Help desk
< January 2	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 4 >

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

January 3[edit]

AfD Debate becoming nasty[edit]

I am a security buff and I am an avid fan of OSVDB project and it's contributors. Hence, I was creating some articles on them like H. D. Moore, Travis Schack, Chris Sullo, Susam Pal, Christian Seifert. However some of them have been nominated for deletion by User:Jyothisingh. I do not mind the articles being deleted if they really are violations of WP:BIO Norms.

But I feel disheartened at "notes to administrators" being put up by User:Jyothisingh at various debate pages. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Sullo, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susam_Pal and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open_Security_Foundation.

She has posted messages like this:-

Please note that (User:Smith.norton, User:Webhacker, User:Nareshhacker
and User:Root exploit have made very few edits, almost all of which are on 
related articles such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susam Pal, 
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sullo etc.

If I have edited articles only related to OSVDB, does that mean my arguments and contributions to Wikipedia won't be given any importance? -- Root exploit 04:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it so personally, it wasn't meant to be offensive. The messages such as the one you quoted is not about whether people with few contributions have more or less say. Rather, it's purpose is to help fend off accounts that potentially belong to sockpuppets. That is, people who pretend to be more than one person by using many accounts. So if someone uses three different accounts, and pretends to be three different people, then it'd be as if they had triple the say in a debate - which is unfair and misleads other editors. Typically, these 'sockpuppet' accounts tend to be very new, and edit only a few articles - which is why such accounts get tagged as such when they vote or propose deletions. Innocent editors who are new or only edit in a few articles do get hit by these sometimes, but people mostly ignore it unless a lot of new accounts start showing up in one AfD (that indicates sockpupptery). --`/aksha 12:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foul language used for living persons in Biography AfD Debate[edit]

Please have a look at [1]. Isn't this a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons ? -- Root exploit 04:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, since this is under WP:AfD and not an actual article. But, it is a violation of WP:CIV. -- Kesh 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy editing question[edit]

I want to update the enrollment stats on this page about USU. I can't find the edit button that gives me acccess to that opening statement at the top of the page. I also don't see an edit button for the fact box on the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_State_University

Can anyone help? 00:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Click on "edit this page" at the top. Dismas|^(talk) 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an edit link at the top for the whole page, and an edit link for each section which allows editors to only edit that section. You can edit the first section (everything up to but not including the first header) by clicking any section's edit link and then in the address bar of your browser changing the section=# to section=0. This is a workaround for use with skins that do not show a link to edit section zero. BigNate37_(T) 00:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful. Thank you so much.

Request for explanation[edit]

I'm extremely confused at this point.

Can someone explain why this webpage, which contains information not otherwise found on the Internet in English, is considered spam?

Prince Alexander John Cuza of Rumania - mistress, children, etc., Google Answers

Can someone explain why this webpage, which contains information not previously publicly available on the Internet, is considered spam?

The family origin and genealogy of Dale Chihuly, Google Answers

Can someone explain why this webpage, which contains information not previously gathered together anywhere on the Internet, is considered spam?

Holford House and Regent's Park College, Google Answers

All of the examples I have given above contain information not previously available in their corresponding Wikipedia articles.

Can someone explain why these External links are not considered spam?

Can someone explain why it is acceptable to post anonymous nastygrams on the User Talk page of another contributor lecturing them on Wikiquette, when the poster doesn't have the integrity to "own" their words by signing their post with their username?

Vtcondo 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all, let me say thanks for not going on an external-link-removing crusade to make a point. That said, inclusion is not an indicator of notability for articles. In the same way, the existence of illegitimate external links does not justify having other links. Wikipedia:External links is the authority on links and you'd be quite justified (and welcome, actually) to remove inappropriate links from articles. To the point of what's wrong with the specific links you gave, they link to a discussion forum which is listed under Links normally to be avoided at the external links guideline. So calling them spam is incorrect, but they're not suitable external links. BigNate37_(T) 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I have read the links that you provided, but unfortunately that information does not enlighten me any further as to why another user was justified in deleting my postings.

I've gotten useful information from Wikipedia in the past, and I don't mind giving back a little where I have received a benefit. But I have neither the time nor the energy to spend making voluntary contributions to a website where any idiot with delusions of grandeur can arbitrarily remove my postings, nor do I have the time and energy to argue with them, or make extensive justifications for every single little piece of information I post (which may not keep the postings from being deleted anyway). A little Googling shows that I am far from the first to experience this sort of ridiculous bullying.

