Help desk
< March 30	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	April 1 >

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.

March 31[edit]

You Tube[edit]

I have noticed a number of pages where a You Tube address showing a video has been used as a link to verify something on that page. For instance, some Football Suppoters Groups have used videos of them at stadiums to verify that their particular Fan Group exists. Surely to verify something a reliable source is not a video on You Tube? Thank you Tangerines 00:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using YouTube as a citation isn't a good idea, what with copyright infringement and all--$UIT 01:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it really depends on what you're using the clip for. As SUIT mentioned, a lot of youtube videos have issues with copyright and would probably fall under links to avoid. Also, if you're using a youtube video as a reference to just prove a group exists then the topic probably has issues with notability; it's no different than using a band's MySpace page as a reference for someone's local band. Barring that, there's nothing wrong with youtube videos per se. And even if the clip is of a copyrighted work, I'd say there's an argument for fair use if the clip in question is for academic purpose. For example, using a small clip of 9/11 news footage to illustrate how the WTC collapsed. —Mitaphane _?|! 02:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. It was more to do with a You Tube video of some fans chanting and singing at a football (soccer) ground, being used as the sole source to verify that a specific fans group exists. To me that just seems a very weak verification. Especially when other Fans groups have websites. Thanks again though! Tangerines 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a verification at all. I can drum up a bunch of friends to chant and sing about purple oranges, but that doesn't verify they exist. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help with Log In Problems That Just Started[edit]

As I type my question to my problem, Wikipedia again has me logged out even though I just signed in. I have not had this problem until about a week ago. When I try to log in it shows me logged in until I go to another Wikipedia page. I click on an article I want to help edit and I am suddenly not signed in. I go to sign in and click the link that takes me back to the article I was previously in, only to find out that once I get back to that page it has me again logged out. When I try to edit an article anyway, only my IP gets logged and I am viewed as a non-registered user. Because of this now I have gotten blamed for several other people's vandelising of articles that I have never visited nor tried to edit. I would appreciate Wikipedia helping me find out why I am no longer able to stay logged in on the system. Help is greatly appreciated. Thank you. 67.142.130.27 01:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Purpleparrot (Purpleparrot is my Wikipedia name)[reply]

Who is your ISP? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds almost as though your browser is no longer storing cookies the way it is supposed to. Try checking to make sure:

If you use Firefox, go to Tools -> Options... -> Privacy. Make sure that Firefox is accepting cookies from sites and keeping them until they expire or until Firefox is closed. Then click on Exceptions and make sure en.wikipedia.org hasn't been accidentally blacklisted.

If you use IE 7, go to Tools -> Internet Options -> Privacy. Click on the Advanced button and make sure the following settings are checked:

Override automatic cookie handling should be checked.
First-party cookies should be accepted.
Always allow session cookies should be checked.

IE might then start shouting at you about high-risk security settings - if this is the case, ignore it or switch to Firefox.

Hope this has helped. If not, good luck with fixing the problem, I've no idea what else could be causing it. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 02:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are using Hughes Net according to whois. It is a problem with them, but if you use the (slightly slower) secure server, you can log in and edit normally. Prodego ^talk 03:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I will try the secure server. :) Purpleparrot

monobook.js[edit]

I have been trying desperately to add some features to my wikipedian experence by editing my monobook.js file. The code I am currently trying to load on the page is:
importScript('User:Lupin/popups.js'); importScript('User:AzaToth/morebits.js'); importScript('User:AzaToth/twinklefluff.js'); importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu'); importStylesheet('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu/css'); importScript('User:AzaToth/twinklewarn.js'); importScript('User:AzaToth/twinklearv.js'); importScript('User:AzaToth/twinklespeedy.js'); importScript('User:AzaToth/twinklediff.js'); importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkleprotect.js'); importScript('User:Lupin/recent2.js');
Whatever I do doesn't seem to work however. What could I posibly be doing wrong? Redian(Talk) 02:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you do that "bypass your browser's cache" thing?--$UIT 02:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict} Are you bypassing the cache after saving? On Internet Explorer, its Ctrl+F5. Also try adding ?action=purge to the end of the URL of your monobook.js page after saving and then reload the page. Also, I think stylesheets go in your monobook.css. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

importStylesheet would stay in your .js file; it's a javascript function. —Mitaphane _?|! 03:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I bypassed the cache, and I tried the action=purge. It made it all show up as script instead of text, but I still don't see the 5 new things I should have in my toolbox from the "importScript('User:Lupin/recent2.js');" Am I not looking in the right spot? Right below the search vox on the left hand column? Redian(Talk) 03:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to try on WP:VPT. A response may be slower but someone there will definitely know what they are talking about and can provide more help than "bypass your cache." Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What probably has happened is that the scripts have overlapped, and probably invalidated each other. I would suggest either choosing twinkle or lupin's tools and popups, just to be safe. I have never seen an instance where two anti-vandal scripts part of two separate packages have cooperated with each other. Gracenotes ^T § 04:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I will try the secure server and see if I can once again edit and write articles. :)

