Help desk
< November 15	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

November 16

Translating articles

Xorthan 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several English articles that I would like to see in Spanish. (Actually, all of them, but that would take way too long). I can do the translations myself.

What's the best way to do this?

You might try looking at Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week. You don't necessarily have to sign up with the project, but they have some helpful hints that I've used before in translating articles. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Translation into English. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it the wrong way round Pat, the user is asking how to translate articles *into* Spanish, not *from* Spanish. I'm not sure that the Spanish Wikipedia has an equivalent translation project. You could try setting one up over there, or just go ahead and start doing it yourself, article by article. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 07:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it violate any copyright to translate another person's article?

All articles on Wikipedia are licensed under the GFDL, meaning you're free to copy them provided the copy is also licensed under the GFDL and you provide credit. When translating across Wikipedia projects, this is achieved by adding a note to the "References" section or equivalent to the effect of:

"This article contains text originally from the [[:en:Foo|corresponding article]] on the [[:en:Main Page|English Wikipedia]]." GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the wikipedia policy for creating religion categories and Portals?

Four of us have decided to start a religion, "The Mickey Mouse" based on some obsure book, "Micky and Dickey". I want to make a portal for it and get it included in the religious categories. Sounds crazy proposal? But you guys have already allowed some unknown entity called Ayyavazhi to make 100 articles on it and enter it into religious categories and even make a separate portal for it, when we from the same region as that grouping dont even know that such a thing exists. There are no newspaper reports and no credible books to prove that such a grouping even exists and it has a top-level portal - [[1]]Balajiviswanathan 01:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, Iam requesting once again. Please don't hurt. I've cited with New paper report and with University reserch papers from professors.

Why you are comparing Ayyavazhi with the name micky mouse and all?

Number of Adherents- Since not officially recognised (Ayyavazhi not recognised as a seperate religion) there is no chance for a officially valid list. Then from Ayyavazhi head-quarters there are several listings based upon membership in Thangals I think. Let me try to find. Roughly telling I've heard many of them telling as over a million.

On the other hand, friend see the declaration of official Holiday. You can't say that it is like a local Holiday given for some other temples like Velankanni. Because, for no temple festivals in Tamil Nadu more than a district will be declared as a holiday.

But, three dists were declared as a Holiday. Just more than 15 percent of the three districts populaton will comfortably cross this border. Even for local holidays a considerable percent population more than this is claimed.

Spread of Ayyavazhi outside Tamil nadu.

From a reserch paper from Madurai Kamarajar University, Dr.R.Ponnu in (Sri Vaikunda Swamigal and The Struggle for Social Equality in South India, says, "At present, thousands of Pathis (Nizhal Thangals) are seen through out the Various parts of South India" He also told that (Down in the Paragraph about Kanyakumari and Tirunelveli dists) , "In these two districts it is very difficult to see a village with-out a pathi". This is the reason for the declaration of a holiday. These two are three districts are havily populated but on the other hand the Ayyavazhi population scattered through-out South India. But not hevily as these districts.

Another book (Ayya Vaikundarin vaazvum Sinthanaiyum)(Tamil) from the same university says (Author N.Krishna Nathan) that "60% of the Thangals are runned by Nadars and the rest by others". Which means 40 % is out side Nadar caste. That is the spread of Ayyavazhi in south or whole of Tamil Nadu is more among Nadars and outside Tamil nadu the spread is among other people.

The book Religion and Subaltern Agency from Madras University also says the presence of Thangals across the country mainly many parts of Tamil Nadu and some Kerala Parts.

And Dr.Poulose in his book Advaita Philosophy of Brahmasri Chattampi Swamikal, says the presence of Thangals through-out India. It doesn't mean that the wole Indian parts are of Ayyavazhi followers. But as your general vision, it should not be mistaken that it's spread is confine to two or three districts of Tamil Nadu or Nadars.

This University books are with me and there are sevral University books which gives such details is not with me. Then these are external and valid nutral views.

Then the official recognition from the Indian govt only doesnot make a notability to religion. The recognition will come after a sereis of deed and all. These are university papers.