It's too bad, because in concept this website is a good one. The actuality, however, leaves much to be desired. The fact that you started off by thanking me for not engaging in malicious behavior (which is so unbelievably childish and vindictive that it would never even occur to me to take such an action) is a real indication that petty bickering and unreasonable, arbitrary deletion appear to be an everyday occurrence here.

So, thanks, but no thanks. Have a nice 2007.

Vtcondo 03:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, Google Answers is a discussion forum and as such is inappropriate to link to as an external link. That is why another user was justified in deleting your postings. Said user was not justified in accusing you of spamming, and I understand why it upset you. Yes, there are worse examples of external links out there—and there shouldn't be. That doesn't make the links you added okay by the external links guideline, it just means we need more help in being vigilant with respect to external links in general. I am rather insulted at your last comments though, and after getting involved with this issue I can only say that I am truely, sincerely sorry for trying to help. BigNate37_(T) 04:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I was referring to malicious behavior as being childish and vindictive, not the fact that you thanked me for not doing it (although that quite frankly shocked me; if such behavior was not a huge problem here, you wouldn't have thanked me for not engaging in it).

Secondly, while there are certainly people who use Google Answers as a discussion forum, it is in fact a site where a fair bit of serious research is done (I encourage you to check out the links I posted above, or do some searching on that site to see for yourself).

Thirdly, I do appreciate your posts providing me with assistance.

It's clear to me that when anything (or everything) I contribute can be deleted by someone who has nothing more constructive to do than follow me around erasing my contributions, and that I would have to spend an inordinate amount of time defending myself or arguing with such people, contributing here is much more aggravation than it is worthwhile. I'm sorry if you don't feel the same way and find that offensive. But I'm sure that you can respect why I feel as though I have more rewarding things to do than set myself up to be persecuted by those kinds of people.

Thanks again for your help.

Vtcondo 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion about making an article[edit]

I'm confused about what to use to make an Article.

Like,I want to write an article about a book by R.L Stine,that has not been made.

Now Here's the part i'm confused about.I've read the book and have it to look back if i need to,but do i use NPOV,No original research,or Verifiable?

Thank you for your time

VinnyVendetta 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)VinnyVendetta[reply]

Yes, you do have to have a NPOV, not have OR, and everything must be verifiable. You don't have to worry about NPOV much when writing an article about a book (just don't do anything obvious i.e.: "This book is the best one written by Stine so far..."), but it might be good to have a source for the other two (try Google). Good luck! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot write much about the book (no more than a stub) unless you have secondary sources to cite. If you only have the primary source (i.e. the book itself) than any non-obvious commentary would be original research, so you could only make descriptive claims. Analysis is a no-no without non-primary sources to cite. There's a good section explaining this at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, and it is official policy. BigNate37_(T) 01:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a movie article too long?[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Help desk#Is a movie article too long?. BigNate37_(T) 01:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are writing a movie article, say Night at the Museum or the The Pursuit of Happyness, how long should the article be? Should it be detailed, or just give the plot summary? ~Gatorgirl23~ 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article should be dedicated to its notability, with one section dedicated to a plot summary. Most of the article should really be about what makes the film special, with a smaller section devoted to the actual plot. -- Kesh 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For examples, you could look at film Feature articles, eg Halloween (film) and Dog Day Afternoon.--Commander Keane 02:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Help[edit]

I am confused about finding information in the Help portion of Wikipedia.

For example, I know there is an article about Info Boxes. But when I type that in the search box, push search and I don't get any useful responses. When I type that in the search box and check "search only help" I don't get any responses. What am I doing wrong?
I want to know how to create some type of shortcut (what might be a macro in Word) to insert a certain format to be filled in on several pages. How do I find that type of information here? Having already spent hours looking through "tools," "templates," etc. I am feeling frustrated. Thanks--Tinned Elk 01:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For 1), see Wikipedia:Userboxes. As for the VBA macro, you'll probably have to find an external h--Tinned Elk 02:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)elp source. Wikipedia runs on it's own software, and not anything based on the Microsoft Office platform. Hope this helps. Bjelleklang - talk 02:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For info boxes, you need this page. For your macro, the closest you can get on-Wiki would be a template substitution. -- Kesh 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But for 1) is there a way to search the help part of wikipedia? Or is asking the question here the easiest way to find something in help? --Tinned Elk 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were doing it right. It's just that the subject you were searching for wasn't under the Help namespace, it was under the Wikipedia namespace. If you don't find something under Help, try putting "WP:" in front of the term, which will search for it in the Wikipedia documentation namespace. -- Kesh 02:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maybe I will get the hang of that. The subst:template worked great for what I wanted. --Tinned Elk 02:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar question...[edit]

