I don't think anyone minds much either way. Actually, I have never paid attention to the order of categories, alphabetic or otherwise. I think a ruling on this would be m:instruction creep in the extreme. BTW, I removed two categories from that page, as Category:Canadian Expatriates is a subcat of Category:Canadian people, and likewise Category:Atheist thinkers and activists with Category:Atheists. The general rule is that an article should only be placed in the most specific category applicable, not its parent categories as well. pfctdayelise 06:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you can view en categories as a "tree", more or less, here: category treepfctdayelise 07:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, instruction creep is one thing the category system is in no danger of...but I won't get into that now. Thanks for the tips. --zenohockey 04:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does a wIKIPEDIA user create a profile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkFreedom (talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 December 2005
if by a "profile" you mean your user page simply click your user ID at the top of any page, or go to User:MarkFreedom. Create the page as you would any new page, and edit it as you might any page. Many users put some information about themselves, wikipedia and non-wikipedia projects that they are intersted in, and their views and viewpoints on their user pages. Many use the "Userbox" tempaltes to indicate their langauge skills or other preferences. But short of slander, copyright violation, or obviousl policy violation, you can pretty much put whatever you want on your user page. DES(talk) 06:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the sandbox, I tried creating an article. I tried to upload an image but I get an upload warning messing. It is said Upload warning, "." is not a recommended image file format. I tried uploading as GiFF and JPEG file format and I still get the same message. Moreover, I previously uploaded this image outside of the sandbox, it did not get an error message.
Since, I previously uploaded the image, is there a way to link this image to the new article. Or do I have to create the article and use the File:Image name... first and then upload the image. If I did this I can work around the problem mentioned
in the previous paragrah.
Also, another problem is that I have two identical pictures that were uploaded. Is there a way to delete it.
Thank you.
Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~).
To insert the image into an article, edit the article and type
To have one deleted, edit its description page and put {{deletebecause|redundant to image FOO.jpg}} (but of course you would insert the name of the other image).
Also, please read your Talk page, if you don't already. Someone has brought this up - you could have left a note on their Talk page. pfctdayelise 10:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would this allowed under Wikipedia's policies?[edit]
I'm a member of a site that hosts quizzes on a wide range of subjects and categories. Now considering the fact that wikipedia serves to spread information, I was wondering if under the External Links section, a link to the relevant category could be added and whether this would be permissible. For example, in the Harry Potter fandom page,or in a similiar page, a link to a category containing quizzes on Harry Potter could be added. Would appreciate a bit of clarification in this regard from those better acquainted with wiki policy,
Regards Kaushik twin 08:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines regarding external links can be found at WP:EL. This link sounds like it is more promotional than informative, however. Only links which will add the the encyclopedic value of the article should be added. You might also want to check out WP:NOT. --WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs) 08:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just today when I tried to use it, I found that it's gone! Was it removed in the recent software upgrade or what? I still have admin powers, and can protect, unprotect and delete pages (or at least the buttons are there). Only thing missing is rollback. -- МиборовскийU|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 10:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what on earth is this? I suppose this is the answer? -- МиборовскийU|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 10:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I still have my button, and I can't see how a proposed policy would affect your button now. Mark1 10:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's back now... probably some browser SNAFU... But I swear it wasn't there when I looked at my own contribs! Oh well, back to normal. Sorry for wasting everyone's time! Heh. -- МиборовскийU|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Search history? I'm unaware of Wikipedia having such a function. Perhaps it's a feature of your web browser? --IByte 13:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a new contributor, and I'm attempting to put an image into an article. The trouble is that it seems that there are two different images titled Henry_Purcell.jpg, one on Wikipedia and one on Wikimedia commons. I'd like to use the one on the commons, but the one on Wikipedia seems to trump it. Thanks for any help you can give me. Makemi 18:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If they're meant to be the same, the one here should be deleted. In the case where both have the same name and they're different, the local one (not the commons one) has precedence, and there is no way to show the commons one as an inline image. image:Henry_Purcell.jpg links to the one here. commons:image:Henry_Purcell.jpg links to the one on the commons. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, would it be appropriate to change the name of one or both of them (eg Henry_Purcell 001, Henry_Purcell 002), or somehow move the commons one to Wikipedia? (don't know how to do it, but if one can I can figure it out. maybe.)Thanks. Makemi 22:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the solution is to rename the one here, but this may require re-uploading it to the new name and then deleting the existing one. I've asked someone who knows more about images if it's possible to rename without re-uploading. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded it to commons under the name commons:image:Henry_Purcell_001.jpg, and nominated it for deletion here. So far so good. I haven't moved any of the links yet because the original hasn't been decided on for deletion. Should I move them anyway? Makemi 20:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph of the lyrics section of The Attack of the Giant Ants, there seems to be a paragraph break between the second-to-last and last lines. Yet there's only a line break in the source. Why is this? --zenohockey 18:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a subtle bug in the code that attempts to "fix up" HTML included in wikimarkup. If you delete the <p> at the end of the last line of the first paragraph it seems to work. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a page that asks and to some degree answers the question of "does wikipedia get better?" I understand that individual articles get better over time, but does this improvement exceed the ratio of crappy new articles made while theyre being improved? That is to say, will wikipedia become more professional as time goes by, or less? There are many aspects to this and related questions, and i'm wondering if theres a page devoted to answering with statistics and the like. Thanks --Urthogie 19:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, though it may sound like it, but how is quality of the articles to be summed up with statistics? Dismas|(talk) 22:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Time, frequency of npov tags, and cleanup tags, number of edits, etc. I'm not asking for statistics or even objectivity, I was just wondering if there are opinions on this that approach it without bias, as a logic/math problem.--Urthogie 01:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a feature is going to be introduced soon, called "m:article validation" (although I think that's a crap name for it) where editors (and anon users?) can "rate" each version of an article. Like, out of 5. So once this feature has been used for a while, you will have a bunch of stats to work with. pfctdayelise 03:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the addition of crappy articles may bring down the average quality for Wikipedia articles, it doesn't bring down the quality of already-good articles. Indeed, most crappy articles added aren't noticed in any big way for quite a while. jnothmantalk 03:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One phenomenon you may have noticed is that it is possible for a good article to be degraded. Look at many of the high-traffic articles and you will see that a significant portion of the edits are insertions and removal of small, poor-quality edits. These are well-intentioned and not vandalism, but are either misinformation or do not represent an improvement to the article when inserted there for a variety of reasons. While poor article can improve over time, I suspect that good ones can be entropically degraded if not defended by knowledgeable editors. alteripse 15:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you add the + to the edit thingy for a given page. For example, the help desk doesn't have one, but the click here to ask a question link does the same thing. Thank you--Urthogie 19:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It only happens on talk pages, but someone may be able to make a 'user script' that puts it on the page.Thelb4 20:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well i know you can do things like make it so the TOC isn't generated, so I was wondering if you could control the "+" in the same way.--Urthogie 01:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the HD one was removed to try and force people to actually read the intro before adding questions. If you scroll past the fluff, you'll see Click here to ask your question about using Wikipedia, and that does the same as the little "+". pfctdayelise 03:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Thelb4 points out, you can only add it to a page for a particular user with a user script. I think, though, having a marker like __NEW_SECTIONS__ (or a better name) is a great idea, though. Indeed, I'll propose it at Mediazilla (bug #4448). To create a link as above in the Help Desk Header, all you need is to use the new-section URL which is <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PAGE_TITLE&action=edit§ion=new>. jnothmantalk 03:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to reset my forgotten password for my original account (Heywood), but I'm not seeing the email in any of my accounts. Could an admin tell me just the domain of the address to help me track down the account, or would that require pleading to a dev? Thanks--
Heywood 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, it requires a dev (someone with access to the database). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is a summary redirect? I recently merged Ardas with Ardās, and I installed a redirect at Ardas. I quickly received a message asking to enter a summary redirect but it wasn't specified how. Crisco 1492 23:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He meant: put as edit summary "redirect".--Patrick 01:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's especially important to indicate when you're making a merge or redirect in an edit summary, for people who have that page on their watchlist. If you leave it blank, or even worse mark it as a minor edit, they have no real way of knowing that they're now watching a page that's probably not going to change again. All the editing action, which is what they're interested in, is now going on at some new page that they're probably completely unaware of. pfctdayelise 04:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the prominent text at the top of this page that explains that this page is for asking questions about using and editing Wikipedia. Happy New Year. pfctdayelise 03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey; I was just wondering how I can use the choose/option tags in Wikipedia. It works in Uncyclopedia, as you can see here. These tags would pick some text randomly from a list and then use that text. A simple example of how they would be used:
<choose>
<option weight=1>This is one option.</option>
<option weight=1>This is another option.</option>
<option weight=3>This will happen more likely than something else.</option>
</choose>
So, there you have it. Can somebody please help me?