If there are a million people and climing for a religion and the Indian Government does not recognise it as a religion. The people don't call them as Hindus. Does it mean that they are Hindus really? This is in the case of Ayyavazhi. They don't call them as Hindus. And the niversity papers itself is proof.

Then the official govt recognision itself don't bring a notability for some thing at all. If so are the university papers not genune? It says about the underlying reality.

Then from the pages you removed Ayyavazhi see the other pages (other than major beleifs) liked to there. I feel Ayyavazhi is more notable than that. Please understand.

And is it my fault that they are unknown online. Still the book, "Religion and Subaltern Agency" the most cited book is found online - Paul 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has to appoint a few admins knowledgeable in the issue to resolve this matter. The news report, doesnt say anything about their group and this all proof they have. The are no links to papers in the second link. Even assuming that it is a real grouping, there are a zillion groupings in the world, believing on a variety of things. When it is not even known by people from the region and not even mentioned in any of the official pages or news articles, how could it even warrant a page, leave alone a portal? Balajiviswanathan 01:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have recommended on your talk pages that you two to take your dispute to Wikipedia:Mediation. You both care about the issue passionately; I cannot see how it will be resolved without damage other than by mediation. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I cited even with University reserch books. Iam again asking, They are offline. That is not my fault friend. Please understand.

Telling more about Ayyavazhi, It is a religion in South India with 8000 worship centers. This is even cited from University book in Ayyavazhi Article. What more I can Do? Please understand - Paul 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to Wikipedia:Mediation. You two are diametrically opposed & have been banging against each other for quite some time. Take it to Wikipedia:Mediation. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Or WP:RFC - if you haven't tried already. It may not be notable enough to constitute its own portal and article, especially if you just decided to create your own religion (see WP:NFT). Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four of us have decided to start a religion, "The Mickey Mouse" based on some obsure book, "Micky and Dickey"

Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, etc. --WikiSlasher 08:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Site

I am doing a research paper and I would like to use this site and a resource. Is it possible to site this as a book or do i need to site is as a website? Thank you.

Go o the article you want to cite, and you will notice in the "toolbox" on the lefthand corner of the screen will have link "Cite this article". Click it, and it should help. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't log in.

My account (JesseBHolmes) suddenly won't work; I've tried typing in the password many times & know for a fact that it is the correct one. Why is this happening?

See Help:Logging in. Your problem may be there. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, my problem isn't there. I use this account all the time, on the English-language Wikipedia; it's always worked until now. --198.60.192.145 02:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've checked that cookies are enabled, and that you've typed in right capitalization for your username and password? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It tells me the password is wrong; it isn't. --198.60.192.145 02:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click "e-mail new password" and try that. Cbrown1023 03:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- this has happened to me twice in the last week, out of the blue. Is there a problem Houston? Johnbod 03:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see Help:Logging in? I just logged in, and didn't get a problem; if not, you might just have to wait until the problem clears out. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried clicking e-mailing the password; it didn't remember my e-mail address and couldn't send it. I guess I'll try just waiting it out for now. --198.60.192.145 04:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been two days & my account hasn't come back. Is there any way to regain access to my account? --70.58.60.16 04:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (JesseBHolmes)[reply]

Anit-Semitic remarks

I can't figure out how to delete this on the page, nor can I find a way to contact the Wikipedia editors, so I'm writing this here in the hopes that one of you will know what to do about it.

On the page about the war in Iraq, there is an info box that has extremely anti-Semitic remarks in all caps. I think it would be best for all if this were deleted as quickly as possible.

Please tell the page. Cbrown1023 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see it in Iraq War, someone must have deleted it. If you see something like this you shoud go to the page's history and then compare the most recent version to the one before it (using the compare selected versions button). If the red writing on the right is outright offensive or vandalism you can revert by clicking (edit) above the righting on the left side, fill in the edit summary box with Rv, Revert or something similar and save the page. --WikiSlasher 07:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you came across some vandalism - it's a sad fact that some people on Wikipedia seek to disrupt it by defacing pages like this. Luckily, it's very easy to fix, as WikiSlasher said. You can find instructions on how to do this at Help:Reverting. — QuantumEleven 14:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias problems in article on Herschel Grynszpan