I know on the barnstar page it says to leave it on a users discussion page, but I have seen someon actual user pages, so where do I leave a barnstar for someone? Is it right to put it on the talk page? Fethroesforia 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally you should add the barnstar to their talk page and they will put it on their userpage. HTH. Yuser31415 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it on their Talk page is best, because that will also generate a "You have a new message" display on their screen when they log in. Then they can see the barnstar, and decide whether or not to put it up on their User page themselves. If you just put it onto their user page, some people may not notice it for weeks! -- Kesh 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

viewing deleted articles[edit]

I am trying to view the Buddhism in China article, which has now been merged into the Chinese Buddhism article. How do I access the history page for the now-deleted article?

dsingsen 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles wasn't merged, but Buddhism in China was moved to a new location. Please see the history. Bjelleklang - talk 04:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dsingsen 04:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not blocked but can't edit[edit]

I made a couple of minor spelling/grammar edits last year. Today I actually made a contribution to an article that was tagged for work, because I've been studying in that area as part of my post-grad research. I forgot to log in prior to editing, but when I logged in, I found although I have the edit tab, pressing it did not give me an edit page, but rather a preview instead. I've checked to see if I'm blocked, though I can't imagine why I would be, and I've never even been warned; but no, I'm not blocked. Please help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alastair Haines (talk • contribs) 04:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Were you perhaps looking at the Diffs at the time? If so, you may have accidentally clicked the new Undo link instead of the Edit link. Undo is basically a quick-revert that takes you right to the preview and fills in your Edit summary for you, just waiting for you to save the page. -- Kesh 04:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia does show you the preview of the current version first, with the edit box at the bottom of the screen. Scroll down and see if that's what it was. -- Kesh 04:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other possibility is that you were viewing a protected page. In that case the "edit" tab would actually read "View source" and clicking that tab would show you the source wikicode, but not let you edit the page. SWAdair | Talk 09:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you wonderful people! I was silly enough not to have scrolled down the page! You answered my question faster than I could get back to remove it! I hope everyone else will be as patient with me as I learn how to contribute. Thanks again good people. Happy new year! Alastair Haines 11:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add a new entry for Sharif Khan the author?[edit]

Wikipedia, currently does not have an entry for Sharif Khan the author. How can I add the enclosed entry so it's searchable in your database?

Sharif Khan is a freelance writer, inspirational keynote speaker, coach, and author. He is best known as the author of Psychology of the Hero Soul, a self-help book based on his over ten years research in the field of human development and leadership. In 2005, Khan was inducted into the In Search of Heroes "Heroes Hall of Fame" for his pioneering efforts in teaching people how to become heroes in all areas of their lives.

Khan holds an honors B.A. in Psychology from York University. He was born and raised in Scarborough, Ontario where he encountered racial prejudice growing up as a child because of his South Asian origin. To counter feelings of low self-esteem, Khan voraciously read the biographies of great leaders encouraged by the guidance of his father, Dr. Naseem Khan, who held a PhD in Psychology.

Khan's work as a writer, coach, author, and motivational speaker has been mentioned in a number of media including USA Today, Toronto Sun, TV Ontario, The SOHO Business Report, Asian Television Network, and Dawn (Pakistan's most widely circulated English language newspaper).

Because of his earlier struggles in trying to discover the hero within, Khan has dedicated his life to inspiring people to unlock their hero potential for greatness. Since 2000, Khan has been writing and speaking in the field of personal development. He has lectured on his hero topic to a wide-range of audiences and spoken for a number of organizations including the Toronto Police, United Way, Learning Annex, Ryerson University, and HRPAO.

His main influences include the teachings of Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, Konstantin Stanislavski, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Anthony Robbins, Dale Carnegie, Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, Dr. Deepak Chopra, Dr. Wayne Dyer, Dr. Joseph Murphy, Napoleon Hill, Mark Victor Hansen, Jack Canfield, Helen M. Luke, Shakti Gawain, Bob Proctor, and Dr. Stephen R. Covey.