I can't see them in action in that link. It just looks like a regular stub template. Are you wanting this functionality for the main namespace or user namespace or something else? pfctdayelise 03:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in Template talk:Qif. (A new version of "if", which allowed optional attributes.) I think this would do what you want. pfctdayelise 04:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an extension written by Uncyclopedia's User:Algorithm. The extension is not installed on Wikipedia. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a cleanup template once that said something to the degree of "This article strays from its stated topic. If you can help to eliminate the divergent sections, please do so." This is not listed on the cleanup template list. Anyone have any idea if it exists or if I was having a wikidream? Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this. -Scm83x 10:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you thinking of Template:Off-topic? It's currently up at TfD. But it doesn't look like it has been widely used, so I dunno where you would've seen it. pfctdayelise 14:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is just what I was thinking of. I probably saw it on TfD, as that is on my watchlist. Too bad it may be gone soon. Thanks -Scm83x 23:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Sigh) I have stumbled across an article for WNEP-TV in the Wilkes-Barre-Scranton area of North-Central Pennsylvania. I found it by looking at the Afd page for today (January 1, 2006) where there was an Afd for WNEP-TV Anchors article. Here is the problem, as best I can state it:
I grew up in North Central Pennsylvania and I am shocked to find an article on a minor local television station in the middle of nowhere (for people who don't live in NCPA). I don't find WNEP-TV Channel 16 to be notable in the least, and certainly not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia entry. I would not undertake to write an article, for example, on Channel 28 news in Wilkes-Barre-Scranton, even though the news anchor was my Battalion Commander many years ago.
I can see from looking at the article that someone has put a large amount of effort into creating the article. It's quite long, and someone before me commented on the talk page that a local station didn't need an article this long and extensive. I agree, if any case could be made that we even need an article on WNEP-TV in Wilkes-Barre-Scranton PA, we certainly don't need anything that long or elaborate.
I am conflicted about this. I don't want to move it afd because of the amount of work that someone has put into this article, but in my mind, it's first, a non-notable subject, and second it's probably close to an advertizement for the television station. And yet again, another voice (yes, I took my medicine today) says, "What's the harm?" in having this article, even if it's non-notable, if it's otherwise well written and formatted?
So, what do you do about these cases? GestaltG 17:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Notability (broadcasting), which states "All stations with a four letter call sign, with no numbers, may be included.", it is worthy of an article. Though I agree, it's rather detailed and will more than likely become rather inaccurate fairly quickly since newscasters can come and go so rapidly and schedules can change as well. Dismas|(talk) 19:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I don't yet know where to find all of these documents. Even though it's a proposed guideline, I'll abide. I do note that WNEP has over the years originated some of it's own programming. As to the detail, my feeling is that it had to have been written by someone who works there. Again, thanks; I'll move on to other battles. GestaltG 00:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On some pages, such as Venus, there is a star next to one or several other languages that the article is also written in. What does this star mean? When is it given? Where is the meta-data page for it (like the one for all general images)? If anybody knows and would like to post, I would appreciate it. Thank you for your help.
It means it was a featured article in that language. Dismas|(talk) 20:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does only the English Wikipedia have that, because I don't see the stars on any other language?--kenb215 20:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know. I just know this was asked before and that was the answer given. After a bit of clicking around, if you click on the interlanguage link for "Suomi" (I don't speak the language so I don't know what language that is) you can see the star listed next to the English version of the article. So it seems some languages do have this feature, not just the English version. Also, if you go to the English talk page, it says that it was a featured article in four other languages. The first two are Czech and German. Those are the first two that are "starred" in the interlanguage list. Dismas|(talk) 20:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A browser on Mac doesn't show bullet indentation[edit]
A newbie friend entered some lines including a long asterisk line ("*************") used as a separator.
