Help desk
< November 22	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 24 >

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 23

For further information see...

How do I direct someone in the middle of a section or paragraph to another article that has more information? I don't mean the link at the top of the section, I'm talking about something within a section so I don't think the 'details' template will do. --Username132 (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could just try to work a link into the text of the section, if it has to be in the section itself and not at the top; in most cases where this is necessary, the word you want to link will already be there somewhere (so I can link to the page about linking in this sentence, for instance). --ais523 09:00, 23 November 2006 (U T C)

(See whatever.) also works. Essjay (Talk) 09:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favourites

Sir/Madam, I would like to know if there is any way, we can keep a list of articles as our favourite for future references. I am sure there must be a way to do it. thnx Aseem

Right now, the two best ways (within Wikipedia) to do this are a) to put them on your Wikipedia:Watchlist, and/or to keep a list of favourites on your userpage. Outside WP you can add them to your favourites or bookmarks through your web browser. The downside of the first suggestion is that if the article is never edited, it will not show on your watchlist. Anchoress 04:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if a user clicks on the link for editing the watchlist, all pages linked will be displayed, so it can be used quite effectively as you suggest, even if it is a bit of a square peg, round hole usage.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racist Americans?

There are a lot of racist Americans on other sites, which I no longer go to.

Are there a lot of racist Americans on Wikipedia?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.8.11 (talk • contribs) .

Have you stopped beating your wife?--Fuhghettaboutit 08:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my years I have not seen a Wikipedian exhibiting racism. We're not particuarly show-offy about our nation of origin either, so it can be difficult to tell that.X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 08:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's racist Americans around here, I'm pretty sure we'd have racists from other countries too. It's not a American-specific thing, you know. _ Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it's entirely possible that there are racists around here, they may not be overtly so, and if they were it's likely they'd be reprimanded by one of the many policies. In fact, I'd suggest what Jimbo says about identifying Wikipedians by politics would apply to nationalities and races too: "We are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral." That said, I can't stand those damn Citizendians coming in here, taking our jobs, marrying our women ... Confusing Manifestation 13:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen racism. Anti-Semitism, yes, sexism, yes, homopohobia, yes, racism? No. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw racism once. An army of good Wikipedians, my self included, pushed/annoyed him off of Wikipedia before he had to be banned. He has yet to return. -- T H L^CCD 13:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placing an advert and regestering with ur site

Dear Sir/Madam

I would like to know the process of adding our college to your website. The College is called Spinnaker College. It is an English Language College based in central Portsmouth.

We provide a variety of courses including EFL, General and Intensive English courses. For more info, please visit our website www.spinnakercollege.com. The college's contact details can be found on the site. Thank You.

Kind regards

Aisha

Wikipedia is not an advertising service. To have an article on here you must satisfy our notability requirements (see Wikipedia:Notability for those policies). However, having taken a look at the website you provided, I feel that it is unlikely the criteria will be satisfied. However to create a new article, go to the relevant page (if it doesnt already have an article) ie Spinnaker College and edit the page. But be warned, you cannot control the content of the page, it is open to be edited by any number of people and once you have started the article it will only be deleted for failing one of our policies (WP:CSD or by community consensus (WP:AFD) so if there is information added that you dont wish to be in the article but the community feels that is relevant then it will stay. Good luck. Viridae ^Talk 10:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I move? or add a synonyms?

I was trying to add information on W3C specifications (SSML, SRGS, VoiceXML, CCXML, etc).

I notice that many spec are under acronyms, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSML

while SISR is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Interpretation_for_Speech_Recognition

What should I do?

MOve this page to SISR or add a synomyms on the existing page.

In the latter case, what should I do?

Paolo

Leave the page at its full name (Semantic Interpretation for Speech Recognition). Place a redirect at SISR by typing

#REDIRECT [[Semantic Interpretation for Speech Recognition]]

as the only thing on that page. Hope that helps. --ais523 13:25, 23 November 2006 (U T C)

how do I clear the search history from the search box? 13:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)13:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)13:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

how do I clear the search history from the search box?