Khan currently resides in Toronto, Canada where he is working on his first inspirational novel.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SharifKhan"

Since this seems to be an article about yourself, please read WP:AUTO. Dismas|^(talk) 08:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Dismas observes, creating or editing articles about one's self or his friends and family is generally disfavored. If, though, you are confident that you can craft an article that is written from a neutral point of view and that comprises content that is verfiable, you should surely feel free to be bold and create such article where the biographical subject is likely to be viewed as notable by the community. If you're not certain that you craft such an article—either in view of your conflict of interest or of your inability to find sources appropriate for encyclopedic inclusion—you might consider requested articles, at which other editors might undertake to investigate the subject to determine whether he is notable and whether content can be verified and at which you can surely paste the text supra. Joe 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trolling?[edit]

what is trolling as it relates to a person being kicked off the site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bricks2183 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See Wikipedia:What is a troll and Wikipedia:Blocking policy. SWAdair | Talk 09:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Arthur Phillip article[edit]

I am not sure how to comment on/suggest changes be made to the paragraph about Aboriginal people in the Governor Phillip entry. basically I don't think that htere is much that is correct in the paragraph. How do I go ahout getting it changed? I don't really understand your guidelines 211.31.178.247 09:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article is incorrect, be bold and edit the page. You don't need to run changes by anyone first (unless the issue is controversial). Trebor 11:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editing problems and documentation[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam, I just edited 'Chakras', but some links show up like this on the final page; others are still hypertext (it appears random; they use the same syntax). This is my 1st contribution. If brace/parentheses syntax or instructions are undocumented it would be good to do that.

sincerely, David —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dchmelik (talk • contribs) 09:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Double brackets go at the beginning [[ and end ]] of wikilinks. Pipe characters | divide the article name from how the link is shown. For example, [[Chakras|your text here]] becomes your text here. SWAdair | Talk 09:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed "question"[edit]

He started of his career in politics while he is studying law, he was elected as a surpunch, as a independent with unanimous. He served as a surpunch 5 years and he was contested for samithi president as a inependent but he was defeted by one vote, and he is reelected as a surpunch and after that he became as a panchayat samithi president for 11 years as a independent till 1973.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.122.84 (talk • contribs) 05:47, January 3, 2007

Hello! I do believe you've posted this in the wrong place. This page is for questions about Wikipedia itself. If you want to create a new article, please see Help:Starting a new page. -- Kesh 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous[edit]

Hi - I think what's going on here is simply outrageous. I was slandered as a sock puppet and my page defiled by some idiot. Now, is there a due process of any sort or someone with powers of devinity (why? who?) can just brand other users with slanderous titles and place sock puppet tags on their pages? I am using Roobit user name in English and Russian wikipedia and only English wikipedia has been affected. I am not a sock puppet of anyone, I never used proxy and I register and write from my own email address. What is taking place here is absolute disgrace. If someone dislikes your views, he can just brand you a sock puppet? Do you need a crowd of tame users who express identical opinions or have no opinions on their own? How has the power to slander other users in this manner and what is the remedy against it/him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit (talk • contribs) 06:21, January 3, 2007

I have already given you information on your Talk page. Please see that for a solution. -- Kesh 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table tool[edit]

Is there a tool that can change a wikitable into HTML format? (Yes, I know I can look into the source code, but I want to get just the table code, nothing else that's possibly confusing). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are various User Scripts that are capable of doing this (User:Pilaf/livepreview.js, for instance), but they'd need editing to do the exact task you need. One possible trick is to create the table in a user subpage (so there isn't anything else on the page) and then view the page with action=render. For instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ais523/Sandbox?action=render will generate the HTML code for a table that's in my sandbox at the moment, and 'View source' will show that without anything else that's possibly confusing. --ais523 14:07, 3 January 2007 (U T C)

TXE[edit]

Hi,

We have created a page about TXE type telephone exchanges and when we type in TXE it is found. However we would like it to be found when someone type in TXE1 or TXE2 etc. How can we do this?

Thnaks for a geat site and a great idea.