Contacting former Missionaries[edit]

Dear Friends:

I am wondering who and how to contact someone who can give me information about missionaries from Sweden who served in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) under Bishop Strandvik during 1963-1965.

I taught secondary school there during that time at the Chegato Mission Station.

Now I am retired as a bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada and I would like to contact my friends from that time who are still living.

Thank you very much for whatever help you can give me.

+ Allan Grundahl (<email removed to prevent spam>) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.47.246.184 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your question, but this page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. The Wikipedia:Reference desk (which is for factual questions) may be able to help you more, but this sort of question doesn't really fit into their criteria. Maybe you could try contacting the Mission Station, any Sweedish organisation involved or the church Bishop Strandvik was part of to see if they may be able to point you in the right direction. Hope that helps, matt br 12:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do remove the template protection in one's page?[edit]

Hi,

I accidentally inserted the following protection tag twice (see below)

As such, my page is currently displaying the above template protection banners twice.

Pse see affected page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoo_Kheng-Hor

How do i resolve remove this protection?

A speedy reply is appreciated

Thanks!

Aldwinteo 10:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Scottydude 11:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't use those tags if the article isn't protected in the first place. x42bn6 Talk 12:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you accidentally inserted this template, simply remove it. It's only protected when an administrator actually applies the protection. The template just exists to inform other users of this status. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the template, because it was causing this page to be placed in Category:Semi-protected. I doubt it was semiprotecting the page, but it's still probably not a good idea to have this page in that category. You can still view the template by clicking the link. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 00:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#expr:[edit]

Hello! I'm relatively new around here so i may have overlooked something obvious. If so i apologise, but i have tried Help and the VFAQ. In the article Julian day use is made of a {{#expr: ..}} calculation. Could somebody please point me towards the documentation of this construction? In particular, what operations are available? -- 博 11:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See m:ParserFunctions on m:meta, which describes all the parser functions available. Hope that helps, matt br 12:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to be what i am looking for. Thank you! -- 博 14:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request one's account for closure?[edit]

I'd like to request that someone's account closes. What's the page for this? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want someone's account blocked? Is that what you mean? Adrian M. H. 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indefinitely, but isn't there a wikipedia page to request this? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you told us what the problem is. Vandalism, disruption, or another issue? Adrian M. H. 13:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly insubordination. This user (I will call anonymous) is really frustrating to deal with. One of my Wiki-friends spent the better part of last summer working on bus related NYCT articles. He was working for transit, and I spent a lot of time looking around and taking pictures for the articles. He never really told people that. Then along came "anonymous". This character went through and systematically removed my contributions, as well as his. He even accused him of becoming upset.

This anonymous character is unreasonable, completely heartless, and excuse me for my language, but a total s*** bag. Sorry, buy I can't put it any other way. He needs to be brought down to his place. Rest assured, something should be done about him. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, sounds like a pain in the butt, granted. AGF aside, if his edits can be demonstrated to be unreasonable and not done in good faith, then you have cause for complaint. The timeline may or may not be an issue, if it happened last year. WP:AN is your first visit; from there, you should find what you need. If not, contact an experienced admin directly and ask for their advice. Adrian M. H. 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for administrator attention may be useful, too. Adrian M. H. 14:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(←) What action I would recommend really depends on the circumstances of the case, which I cannot really determine from your comments. If the user is conversing with you and you have a dispute, you may wish to have a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and working through one or some of the processes there. If you believe that the user has clearly and consistently violated policy in a manner which would require admin attention, go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Accounts are only blocked in line with the Wikipedia:Blocking policy, which you might also find helpful to read, as people are not blocked for 'being annoying' unless thay have clearly and repeatedly violated policy. Please remember to be civil with no personal attacks at all times or you may find people reluctant to help you or you may be blocked yourself. I hope that helps, matt br 14:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I'm the one he's complaining about. --NE2 09:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Question: How to intert into existing text when existing won't appear for me until I save changes.[edit]

editing Question -- how do I insert text into article ... as in adding a sentence. What now shows for me is a blank window like an email window that does not show the eixting article for me to type in my new text at the end of the exixting article. I use a Mac. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.99.114 (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Use the 'edit this page' tab at the top of the page, rather than the other edit links that may be available, to edit the whole article (other links might edit just a section or add a new section, depending on context). --ais523 15:12, 31 March 2007 (U T C)