COMPLAINT

The following is a reference from Gerald Schwab's The Day the Holocaust Began:p. 186-7 (If you look at Schwab p.186, you will find that the writer has twisted and misunderstood and misstated what Schwab has on that page.) What Schwab has there is this: "Those arguing that there existed a homosexual relationship between assassin and victim naturally also rely to a considerable extent on the statements of Herschel Grynszpan. Occasionally also cited is a notarized sworn deposition of August 25, 1963, by Dr. Sarella Pomeranz, who stated that she was a doctor in the Institute of Radiology of Drs. Halberstaedter and Tugendreich in Berlin from 1929 until it closed in 1939. According to Dr. Pomeranz, Ernst vom Rath was treated at the Institute for rectal gonorrhea which, according to the referring physician, had been contracted as a result of homosexual relations. According to Dr. Pomeranz, she carried out the shortwave radiation therapy which, at the time, was considered the most effective treatment for the illness. Dr. Pomeranz stated that she remembers Ernst vom Rath because of who he was -- not surprising when one considers that the Institute was operated by Jewish physicians, all of whom evenutally emigrated. Grimm reported in his memorandum of April 23, 1942, that among the files confiscated in Paris was a letter from Tel Aviv dated august 27, 1939, from Dr. Schoroschowsky, a radiologist formerly from Berlin, who reported having heard essentially THE SAME RUMOR. Dr. Schoroschowsky did not identify his source, but THE INFORMATION APPARENTLY WAS BASED ON HEARSAY. Questions have been raised about the veracity of Dr. Pomeranz's deposition. Actually, it is largely irrelevant. The question here is not what vom Rath's sexual preferences were, but rather whether there existed a homoseuxal relationship between vom Rath and Grynszpan. This writer contends that the question can be answered with an emphatic "no". (ends on p. 187 Schwab.)

So why has the Grynszpan article writer written the following and said it was from Schwab? : "It seems clear that vom Rath, a 28-year-old bachelor who had used family connections to get himself posted to the pleasant surroundings of Paris, was homosexual. According to the rumours collected by Döscher, he was known as "Madame Ambassadeur" and "Notre Dame de Paris" among Parisian gay men. These rumours were collected by investigators hired by Moro-Giafferi, and used as the basis for a defense. After the war, it was revealed that vom Rath had been treated for rectal gonorrhoea at the Berlin Institute of Radiology. [7]"

How come any attempt to change or clarify this has been deleted time and time again? oldcitycat 02:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC) oldcitycat 02:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to clarify that with the one who reverted your remarks. I'm pretty sure not many people here have the book you're referring to, and therefore cannot discuss whether the author meant what you said or not. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 03:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of things wrong with Wikipedia and one of them is Adam Carr's handling of changes for the Grynszpan article. He certainly doesn't know anything much about the sources available or anything much about the subject in general. This is a formal complaint. Carr thinks he owns Wikipedia. oldcitycat 07:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 69.162.194.59 06:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cabal. Please remain civil. If you wish you may go to WP:RFC or WP:THIRD and ask for an outside view. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 07:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is in need of stiff competition. Staying with it is not worth the effort.69.162.194.59 08:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Country partitions

Does Wikipedia have a listing of countries which were partitioned, such as: India; Ireland; Yugoslavia, etc. Jonathan Fast

Partition (a disambiguation page) has what looks like an incomplete listing; perhaps that will help? Not sure, though. —K e akealani 03:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good category to create, though, on your own. See WP:Category. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Brazil Ethinicity. The New-Christians or Jews Portugueses in Brazil