BFN...Dave e-mail removed to protect from spam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deben Dave (talk • contribs) 11:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's search engine takes a while to index things. You can help it out by creating a redirect page. Visit TXE1, or the search term you want; if it doesn't exist, type

#REDIRECT [[TXE]]

and the search engine will then reach TXE on a search for TXE1. --ais523 12:33, 3 January 2007 (U T C)

making text small[edit]

IIRC, there's a tag that can be used to make text small (like the way the <big> tag makes text big). I forgot what it is. Can anyone help? --`/aksha 12:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<small></small>, perhaps? :P - Tangotango (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nice suggestion, but for some reason it doesn't seem to work. Does this look small to you? Because i'm seeing normal sized font. btw, what's the "<tt>" you used for? --`/aksha 12:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<small> doesn't work on some font sizes in Internet Explorer (and possibly other browsers); try resizing fonts in your browser to see if it works then. (It works for me, but it used not to because my fonr size used to be bigger.) <tt> makes text into a monospaced-font:

Without <tt>, letters like l are narrower than letters like m: lllmmmlllmmm
With <tt>, letters like l are the same width as letters like m: lllmmmlllmmm

Hope that helps. --ais523 12:36, 3 January 2007 (U T C)

Yeah, that explains it. Thanks --`/aksha 13:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Design Article in Wikipedia[edit]

I added an external link in wikipedia article "Logo Design" about a logo design resource portal i-e http://www.logoblog.org but an editor deleted it stating it a spam. Please add this resource link to wikipedia if you find it useful

According to Wikipedia:External links, links to blogs should not normally be used. Notinasnaid 12:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images...deletion policy..[edit]

Assuming wikipedia is not a free image hosting site like phototbucket...if I stumble across images which link to no article (aside from the persons userpage) shall i put it up for deletion?Fethroesforia 13:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An orphaned image is not reason enough to delete it. It may have been orphaned due to an act of vandalism etc. Its best to inform the uploader about it especially if it is correctly tagged. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for more details — Lost^(talk) 13:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly acceptable for an active user to upload one or two personal image to spice up their userpage, so don't go deleting straight away. If it's obvious they're using Wikipedia as a storage site, warn them and put it up for deletion. Of course this doesn't apply to images for which a suitable article can be found. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref[edit]

I am having problems creating a source reference.

The article is 'wilmslow' and the reference number is 1

I copied the reference layout from another article but it does not seem to work as planned.

Please could somebody take a look at the code and inform me as to which part is wrong. Thanks 86.29.24.181 13:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected — Lost^(talk) 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict; this advice is now out of date given the correction) You've gone wrong because there isn't a template specifically for citing Wilmslow Express News. What you can use is the {{cite news}} template, so you'll have to change

<ref>{{Wilmslow Express News 
  | title = Doves fly to top
  | work = Katrina McKeever 
  | publisher = Wilmslow Express
  | date = [[16 March]], [[2005]]
  | url = http://www.thewilmslowexpress.co.uk/news/s/162/162253_doves_fly_to_top.html
  }}</ref>

to

<ref>{{cite news
  | title = Doves fly to top
  | author = Katrina McKeever
  | work = Wilmslow Express News
  | publisher = Wilmslow Express
  | date = [[16 March]], [[2005]]
  | url = http://www.thewilmslowexpress.co.uk/news/s/162/162253_doves_fly_to_top.html
  }}</ref>

(which looks like Katrina McKeever (16 March, 2005). "Doves fly to top". Wilmslow Express News. Wilmslow Express. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)). There's just a couple of fields that have to be changed. Hope that helps! --ais523 13:57, 3 January 2007 (U T C)

Excellent.

I thought cite news was a news corp and so changed it.

Many Thanks for your help. 86.29.24.181 17:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to take a look at User:Dmoss/Wikicite, a very helpful tool for creating properly formatted references. --Rory096 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Darkest hour[edit]

When ever I go to any body elses page I have no new messages. Butt every time i go to Dhs talk page It says I hav a new message. Could that have something to do with the templets hes using? `ooty-wi-a-b14:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are called "user message" templates. They are always supposed to be a joke. I don't find them funny however — Arjun

Yup, its a joke. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 14:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No its not. I deleted the "joke" yesterday. Try my page again. --Darkest Hour ^$_$^$_$ 16:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alumni[edit]

what is the meaning of alumni?

As we are an encyclopedia, you could try our article on alumni. Notinasnaid 15:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can this site be inserted in this category?[edit]

Hi guys, I would like to insert this page (Nozio) into this category: {{TravelWebsites}} in this way it should appear in every single page that present this box.