WP[edit]

hw can i put myself on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.141.62 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:NOT, WP:COI, WP:V, WP:N, among other pages, first. Xiner (talk, email) 15:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. Experience has shown us that while people know a lot about themselves, they're not the right people to create the article about themselves. Wait until someone else does it and go to the article's discussion page to suggest additions or changes. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

posting?[edit]

how do you post a message for someone else or can you? 71.63.7.235 15:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click on that person's username, click "discussion" on top of that page to go to that person's user talk page, and click the "+" sign on top to create a new section. Xiner (talk, email) 15:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PHYLLIS REARDON---ESTEE LAUDER 'S FIRSTT MODEL[edit]

Hi! This is Lu (Lucille Connor (Oliver), Phyl Connor Reardon's older sister by fough years. You have a pic and a few words about Phyl and ask for more. Who better to write them than her older sister?

See WP:COI. Adrian M. H. 15:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-You[edit]

are you allowed to say thank-you to someone who answers your question at the help desk? if you can, how?Athena is hott 15:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to do that. To ensure that they see it, go to their talk page. Adrian M. H. 15:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are. The instructions at the top of the page even say a polite thank you is very much appreciated. (see WP:TALK if you want to follow the previous advice)- Mgm|^(talk) 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete[edit]

how do you know your user page wont be deleted?

A user's userpage is highly unlikely to be deleted for no reason; administrators are only allowed to delete pages when there is a reason, so as long as you remain within the userpage guidelines you should be fine. Except in really obvious cases, the deletion of a userpage is likely to be discussed at MfD before any action is taken. Hope that helps! --ais523 15:54, 31 March 2007 (U T C)

Adding a page[edit]

Can I add a pag about a Nintendo fan site? MattC13 16:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the criteria for notability and see also Help:Starting a new page. Adrian M. H. 16:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind POV when creating or adding to a page. A fan site may be acceptable, but it should be verifiable, and not from a persons own experience. SkipperClipper 21:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on its content, a fansite may be a useful external link in a Nintendo related article, but unless it's the biggest of its kind or repeatedly mentioned in the press, I would recommend against creating an article about it. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lower case letters in first letter[edit]

How come it's now possible to have an article beginning with a lower case letter? Of course, I'm very pleased about this, but what changed recently in order for this to happen? CoolGuy 16:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All articles still start with uppercase letters. However, there's now some script running which means that if you put {{lowercase}} on a page, it changes the title to appear lowercase (if you check the URL or history of IPod, for instance, you'll see that the article still has an uppercase first letter). --ais523 16:32, 31 March 2007 (U T C)

I didn't notice the URL before, but I'm glad that the text shows the capitalization correctly. Thanks, CoolGuy 04:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

links[edit]

how do you remove the blue links on every page24.92.195.252 17:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to? Prodego ^talk 17:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want a certain text to be linked, just remove the [[ and ]] from the text. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 18:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (probably you?) asked this recently. Why do you want to remove links that - for the most part - should be there? If articles had no links to other related articles, they would all be effectively isolated from each other. Adrian M. H. 18:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening external Links in a new window[edit]

Sorry to bother you. I just want to know what the code is for opening an external link in a new window; I have looked around the help but could not find the answer. Hope you can help me. Thank you.
Tra1946 17:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to code a wikilink so that it opens in a new window by default; I think this is deliberate, because such choices should be made by the user clicking on the link rather than by the person who adds the link. --ais523 17:33, 31 March 2007 (U T C)

If a user wishes the external link to be opened in a new window, they can do so by right-clicking mouse key themselves. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 17:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check your internet browser's settings. Often times there's a box to check in the "preferences" or "options" of most browsers as to what should happen when you click on a link. SkipperClipper 21:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PHYLLIS CONNOR REARDON---first Estee Lauder model[edit]

Hi!