Hello, would like to make a commentary in relation to the referring article about Brazil. With regard to the topic "ethnicity", in accordance with studies, research and inquiries on the history and the poblation of Brazil, 35% of the Brazilian population, has some jews descendents. What it occurs? At the beginning of century I, the biggest concentration of jews of the planet was in the Iberian peninsula. With the constant invasions, barbarians, Romans, Christians and arabians, the great majority of these jews had Portugal as last redoubt. In 1500, with the persecution of the Inquisition, many they had as exit, a country that finishes for being discovered, Brazil. Of first the 400,0000 Portuguese inhabitants who had immigrated for America (Brazil), 90% were jewishes or NEW-CHRISTIANS (jews obligatorily cristianized). It has many associations about this research in Brazil, that each time more these studies are extending. It has indications of associations that are helping in the interested research of and at the same time reintroduce these descendants for the culture it jews. Therefore, the majority of Portuguese common names and some Spaniard are changed names, like for example Christian-old last names, as for example: Silva, Moraes, Souza, Teixeira, Costa, Carvalho, Flores, Fernandes, Oliveira, Moreira, and many others. More information, will be able to get in some sites as for example, ABRADJIN - Brazilian Association of the Portuguese Descendants of Jewhishes, Brazil Memorial - Sefarad, or the book, the Raízes Jewish of the Brazilian People(As Raízes Judias do Povo Brasileiro), Flávio Mendes de Cravalho. Thanks.

The place to discuss changes to an article is on the talk page. Propose any change you have at Talk:Brazil, along with the reason why. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know someone that is making a vanity page. What do I do?

Hello.

I am pretty novice at using Wikipedia, but someone I know admitted to me that he is making a vanity page on Wikipedia to increase traffic to his website.

I was tempted to go in and flag the entry somehow, but I don't want him to know I am betraying him since my username will come up. I really am a firm believer in keeping the site's integrety. I don't really know what to do.

Thank you for your time.

You do exactly what I did, and place a deletion notice at the top of the page. In this case, it's {{db-web}}, because it's about a website. Please see Other tags can be found at WP:CSD. If the speedy deletion is canceled, you can start a proposed deletion or, more likely, an WP:AFD (article for deletion) where arguments for and against are used. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict) If he's doing something against the rules, you shouldn't be afraid to follow procedure in tagging it. (And in this case, the proper tag would be {{db-spam}} for the reference). If you're really worried about it, you could sign out and tag it anonymously so that it's only noted by your IP address. Since the article is about to get deleted anyway, your IP wouldn't be around very long, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. If you think he's going to continue, you might want to let an admin know via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Good luck, whatever your choice. As it were, that article has already been tagged for deletion, so I wouldn't worry about it. —K e akealani 05:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if the person you know sees your IP address, then that person can check what company the IP is registered to and if that company is based in the same area then the person could suspect it was you who did it (after all you were told about it). Just sharing my thoughts. --WikiSlasher 07:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and, in any case, the article in question has now been deleted, citing criteria A7. — QuantumEleven 14:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing links

1. How do I change the link in the K.M. Peyton page to point to the newly created article Going Home (book by K.M. Peyton) as opposed to a film of the same name?

2. How do I ensure the book will be found when a search of "Going Home" is made?

Princess Ali 09:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To aim a link at Going Home (book by K. M. Peyton), type [[Going Home (book by K. M. Peyton)|what text you want to appear]]. If someone types in Going Home at the moment, they come to a page about the TV series; you should add the newly created article to Going Home (disambiguation) to make it easier to find. --ais523 09:55, 16 November 2006 (U T C)

Unless there's more notable books with that name, it's probably better to put the article at Going Home (novel). If there's more, it should probably be at Going Home (K.M. Peyton novel) to be in line with other similar titles. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What things to include under Article and what under PortalNileema 03 11:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Portal for a guide, where it says Portals are pages intended to serve as "Main Pages" for specific topics or areas. For example, Portal:Latin America. However, individual articles are more specific (e.g., Fiestas Patrias (Chile) is mentioned under the above portal. Hope that helps. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

improvement of article

I have contributed a ariticle about freedom fighter Khadi shankarappa.I am getting the notice to clean up the article.can you kindly clean up or suggest how to clean up the said article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopinath shimoga (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia's Manual of Style. In your case, a few things that stick out at me are: the fact that the first sentence should contain the name of the article in bold, it could use some sections with that much text (see WP:SECT), there are some grammatical problems (e.g., a sentence starts at least one space after a period), and it could use some clarification for people not familiar with Indian history (that can be achieved through better Wikilinking). Good luck. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a page

Please could you assist me in editing the information for FremantleMedia. The information is out of date. I did try to delete everything and paste in the correct information but Wikipedia then deleted my work and told me I was vandalising the page. I work in Communications for FremantleMedia and so my new information is correct. I would like help in changing this page please.

Kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucywinter (talk • contribs)

I would suggest that you leave a message on the page of the editor who reverted you (User_talk:Geniac), and possibly a message on the talk page of the article explaining why you're removing content. From here on, I would advise using the talk page or edit summary to explain why you're removing content in the future - otherwise, it might just look like you're making a whimsical change (no offense to you; just a general statement about how Wikipedia operates). -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make the new information still look like a Wikipedia article. Notice that the article at the moment is full of links, for example. What you replaced it with was mostly simply factual but did not have any links. And it reads like publicity written by the company, rather than a neutral overview (e.g. "The company is a global leader in content production and rights"). You'll notice that the article includes, currently, a lot of information about properties that are owned, and what you replaced it with did not have any of this information. This should be preserved, and if any of those properties are no longer owned, then it is in order for the article to say "formerly". Probably your best approach is to take the article as it is, pick out specific errors and correct them. Replacing whole articles is rarely succesful, because you aren't likely to reach a consensus with all the existing editors who worked on it. Finally, you need to extra care because you represent the company: there is understandable caution in allowing this, because it's much harder for you to take a neutral perspective. Also, be sure not to use material word for word from your publicity material, as it is likely to be flagged as a copyright violation (and it's much easier to rewrite than prove permission!). Good luck! Notinasnaid 12:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information in Wikipedia must be verifiable from already published reliable sources and must be written in a neutral tone. "Insider info" would not qualify as it has not been published elsewhere. I would also suggest that you read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines (WP:COI and WP:ECOI) to ensure that other editors will not have reason to question your edits. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 09:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I rename (move) a page?

I have read the section on how to rename a page which I need to do as I accidentally ommitted to use capital letters. However, I can't figure out what to do. The instructions read:

With the correct page displayed, click on the "Move" tab near the top of the page. You'll be asked for a new name for the page, and given the option to also move the page's talk page.

However, there is no 'move' tab anywhere and I have tried everything. Help!

--Needs fixing 12:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you are a new user; one has to be a user registered for at least four days to be able to make a page move. Ironically, looking at your log, it looks like you'll hit that status in about 40 minutes, as I write this. That being said, I'll make the move for you anyway. :) Good luck. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

log in

please enlighten me as to the meaning of the "log-in" function. whenever i log in my log-in name shows on the top of the page and this occurs automatically as well whenever i first bring up wikipedia. however, whenever i change pages the log-in name disappears. worse yet, whenever i edit something i see the message "you are currently not logged in etc." and then i go to logging in and thereafter back to editing and, there again it says:"you are currently not logged in". In other words i have not been able to do anything while logged in and therefore my IP address shows i guess! not that i mind but..... Thank you. Bert67.142.130.40 12:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you don't have cookies enabled on your computer. For help, try Help:Logging in. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Patstuart, did as you said but did not change the situation. i use msinternet explorer 6 and it is set to medium. any further suggestions? thanks bert67.142.130.45 15:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't help you further; the Help: Logging in page (which I partially helped to write) has about the extent of what I know could be the problem. Still, it sounds like a cookies issue to me. Good luck anyway, though. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual classroom update and assignment template

We've moved on to our second lesson in the Virtual classroom, though each lesson is continuous so we may see more additions to the interface share and compare as well. The current topic of discussion is "stubbing."

To help keep track of what's going on, here's a template you can place at the top of your userpage or talk page:

Hope to see you at the Virtual classroom soon. The Transhumanist 12:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Thanks; I just might use that. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding images and why can they not be from websites?

I have just posted this question but for some reason it hasn't appeared so apologies if it suddenly does! What I need to know is about adding images to my article. I have read numerous things about uploading them etc, but the wikipedia section on adding images stresses that they must not come from a website. What is the definition of a website? (sorry, I am a computer newbie!) Surely any image which is on the internet and freely available is in the public domain and therefore can be used on a wikipedia article? I just want to add a simple picture/image of a person about whom I am writing - there are lots of pics of this person online. Can I use them? And how do I determine the copyright status?? Any help much appreciated! --Needs fixing 12:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A website is basically anything on the internet. Images from websites are almost always copyrighted, and need to be attributed. It's not that you can't upload any file from the internet, it's that you can't upload just any file from the internet. When you go to upload a file, it will have instructions on how to say how the image fits into copyright guidelines. This is very difficult business, albeit, so if you're still having trouble, come back and explain which file you want to upload, why, and where you want to use it, and someone here can try to help. Good luck. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably read up on the public domain. Just because things on the internet are often freely available doesn't mean they're in the public domain. Library books are accesible, but that doesn't affect their copyright status. Websites are the same. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating notability.