Thanx for helping

It's a template; just edit Template:TravelWebsites. For more information, see Help:Template. --ais523 16:01, 3 January 2007 (U T C)

Disclosing my identity[edit]

Is there a secure channel for contacting another user to tell him who I really am? He's referring to my past work in a Discussion. But as I understand it, discussions are public. Sosayso 16:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If his email is enabled, you can email him. Look for the "email this user" tab on the side bar once you reach his userpage — Lost^(talk) 16:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Question about adminship ==[edit]

I have a slight thought of applying for adminship, though Im wondering if anyone could help me out, on how to apply and any reasons why I would not be suitable? Fethroesforia 16:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not recommend trying now you have only 634 edits. Most admin candidates are expected to have at least 3000. Try an Editor review. — Arjun 16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ie been looking to try and find that number..but I couldn't find number of edits:) thank you anyway:) Fethroesforia 16:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durin/Admin_charts (about a year old) indicates that above about 2000 edits, edit count isn't that important. That might have changed. If you're interested in applying for adminship in the future you should probably read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship occasionally and note why people support nominations and especially why they oppose and see what you can learn. If you want to check your edit count see Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters. --Cherry blossom tree 16:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Font size[edit]

I love wikipedia but find it hard to read. How do I change the font and size of the text of the articles? Thanks 16:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)~~

This will be an option in your web browser. If you have a mouse wheel, try holding down Control and turning it; otherwise, there'll probably be an option in your web browser's menus (often under View). --ais523 16:57, 3 January 2007 (U T C)
Ctrl-+ (ctrl and plus) will increase text size in Firefox. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your browser will probably have an option to change the font size in the 'view'-menu too. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language problem[edit]

I wish to read an article on Wikipediad entitled Esperanto in Japan since 1934. The article contains many references to my great grandfather G E Gauntlett. The article only appears in what I think is a Scandinavian language. I cannot find anyway to translate it into English and it does not appear in English in the search engine. Please advise if there is any way I can read it.

You can request translation at Wikipedia:Translation. SWAdair | Talk 05:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Can we use the images on wikipedia legally for free?

Depends on the license. If they are listed as GFDL, you can use them as long as you link to the GFDL and give your source information appropriately. Creative Commons and other licenses have similar, though slightly different requirements. If the image is public domain, you can use it as much as you want without any restrictions at all--no source information required. If the images are "Fair Use," you cannot use them legally for free unless your use of them is also fair use. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wikipedia[edit]

I would like to add an item to a bullet pointed list but am lost in all the editing protocols. Is there a simple template or reference page I can use?

To create a bulleted list just start each paragraph with an asterisk. Notinasnaid 17:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Notinasnaid made his response a 1-element bulleted list as an example, which I'm continuing here. The 'Editing help' link to the right of the save, preview, and show-changes buttons contains the basic formatting. --ais523 17:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I added a bullet point but it did not get placed in alphabetical order. How do I correct?
It would help if you tell us what article you're referring to. Lists aren't alphabetized automatically, you'll have to add the item in the right spot on the list. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another helpful tip: if you want to play around with trying a bulleted list or experimenting with what you read about in the editing guides, I highly recommend the Sandbox. It can be a great place to play around and I find that sometimes monkeying around with it in a test setting is the best way to learn to edit, lacking a private wiki (which I used before I came to wikipedia) to royally mess with :D Wintermut3 05:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get in[edit]

My user name is Patrick Smyth but I couln't get in with my password. I asked for a new one but nothing has arrived.

what can I do?

thanks, patrick

If you provided an email address when signing in and have confirmed it, then you can ask for a new password to be emailed from the login screen. If you didn't, your best chance is to remember your password (make sure you use the same capitalization as when you signed in). You have no contributions; you may find it easier just to create a new account. (I take it you're getting the 'Invalid password' error?) --ais523 18:10, 3 January 2007 (U T C)

On the other hand, you may just want to create a new account, for example "Patsmyth". I would recommend getting a pseudoname. Yuser31415 19:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circular redirect?[edit]

What would happen if two redirect pages reference each other? i.e. page A redirects to page B, and page B redirects to page A. CoolGuy 18:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't work. Redirects beyond one level are disabled on Wikipedia, to prevent exactly that--it will just show the link. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Preferences: Skins[edit]

I'm unable to change my skin after I changed it to Simple. I click My preferences from the navagational bar on the left, but then the link "Skin" won't even appear as a link. It appears as regular text. Can you please help?