On Windows it showed a multi-bulletted indentation, but on the Mac it looked fine, and so he entered these lines into the wiki. Why was he seeing it differently than expected? Should he be aborting the Mac browser if he wants to wiki? Gil_mo 21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this code should do, but I assume it should not be used. To make a separator use "----". "****" appears as nothing in Opera and Firefox as far as I can tell. jnothmantalk 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should only show as a "multi-bulleted indentation" if there is something following the asterisks. jnothmantalk 03:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Drowning in the many google lookups for this search, what is the easiest method to convert an MS DOC file (or, HTML) into wiki markup? esp. for tables and other hard-to-format stuff. Gil_mo 21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A wiki site I've installed at work is searching in a case-sensitive manner. How can it be configured to ignore the case? Gil_mo 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a MediaWiki issue and not Wikipedia. See mw:Communication for IRC and email support options. jnothmantalk 03:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My user page toolbox contains a link to "What links here." What is the purpose of these links? How are they created? How can they be used by me or anyone else? Halcatalyst 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears for every page, not just your user page. Indeed, it is not very useful on your user page as it will just indicate where you have commented plus a few. But it is very useful for articles, templates, images, etc. It tells you what other articles and pages have links to the selected page, and thus may tell you where a template is used, or gives a rough list of related articles for a given article; it's necessary also with administrative tasks like moving and deleting pages. Does that answer your question? jnothmantalk 02:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does, thanks. I just wondered whether it had any value in that specific context. For me, it doesn't, which means I can get on to something else. :P Halcatalyst 04:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone might link to you from their user page. You may have a friend..or enemy?--Urthogie 18:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can one possibly use the help archives for trying to locate a previously asked question? I even suspect that archive questions don't even show in the Wikipedia search... Gil_mo 22:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you know approximately when the question was asked, you can search for keywords in the archive(s) selected by date. Indeed, if you know who asked the question, you can simply go to the help desk history and search through a few thousand edits for the relevant username or topic title. Finally, and most flexibly, if the question has been archived for long enough, you should be able to find it through google: Search for "site:en.wikipedia.org intitle:"help desk/archive"" and add any keywords/user names after this. jnothmantalk 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just wish this was written anywhere near the archives.. that would make it more useful and maybe reduce the amount of questions in the help desk.Gil_mo 08:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be, but among other things, favouring google over another search engine would be frowned upon. jnothmantalk 08:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! would that search work only in google? If so, then I understand. <Frustration!>Gil_mo 09:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, i've been getting into vandelism fighting for a day or two now and theres this one problem that keeps bugging me. Alot of vandelism I see is where a user blanks a part of an article but replaces it with someone positive relating to the article for example a user would blank John Kerry and replace it with "OMG JOHN KERRY ROX". When reverted should the user be given a {{test1}} warning or a {{test2a}} warning? Thanks. - iGod 23:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather a matter of judgement, based on the content and the vandalism. Personally I very rarely warn an anon-vandal on the first occurance, as so many anon-vandals are one-shot vandals - and I'm concerned that my warning will just annoy an innocent user of the same IP later, and won't be seen by the vandal (who dropped his little turd and fled). So if that was the first recent vandalism coming from that account I'd generally revert it and not warn. If the vandal did another vandalism I'd then warn them. There's a big difference between blanking and leaving nonsense (like this) and just adding an otherwise inoffensive nonsense. In the former case I'd jump straight to a test2 warning, but for the former I'd consider going with a test1. The content of the vandalism (profanity etc.) helps me decide which is the more appropriate. I try to be gentle with first-contact vandals, and most just stop (and a few apologise and stop) and escalate promptly as vandalism continues. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons for the warnings, though, is that they tell other fighters that you've made the warning... So unless the vandal-fighter checks the vandal's contribs (which they should, but don't always), they can't tell that this is the first or second time... And therefore it may be worthwhile to mark for {{test}} even on the first time. jnothmantalk 02:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the vandalism seems a bit too sever for {{test}} you can use {{vw}} or {{vw-n}}. See {{TestTemplates}} for a fuller list of available warning templates. DES(talk) 10:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What happens when two people try to edit an article at the same time? Say person A opens the edit window, then person B opens an edit window on the same article, they both change stuff, then one saves the page, then the other. What happens?
The second person to save sees an edit conflict warning. The page shows the current text/code in one text box and their text/code in a second text box. The second person can then manually merge the two if they want or just go with the other person's if they were fixing the same things. This is why using section editing is helpful, i.e. the little blue edit link next to section headers. WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs) 00:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
. enochlau (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://lasvegasnmcchp.com/tours/lost/images/davemather.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Johann_Kaspar_Kerll_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 08:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 10:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Mac Davis ญƛ. 11:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Mac Davis ญƛ.