Hello Wikipedia,

I just would like some advice on how to make my Amelia's Magazine article have the required notability. I have read and re-read your extensive pages on the matter but am no clearer as to what I have to do. For example, I can't really see the difference between my article and for example the article about Vice Magazine. In no way is this a criticism, I would just like you to enlighten me so I can improve it and make sure it doesn't get deleted.

The article is independent, I am in no way associated with Amelia's Magazine, other than being a reader, and would very much appreciate your assistance. Also, could you please comment on the references I have cited as to whether or not they are acceptable.

Tom Howard

Has it been deleted before? If so, you'll want to be careful. But I would start out the article by saying "Amelia's magazine" does this and this, and has this specific function in the industry. If you're particularly worried that someone will tag your article, you could write a brief note on the talk page explaining why you think it's notable, and hopefully no one will nuke it. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well from a quick glance - Vice Magazine has been the subject of discussion in publications such as the New York Post over a period of ten years. The article you mention seems to have circular references that just go to myspace pages and the like. You need to find mentions from other publications about the magazine not just what it says about itself (and blogs and myspace are no good in that regard). --Charlesknight 12:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are generally about magazines that are read by millions of people or, as discussed above, have received attention from other notable publications like the New York Post. An article won't fit the required notability criteria if the magazine isn't notable to begin with. It's mention on Myspace and blogs means it's probably not a suitable subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, points taken, well how about the Marmalade Magazine page? It is small but a very similar thing, and that doesn't have any notes about notability etc

well that just means that page might need to be deleted or tagged for improvement - how does that establish notability of the page YOU are working on? well it doesn't. All that happens when you point out similar pages is people like me head over and give them a good kicking... --Charlesknight 13:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well no it doesn't, I just thought that because it hadn't been tagged, it meant it was fine; rather than meaning you hadn't got round to tagging it yet, if you see what I mean. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sen3tah (talk • contribs) 15:38, November 16, 2006 (UTC).

Yes, I'm afraid the latter is the case - "X has an article on Wikipedia, my subject is similar to X, hence my subject is notable enough for Wikipedia" is not an argument, because there is no centralised Wikipedia "notability police" that makes sure every article on Wikipedia meets the notability criteria at all times. Your best bet is always to refer back to the notability guidelines (which you already seem to be an expert on!). If you feel that the subject in question falls under these guidelines, go ahead and write the article, trying to not only describe the magazine, but also why it's notable. Has it won any prizes or awards? How large (and wide) is its readership? Is it notable in some other way? Try to find other articles, books, journals etc which mention or cite Amelie's Magazine, these often provide good supporting evidence of notability.

I just wanted to say that it seems you have already done a good deal of research, which I think it great, and which sets you apart from many other editors writing their first article from scratch. I hope you stay with us at Wikipedia! :) — QuantumEleven 14:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article

How we can add Article?Nileema 03 12:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Very_Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_I_create_a_new_article?. However, since English doesn't appear to be your first language, please consider contributing to the Wikipedia in your own language. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sufficiently proficient in English, and think you can create a good article, we still encourage you to do so, however. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

x marks the spot

How can I begin to see my pictures again? I do not see any of the pictures associated with Wikipedia. Instead I see a small box with an "X" in the upper corner.

Did you check your browser settings (usually under Tools -> Options or something similar)? There will be an option "display images" in there, make sure it's checked. Are you behind a proxy server (eg in a large corporation)? If so, that may be the reason. Do you have any ad-blocking software installed? If so, try turning it off to see if that solves the problem (some ad-blocking software gets overly zealous). Is this just a problem on Wikipedia, or on other websites too? — QuantumEleven 13:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i have noticed it only on wikipedia.