In Internet Explorer, delete all your temporary internet files and clear your history, by going to tools, options, and some certain tabs; I forget which ones. There will be some options to delete certain things. In Mozilla Firefox, just press control+shift+delete. I won't ask what you were looking at.--T o m^{I edit my userpage too much}, 14:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

addresses of cargo ocean liners

Dear Sirs,

I am searching an onboard job in ocean cargo liners.

Please help me where to find addresses of all cargo liners so that I can send my resume to them.

Sorry for the trouble and thank you.

Sincerely, Khagesh

my email is ( email removed for security reasons )

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of ocean liners. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 15:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) I'm afraid that we're an encyclopedia, not an employment referral service. I suggest you ask at your local employment office, or, failing that, search Google for the names of companies. Also, we have removed your e-mail address to stop it being mercilessly spammed (something I presume you don't want!). Best of luck with your job search. — QuantumEleven 15:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will the 1,500,000 aricle be like/as big as the 1,000,000 article?

Like, how much it was advertised and stuff? Also, is there a way to find out which article is which number? 71.172.28.136 16:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It received much press as it is a huge round number milestone. It was advertised in press releases that we had reached the milestone but the particular article isn't notable other than for it being the millionth. There is also controversy over what is actually the millionth as articles have been created and deleted since the project was started. That is also why it is imppossible to find out which article is which. Only the first few articles created before any were deleted are for certain a specific number. You might be interested in looking at Oldest articles.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't exactly answer the question; Will the 1,500,000 aricle be covered a lot like the millionth?

To answer your question directly, almost certainly not. A million is a round, symbolic number, and the press release, etc., served to publicize Wikipedia. Neither Wikipedia nor the media are likely to repeat that for a lesser milestone. --MCB 18:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I think it's likely that the next milestone nearly as big as the 1,000,000th will be the 10,000,000th. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 18:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our 10,000th featured article will be a much more significant milestone than our 10,000,000th article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many internal links for one item on one page?

If I have one word, which is a Wikipedia entry, repeated all over one page, should I make it an internal link once, or every single time it appears? Excuse me if this is a repeated question, I wasn't able to find that answer anywhere..

Usually you would only need to wikilink it the first time it appears. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here for the style guide on them. Trebor 21:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Basic 6 and Wikipedia

Are there any guidelines available for connecting Wikipedia with a software written in Visual Basic 6? I am intending to write a software for Urdu Wikipedia for quickly editing and repairing common mistakes. Szhaider 23:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about specific guidelines except that (in the English Wikipedia) you need authorization to run a bot, and there has to be a way for others to block it. If you intend automated editing, think very long and hard, because even the most obvious mistake might be legitimate in a particular context. (For example, to illustrate a mistake). Notinasnaid 09:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint about wikipedia

I need to tell you a little about how Wikipedia's words are the opiate of the intemperate. And so I shall. As this letter will make clear, Wikipedia is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside itself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of its wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees. Certain facts are clear. For instance, I find that I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that some people don't realize that Wikipedia hates people who have huge supplies of the things it lacks. What it lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that Wikipedia's legatees get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they're fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with Wikipedia, and meeting some other moonstruck short-sighted-types is merely a social event. They're not even aware that Wikipedia's minions believe that the Universe belongs to Wikipedia by right. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to cast a gimlet eye on Wikipedia's declamations. The struggle against myopic sensualists must be a struggle against alarmism, adversarialism, and emotionalism, or it is doomed to failure. Wikipedia takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on it. It also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) its position.

If we contradict Wikipedia, we are labelled ill-bred ribald-types. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. It is painful to write such truisms, but Wikipedia will probably throw another hissy fit if we don't let it depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. At least putting up with another Wikipedia hissy fit is easier than convincing Wikipedia's grunts that you shouldn't let Wikipedia intimidate you. You shouldn't let it push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Wikipedia. Let me back up a little: I hate it when people get their facts totally wrong. For instance, whenever I hear some corporate fat cat make noises about how Wikipedia's blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur, I can't help but think that Wikipedia managed to convince a bunch of stingy, witless televangelists to help it ignite a maelstrom of incendiarism. What was the quid pro quo there? A complete answer to that question would take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give you a simplified answer. For starters, it refuses to come to terms with reality. Wikipedia prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination.