Lucas E Scott 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,hold a bit. --Darkest Hour ^$_$^$_$ 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hum... Walk me through what you are doing. I have no problems getting back to normal. --Darkest Hour ^$_$^$_$ 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences?useskin=monobook . -- Rick Block (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing back an uncooperative skin is covered in WP:VFAQ. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars with users who contribute little in discussion page?[edit]

I am having problems with two users (one who is unregistered) who are continually changing an article on a racist killing of Kriss Donald in Scotland to insert a lenthly section now titled "allegations of racial motivation" which is an attempt to cast doubt on the motivation for the killing. I have opposed this in the discussion on the basis that it is a tiny minority view.

Wikipedia policy states that for a view to be that of a "significant minority" you must be able to identify "prominent adherents" to that view. In this case the people making these revisions can find only one BBC investigative reporter and one sociology and politics professor with this view. I dispute that these are "prominent" by any stretch of the word.

I had achieved some consensus in a lengthly discussion with a user "FrFintonStack" - although we disagreed on two points. Lately, one user who has contributed nothing to the discussion (Strothra) has edited the article at least 3 times today to revert to a previous version, which even includes links to the far right website Stormfront.

Could anyone here contribute to the edits and discussion by looking at my previous revert and comparing it with the current one? Like I say it is a lengthly discussion and I have tried to achieve agreement, but I believe those who do not engage in the discussion and then make edits, or avoid points on Wikipedia policy in the discussion then make edits are not really interested in achieving balance with other users. --Guardian sickness 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this person has begun discussing it on the Talk page now. Beyond that, you might want an request for comment on the subject. It's beyond the scope of the Help Desk. -- Kesh 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accents in names.[edit]

I would like to create an article on a person who has an accent in their name. For searching purposes should I leave the accent out when creating the title of the wikipedia page? How sensitive is the search engine to accent marks? thanks EMC630 19:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay what you should do is create your page with the accent marks, then create a redirect page with out the accent marks. Please feel free to ask me questions on my talk page if you need further explanation. --Darkest Hour ^$_$^$_$ 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: The accent marks are at the bottom of your editing screen under "Characters".

You can make a redirect by creating page 1 and typing #REDIRECT [[NAME OF PAGE 2]]. See Wikipedia:Redirect or ask here if you have any other questions about making a redirect. Dar-Ape 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about creation of a new article[edit]

I just submitted and saved, twice, an article entitled "evidence-based legislation" that I wrote and cited.

this page does not come up when I enter in this search term.

How do I know the fate of this article I have suggested? How long does it take to be incorporated into the index? If the article is inappropriate or has errors, how will I discover this?

Thank you.

Richard B. Krueger, M.D. at <email removed>

I don't know exactly how our search system works, but if the article exists you may find it at "Evidence-based legislation". Yuser31415 19:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... If you need to you might have to purge the system. Press shift while loding or reloding. --Darkest Hour ^$_$^$_$ 19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do really is add brakets [[ ]] around the words that people might have problems understanding. Also (i am researching how to do this properly) you have to get your links working.

So far its a great article!

The search database takes a number of hours or days to update, but your article is created instantly. You will have to click "Go" to find it instead of using "search". — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/move[edit]

I'm not very active in the English Wikipedia, so I don't know if this is the right place to post this: the article LTU arena has been redirected to LTU Arena some weeks ago. But the correct spelling is arena, not Arena (see the German article or [2] (although this is not correct in German). Could an admin delete the redirect and move the article back to LTU arena? Thanx! --Sippel2707 23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try requested moves. Cheers! Yuser31415 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Countdowns[edit]

How do I add a countdown to June 3, 2007 on Wikipedia? --Far Beyond 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no way of doing this that I know of. Why would you want to? -- Kesh 23:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand what you mean, no, I don't think it's possible to add a countdown. Is there any reason why? What are you trying to do? Yuser31415 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it actually is possible, although I have no idea how... I will look. Prodego ^talk 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I am so awesome! ;-) Shows all you unbelievers out there. If you are wondering it is in:

0 Years

2 Months

0 Days

1 Hours

1 Minutes

16 Seconds.

I think. Not really tested yet. Prodego ^talk 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm actually that counts to the last day in June, at the last second (so July 1). It needs some ifs added, if someone wants to do that... Prodego ^talk 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done (I think) people might want to test it, and I am sure there is an easier way to write it... Prodego ^talk 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have way too much time on your hands. ;) Pretty cool, though. -- Kesh 01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have gotten paid for that one. ;-) Prodego ^talk 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]