Sometimes Wikipedia' servers get a bit slow, and the pictures don't upload properly. It's nothing to worry about. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see them at all:(

Removal of categorization template

Sorry - I am being a nuisance this morning! but just need help with one more question. I ommitted to categorize my article on Emmett Tinley but have now done so (though will probably recategorize it sometime.) But there is a box at the top of the article which says, 'Please remove this template after categorizing. This article has been tagged since November 2006.' I have tried everything including right clicking but no delete sign appears and I can't get rid of the template. Does this mean my categorization isn't right or is there just something I am not doing to enable me to remove the template? Thank you for your invaluable assistance!

The template appears as a normal part of the article, wrapped in {{ }} signs. Edit the article and you will be able to delete the template (and the brackets around it). Notinasnaid 13:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it here. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References section missing

What has happened here? If you look at the project page it has no references, but if you edit the page, a references section is there. Any thoughts??? AndyJones 13:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had left a half-open tag which was hiding the rest of the article. I've closed it, but that particular reference is missing now. Try looking in the history to see if you can find it. --ais523 13:50, 16 November 2006 (U T C)

Well done: would never have spotted that! Another problem then, if I may. Judging by the history, the reference should point to http://www.kenja.com.au but I've no idea what the wiki syntax for that is, where the reference has a name. Can you tell me how to fix that (or maybe do it for me and I'll learn by example!)? AndyJones 14:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing an image description

Hello. The image Buenos_Aires-Puerto_Madero-Hilton-River_View.jpg[2] has an insulting comment in Spanish below it. I tried to edit it out but I can't find the way to do it. Could someone tell me how it's done? Or if it requires an admin, could one of them do it? Thanks! ironcito 14:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, removing that isn't as simple as it looks! :) The image in question is not on Wikipedia, it's stored on Wikimedia Commons (link), the description needed to be edited there. Even though I don't speak Spanish I could make out more or less what was written as a comment, and you're right, it's spurious and I have deleted it. — QuantumEleven 14:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When we add Co₂ the production of biogas increases why?

Try asking this question over at the reference desk. —Mitaphane _talk 15:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hard hat

which are the stores or shops in london, havering borough that sell hard hat please?

Wikipedia is not a directory - try looking it up elsewhere. Trebor 18:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My contribs

Something very strange is happening. my contribs are not reflecting my actual edit history. If anyone wants to help please post on my talk. Thanks! Amists ^{talk • contribs} 16:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to be more specific. If your contribs are wrong, we can't well verify the change, can we? But in this type of case, the problem is usually human error - you probably misread your contrib history. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have made edits to pages that have subsequently been deleted those edits will not appear in the contribs. --WikiSlasher 07:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a username

How do I delete my username and my whole page?

User accounts can't be deleted for copyright reasons; see WP:U. You can request the deletion of your userpage by placing {{db-user}} on it. --ais523 17:38, 16 November 2006 (U T C)

Original research vs. deficit in research

Hey everyone.

Just wanted people's opinion on an issue about WP's OR policy. I am currently preparing an article on Erdheim-Chester disease. Unfortunatly, due to the rareness of ECD, there is no widely accepted treatment. I have presented the treatments that have been tried, with varrying levels of success. There is also some case studies available that discribe various treatments and their levels of success for a particular individual. This could be considered OR, however, I feel that it would be useful to the reader to add, for example: "Two patients were reported to respond to prolonged therapy with vinblastine and mycophenolate mofetil (Jendro et al., 2004)." Is there a way to disclaim that treatements for ECD are still under research and there is no consensus amongst physicians? I'd prefer to add the information and disclaim it, than simply leave it out. Let me know. All the best! --JE.at.UWO^U|_T 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If "Jendro et al" is a paper published in a respected journal, then that's not OR, even if it's only one or two patients, and even if you are Jendro (or al). As long as you say the study was tiny and its results thus very far from definitive, that's quite reasonable. If the study hasn't been published in such a journal (or another reliable source) then it mustn't go into the article. It would be reasonable, however, to put in an exlink to the page of a group studying the condition, even if they've not published (so long as they're respected folks in the field, and not wackos). That might be accompanied by a one-liner description which said something like "Researchers at the university of whereever report limited success using poke-with-a-stick therapy [link]". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, "poke-in-stick". Thanks for the help, that all makes sense. I guess I misinterpeted the OR policy. Cheers --JE.at.UWO^U|_T 17:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Categories

Dear Wikipedia,

How do I place my topic in a particular category? For example, if I want to place my subject in the Actor's category, how would I do that?