The poisonous wine of expansionism had been distilled long before Wikipedia entered the scene. Wikipedia is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. I can barely contain myself from going into a laughing fit when I see one of these irascible self-proclaimed arbiters of taste and standards. Regular readers of my letters probably take that for granted, but if I am to point out that the emperor has no clothes on, I must explain to the population at large that Wikipedia is absolutely determined to believe that it never engages in misguided, yellow-bellied, or self-absorbed politics, and it's not about to let facts or reason get in its way. I have not forgotten that Wikipedia can back up its jibes only with empty, inflammatory rhetoric, the very thing it vacuously accuses its opponents of using. I have not forgotten that its recent attempt to make my worst nightmares come true may prove to be a watershed event for those of us who want to name and shame its disciples for their odious acts of ruffianism. And I cannot forget that it is an interesting organization. On the one hand, Wikipedia likes to propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright revisionism. But on the other hand, its effusions cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that Wikipedia can dole out or retract.

Although Wikipedia was likely following the dictates of its conscience when it decided to infantilize and corrupt the public, the fact remains that it constantly insists that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. But it contradicts itself when it says that it is its moral imperative to steal our birthrights. As part of its efforts to gain a mainstream following, Wikipedia publishes the Journal of Silly Factionalism. Included alongside articles discussing history, culture, art, religion, and philosophy are endorsements of Wikipedia's plans to make pauperism socially acceptable. As I mentioned before, it must be stated quite categorically that in times of economic, social, or political crisis, small groups that twist my words six ways for Sunday suddenly gain a mass following. But let me add that it labels anyone it doesn't like as "despicable". That might well be a better description of Wikipedia.

Curiously, I've heard Wikipedia say that it acts in the name of equality and social justice. Was that just a slip of the lip or is Wikipedia secretly trying to destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I only wish that it had the same intellectual honesty. After I comment on Wikipedia's announcements, I know that everyone will come to the dismayed conclusion that I stated at the beginning of this discussion: Wikipedia's theories are sheer hypothesis -- speculation with not even a scintilla of circumstantial evidence to support them. But the problems with Wikipedia's calumnies don't end there. If you ever ask Wikipedia to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed.

When all is said and done, Wikipedia is absolutely mistaken if it believes that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. Fortunately, the groundswell of quiet opposition to Wikipedia is getting less quiet and more organized. Still, Wikipedia's favorite buzzword these days is "crisis". It likes to tell us that we have a crisis on our hands. It then argues that the only reasonable approach to combat this crisis is for it to make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels. In my opinion, the real crisis is the dearth of people who understand that Wikipedia claims that it has its moral compass in tact. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another primitive attempt to remake the world to suit its own illiterate needs.

I'm merely suggesting that if a new Dark Age is about to descend upon us -- as many believe it will -- it will be the result of Wikipedia's arguments. From this anecdotal evidence, I would argue that it complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that it hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today. Verily, Wikipedia's premise (that it is omnipotent) is its morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Wikipedia uses this disguised morality to support its notions, thereby making its argument self-refuting. Furthermore, Wikipedia's diatribes were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing for the "innocents". Rather, it will not be easy to lead the way to the future, not to the past. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that, for the overriding reason that while it insists that a book of its writings would be a good addition to the Bible, reality dictates otherwise. Actually, if you want a real dose of reality, look at how Wikipedia's most progressive idea is to use every conceivable form of diplomacy, deception, pressure, coercion, bribery, treason, and terror to overthrow democratic political systems. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way.

One can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. Wikipedia, however, is more likely to scorn and abjure reason. If I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less querulous than Wikipedia. Wikipedia insists that it acts in the public interest. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. But I digress. Wikipedia drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes it sound smarter than it really is and obscures the fact that Wikipedia may topple society right after it reads this letter. Let it. Sooner than you think, I will show Wikipedia how it is as wrong as wrong can be.