You have a pic and a few lines about PHYLISS CONNOR REARDON, Estee Lauder's first mofel and you ask for more. As her older (by four years) sister, I'm the one who could fill you in and I'd love to, if you'll just tell me how I do it. Many thanks, Lu (Lucille Connor Oliver)

I'm not sure what article you saw that content in. There is no article at Phyliss Connor Reardon or Phyllis Connor Reardon , and I don't see any mention in Estée Lauder Companies. You can edit any article by clicking on "edit this page" or one of the section "edit" links to edit a single section only. DES ^(talk) 17:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Help:Starting a new page or Wikipedia:How to edit a page as applicable. Then take note of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. WP:BLP and WP:COI may also apply. Adrian M. H. 18:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Formatting my Signature[edit]

I attempting to have my signature have three components:

a link to my user page through my name, normal color
a superscript "T" linking to my talk page, green
a link to my watchlist survey through the word "Survey!", in orange and bold.

This is what I have so far:

--[[user:ybbor|Ybbor]][[User Talk:Ybbor|T]] '''[[User:Ybbor/Watchlist Survey|Survey!]]'''.
Which compiles as:" --Ybbor^T Survey!".
the tildes conjugate as --YbborT Survey! 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'My preferences' returns: "Invalid raw signature; check HTML tags." (Yes, I have the "raw signature" box checked).

Any help would be appreciated :). (Artificial Signature --> Ybbor 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Try closing the font formatting before the superscript. You need to use the tags like parenthesis in math. Something like this

--[[user:ybbor|Ybbor]][[User Talk:Ybbor|T]]'''[[User:Ybbor/Watchlist Survey|Survey!]]'''

Works when I try it

--Ybbor ^TSurvey! 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps (Artificial Signature --> snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC) :)[reply]

Perfect! Thanks for the help :) --Ybbor ^TSurvey! 19:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a Picture[edit]

I am looking to upload a picture from a school website of a school for use on an article about the school. The website has no mention of copyright information. This is the page: http://www.shufsd.org/schools/wwhs/Admin/admina.html Can I upload the image of the school on the page to wikimedia commons, or is there something specialo I must do? Redian(Talk) 20:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway I can upload the picture? Redian(Talk) 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case uploading to Wikipedia is not an option either. It's easy for someone in the area to take a camera and make a photograph that is released under a free license. This means that any image uploaded could possibly be tagged as "replaceable fair use image". If you want an image of the school, I suggest you contact a Wikipedian in that area and ask them to help you out. Alternatively, you can try to contact the webmaster of the school to find the photographer to ask them to release the image you found under a free license. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a suitable flag for articles that are conspiracy theory-ridden?[edit]

I've found an article The Shiva Star space weapon that seems to have been written by a conspiracy theorist of some sort - it's definitely in violation of WP:NPOV, and I was wondering if I just flag it for a re-write of if there's a template for "This article is in need of a tinfoil hat removal" that should be applied. Mysticaloctopus 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{POV}} and {{Cleanup-rewrite}} would be good places to start. --Ybbor ^TSurvey! 20:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of tagging it, try to see if this POV was recently introduced. If it is, you can revert to the clean version in the edit history. Alternatively, you can remove the POV-material yourself and leave a stub (of course with a descriptive edit summary). - Mgm|^(talk) 22:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

network[edit]

For the purpose of forwarding packts,which protocol manages communication between routers regarding available routers?

a. DNS b. ICMP c. RIP d. ARP e. CDP f. STP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gehadhanna (talk • contribs) 21:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here's the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. matt br 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename account[edit]

trying to remane my acct but can't find the place to paste the following:

CURRENT.USERNAME → NEW.USERNAME[edit]

Current name: CURRENT.USERNAME (talk • contribs)
Requested name: NEW.USERNAME (change username)
Reason: Reason for requested

renaming. Danmcatee 21:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username to make such a request. matt br 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronauts (band)[edit]

This morning I created an entry for the musical band known as Anachronauts. This afternoon I discovered it had been marked for a notability issue. Now, the reason I created this article was because the band Anachronauts had been referenced on Wikipedia in several other articles, however, the links in those articles were directed to an article on the Marvel comics supervillain team also called Anachronauts. Obviously that was in error. I thought that fixing the links and adding an article for the band known as Anachronauts would be appropriate, especially considering its previous references. I tried looking at the notability information to add whatever is required, but it's really not any help. From what I got out of it, a band is only worthy of being in Wikipedia if it had a deal with a major record label or topped the charts. Considering the other bands listed on Wikipedia that are on the same level as Anachronauts, I'm doubting that's the case.