I tried the Edit functions, but I did not see any options for adding categories. Thank you for your assistance, and I love your website because it's full of great information for my work. --Melissa Kavanaugh Melissakavanaugh 17:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the article, place a [[link]] to the name of the category, using a 'Category:' prefix. For instance, to categorise an article into Category:Actors, type [[Category:Actors]]. See also Wikipedia:Categorisation. --ais523 18:00, 16 November 2006 (U T C)

Someone keeps changing the "Hamster Huey" section of the Calvin and Hobbes entry

The book "Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie" was published long after the Calvin and Hobbes strip ended. I keep adding information to that effect in that section of the Calvin and Hobbes entry, but someone keeps changing it back (possibly for Mabel Barr to help promote her book). They also keep saying that either "in the last year of the strip" or "in a 1993 strip, Watterson revealed the author to be Mabel Syrup" or "Mabel Barr", and that there was a sequel," neither of which are true statements. Is there a way to have this entry locked to keep Mabel Barr and her supporters from putting her book in a better light than it deserves? Thanks4.228.240.111 18:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When edit wars disrupt a page from remaining in its proper form you report them on the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection page. However looking at the situation you have I doubt it is serious enough for page protection. Calmly leave a message on the talk page of the article and alert the editors that a consensus must be reached before changing the information back and forth.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the importance of filling in an edit summary. By making a major change without an edit summary, and without bothering to get an account, you are making it very likely that people will revert your changes, and you don't need a conspiracy theory to account for it. You can check the article's history for comments from anyone who reverted your changes in the past. Note too that your IP address has only ever made one change to the article. Presumably the other changes were from different IP addresses, making a discussion with you impossible, another vital reason to register. And I would very strongly recommend you not repeat the accusations you have made, as they are of no importance in seeking the correct answer and only get people cross if they are wrongly accused. See, it's not enough to be right, you also have to do things in the right Wikipedia way. Let's hope for an amicable solution. Notinasnaid 18:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference inside a page

Hi I'm trying to reference an area inside my document. In HTML i use the code show bellow, but it's not wiki compatible.

<a href="#shortcut">Link to dest</a>
zzz
zzzzzz
zzzzzzzz
<a name="shortcut">Dest</a>

Diegoramos 18:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CSD. The numbered list has, I believe, an example of what you are looking for. —Centrx→talk • 21:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colors of pages

<div style="align: center ; background-color:black"> <font color="white"> I inputted this into my userspace and it worked but when I put in my talk space every thing turned black. How does this work and how do I fix it? --Ælfwine 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It works as it's supposed to; what you've done is to set the background color as black, with white text. To fix it, either change the colors or remove it. Bjelleklang - talk 21:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I link to Wikipedia from within my own website?

Can I link to Wikipedia from within my own website?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.45.131.10 (talk • contribs)

What do you mean? Of couse you can put a link to WP, but what do you mean by your question??? Cbrown1023 22:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, I'm fairly sure you are allowed to link to anything in Wikipedia from your own site. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda the idea of wikipedia... i think the HTML code is:

<a href="THE URL">THE TEXT YOU WANT TO SHOW</a>

but idk... Cbrown1023 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the correct code. You can create a hyperlink to pretty much any page on the site. No need for permission. -- kenb215 talk 04:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can link to anything you want. That's the point of the internet. The problems come when you open material from other sites in frames to save your own bandwidth (bandwidth leeching) or pass it off as your own (plagiarism). Just a regular link or banner is fine. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dang userboxes

I can't figure out how to make a userbox and it's driving me crazy. Sombody help me!

Wikipedia:Userboxes has instructions, although I'm not sure that will help you. —K e akealani 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That thing is so frustrating. I can't make sense of it. --Mr.Weirdo 02:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]