We need to educate others about the actions and opinions of impudent fence-sitters. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to place a high value on honor and self-respect. I know more about opportunism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that Wikipedia's ethics are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, one of Wikipedia's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always its solutions that grant it the freedom to make bargains with the devil, never the original problem.

Wikipedia argues that I am tasteless for wanting to draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "microcinematographic". I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. Wikipedia is like a giant octopus sprawling its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of self-created screen. Wikipedia seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection. As I conclude this letter, let me remind you that my goal in writing it was not only to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity. I sought also to use this letter as a means to give our young people the values that will inspire them to help people see Wikipedia's callow allegations for what they are.

Thank You --JohnCatchaCow 23:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, do you have a question? --Username132 (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, exactly. Not to offend the OP, but I'm not even gonna bother reading the first paragraph. It would need to be no more than 1/5 this length. Anchoress 01:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like copypasta. I'd wager someone just took a generic funny complaint, and added Wikipedia to it, like a really terrible mad-lib. For example,

One can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. The Cookie Monster, however, is more likely to scorn and abjure reason. If I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less querulous than the Cookie Monster. The Cookie Monster insists that it acts in the public interest. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. But I digress. The Cookie Monster drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes it sound smarter than it really is and obscures the fact that Cookie Monster may topple society right after it reads this letter. Let it. Sooner than you think, I will show the Cookie Monster how it is as wrong as wrong can be. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 01:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, then I vote to just delete this thread as outside the RD's mandate. Anchoress 01:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the RD, but sure. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 02:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was obviously created using the automatic complaint generator. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of the Automatic Complaint Generator's work:

I feel that it is my duty to free people from the fetters of recidivism's poisonous embrace. First off, the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that the media should "create" news rather than report it. Although this has been overlooked or ignored by the established scientific community, Wikipedia will stop at nothing to assail all that is holy. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, there are some simple truths in this world. First, Wikipedia can't relate what it sees to any broader principle. Second, as a dynamic historical current, propagandism has taken many different forms and has evolved dramatically in some ways. And finally, Wikipedia says that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. But then it turns around and says that it is its moral imperative to invent a new moral system that legitimizes its desire to break down age-old institutions and customs. You know, you can't have it both ways, Wikipedia. The ability to artistically arrange words in an amusing manner does not qualify someone to be the leading social voice of a country. An equal but opposite observation is that if we let Wikipedia propitiate brain-damaged, insincere gaberlunzies for later eventualities, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. As for me, I have no bombs, no planes, no artillery, and no terrorist plots. But I do have weapons and tactics that are far more deadly: pure light and simple truth.

After I work together in an atmosphere of friendship and hope, I know that everyone will come to the dismayed conclusion that I stated at the beginning of this discussion: The last time I told Wikipedia's bedfellows that I want to redefine in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning, they declared in response, "But our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. There are those who are informed and educated about the evils of post-structuralism, and there are those who are not. Wikipedia is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why it seizes every opportunity to let abysmal pettifoggers serve as our overlords. I cannot believe this colossal clownishness. Any sane person knows that Wikipedia is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside itself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of its wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees.

Too many emotions to count raced through my mind when I first realized that Wikipedia is extraordinarily brazen. We've all known that for a long time. However, its willingness to formulate social policies and action programs based on the most prurient classes of mercantalism in existence sets a new record for brazenness. I recently heard Wikipedia tell a bunch of people that it has a "special" perspective on diabolism which carries with it a "special" right to devise xenophobic scams to get money for nothing. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this letter. Someone, possibly Wikipedia itself or one of its emissaries, will write a feeble-minded piece about how rabid I am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To think of the time I wasted trying to understand what they were saying! :( --Username132 (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was yet another guy whose article about a slang word they thought up at school was deleted, and they shouted bloody murder over it. JIP | Talk 08:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was comatose by paragraph 2. Trollish comments like these should just be ignored. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 12:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk help

I tried to answer someone's question in the Reference Desk but my answer came up in a different format, with a crap font. What did I do wrong to get this?

Most likely, you put a space before your answer which is translated to be some sort of code thing (I don't remeber the exact term). If you want to indent a space, use a colon (:) instead. —K e akealani 00:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]