How do I go about adding nobility? There is no website for the band (though I did a search and the domain name "anachronauts.com" is registered by a person of the same name as the lead singer of the band. I myself have loads of Anachronauts albums on CD, LP, and audiocassette, as well as flyers, posters, and mailers for past performances (I collect such things). I don't remember if I have any news clippings that mention the band, and if you search "Anachronauts Baton Rouge" you do get hits on the band as well as music stores that carry a couple of their split albums, but no shiny little web site or major record deal.

I really do want to keep this article up, but how can I use the references I have? Thank you.Ivytheplant 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be reliable and verifiable. It is not beyond possibility that some of Wikipieda's "band" articles fail notability requirements; there are probably many such articles throughout Wikipedia, some of which get put through AfD, while others escape notice. In the case of your article, I would also suggest a re-write and significant expansion to raise its standard and improve its chances. Adrian M. H. 21:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but how should I rewrite it? It's been ten years since I wrote anything that required references and sources, but that was dry technical scientific papers. This is obviously something completely different. How do I reference something that doesn't have loads of information all over the web, but apparently is considered notable enough to be referenced by wikipedia? And how long do I have before the article gets deleted? It might take some time to get sources that, while I know exist, aren't online. Ivytheplant 21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A minor record deal will suffice too if the label isn't your common vanity garage band label. The criteria for bands are at WP:MUSIC. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronauts was represented by Eerie Materials, which not only already has a wiki entry, but was representative of several well-known bands like Man or Astroman? and Negativeland (both which have entries themselves). Not a garage band label. Would adding an external link to the label's website be enough? Again, how long do I have before the article is deleted? Ivytheplant 22:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CITE for how to cite sources. I'm not sure how long your article will survive on Wikipedia; the rules are not applied consistently here, since everything depends on editors who randomly happen upon an article and decide to invoke this or that rule. However, your fears of deletion are realistic; Wikipedia deletes vast numbers of articles, possibly more than any other wiki. That's why, for many topic areas, interested people set up their own wikis. See List of wikis, Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, and search WikiIndex. WikiIndex shows several music-oriented wikis, for example Music-Web. I expect at least one of these wikis would be much more hospitable than Wikipedia to articles about marginal bands. You can develop your article on a "safe haven" wiki in addition to Wikipedia. If the copy on Wikipedia gets deleted, you can continue to develop the article on the music-oriented wiki, and try it again on Wikipedia if you (and others) get it into encyclopedic shape there. One more thing: try contacting the band and ask them if they keep press clippings and so on. One would hope that someone in or near the band is keeping a file of such press coverage as the band may have received. If there isn't any press coverage of the band, you might try contacting reporters to see if any would consider writing about the band. --Teratornis 22:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to writing better articles is all pretty standard stuff, but it's a good place to start when looking for guidance. Adrian M. H. 22:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Teratornis. I'm starting to consider that. This band was fairly well known in the 1990's, especially in Louisiana and Ohio. It's hardly in the same tier as someone who puts their music on Myspace, but I guess Wikipedia likes picking and choosing who to pick on next (seeing as how other bands under the Anachronaut's record label have their own entries that have been up for quite some time, it's kind of ironic that this one isn't considered a "real" band). Since wikipedia's default is considering this band as nothing more than a group of kids with a synthesier, maybe someone should erase every other reference to it on this site. For consistency, of course.

I have a collection of press releases and have been in contact with the band members as well as people who attended live performances. There's also websites (including the record label) that sell the two albums they were featured on (some with reviews). However, like I said, most of this information is offline. And unless the world has forgotten, not all credible info is online.

I really wish someone would answer my question: How long do I have until Wikipedia deletes my article? 24 hours? 48 hours? A week? I need time to gather the offline sources. I'm starting to think few people at wikipedia have ever actually researched a topic without the help of the internet before. Next time I'll try to use my magic mind powers to make the wealth of offline references magically appear on National Geographic's web page or something. Ivytheplant 23:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have anything to worry about right now as far as page deletion goes. There are a lot of editors that patrol newly created pages to filter out a lot of junk: pages about goofy thing people make up, insignificant garage bands, pets, drinking games, and so forth. Unfortunately, a lot of good intentioned articles articles also get caught up in this filter. An editor patroling newly created pages, has seen your page and marked it with a notability template, presumably because it hasn't asserted importance (said what makes the album significant in the world of music).

This doesn't mean the article is going to be deleted soon. It just means an editor has concern that this band might have problems with notability. As significant as that sounds, notability is a guideline not policy; the article won't be deleted right away. However, notability is an issue that means there is concern with finding sources and that any work made on the topic might fall into original research, wikipedia-speak for a someone's own personal analysis (as opposed to a summarized, referenced thoughts, from well known sources).

To come to a short answer: There really isn't a timeline because it just depends when someone makes the effort to delete your article. As a rule of thumb, I'd say you'd have around a week or so before some puts the article up for deletion. In the meantime, put the article on your watchlist and start looking for sources. Good luck on your article. —Mitaphane _?|! 00:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To address some more points by Ivytheplant:

There is no problem with offline information; in fact, it may be more credible than online information, because once printed it does not change. See WP:CITE, WP:FOOT, and WP:VERIFY.
Wikipedia is a vast community of (mostly) part-time volunteers, each one with an imperfect and unavoidably idiosyncratic grasp of Wikipedia's staggeringly complex policies and guidelines. How many people do you suppose have read and properly understood every page linked from User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia? My guess: zero.
Editing on Wikipedia is not for the faint of heart; it's similar to any other type of social interaction that carries a high risk of rejection, such as asking random strangers to go out on a date with you, applying for a job, door-to-door selling, or starting a musical group. The right attitude is to view setbacks as opportunities to learn and improve, rather than as personal insults.
- One way to bolster oneself for activities that carry a high risk of rejection is spread one's risk. If you already have a job, and you are not starving, it's not so devastating to be rejected when you apply for a better job. Similarly, if you edit several articles on several wikis, you won't be as upset when a few of them get hacked up or deleted. It also helps to make many small edits to many existing articles, rather than creating a few articles entirely on your own. When you create entire articles yourself, it's hard to avoid feeling like you own them, and that feeling is not consistent with reality, because you can't own articles on this wiki.
- The right mindset to have with high-risk activities is to view them as experiments. Try not to expect any particular outcome. You're just trying things and seeing what happens. Stay loose and go with the flow.
Wikipedia's core policies are: WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. As I understand it (not that anyone else would necessarily agree with me), notability is merely a means to the end of verifiability. That is, we require topics to be notable simply because notable topics are more likely to be verifiable. However, there seem to be lots of editors on Wikipedia who treat notability as if it is a core policy, that is, as if notability is a value in and of itself. Personally, I reject that notion; I would like Wikipedia to be as comprehensive as possible, i.e., I would like Wikipedia to contain everything which is verifiable, so when I want information on something, I can get my first introduction on Wikipedia. I don't think any article should be deleted solely on the basis of notability, but obviously thousands of editors here disagree with that. It seems a lot of people want to restrict Wikipedia to the Microsofts of the world, which is strange considering Wikipedia's humble origin.
- My prediction (you read it here first, I bet): the notability requirement leads to another problem that will become painfully evident with the rise of the geographic wiki. Real soon now, Wikipedia will be generally available on GPS-enabled mobile computing devices. When you walk around somewhere with your portable Wikipedia, you will naturally want to read Wikipedia articles about the stuff around you - and in most parts of the world, most of the stuff around you is not notable. Therefore, to make Wikipedia generally relevant to GPS-enabled users, Wikipedia will need articles about most geographically-fixed objects. I expect the concept of notability to undergo substantial revision in response to the coming demand for locally relevant content. Either Wikipedia will find ways to verify more topics that aren't notable, or Wikipedia will improve its coordination with other wikis that aren't as hung up on notability as some sort of a value in itself.

--Teratornis 13:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reposting article that was deleted...[edit]

I am relisting my website because it is TheHamptons.com that I am adding to "The Hamptons" page in Wikipedia - it helped a lot of the organizations on our site and it was all done free of charge and it continues to drive traffic to their respective sites since we are #1 on Google for search term "the hamptons" and also have been there since 1995!!! I consider it part of the hamptons history on the internet as it is mostly cultural in content. I don't see in the edit history where someone says why or who deleted it so I am reposting it. I hope that's ok...I am a reliable source b/c I built the site and have copyright to ALL the content on it. A lot of it is archival by nature and I have left it up for that purpose since so many people value the art on it and come back to it.

thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LiziObolensky (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, personal knowledge is not considered a reliable source. It needs to be verifiable by everyone. Also, writing articles about where you work and things you did is strongly discouraged by the conflict of interest guideline. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Are you trying to republish an article (as your title suggests) or just reinserting an external link into an existing article? Regarding the edit history, the editor should have included a descriptive summary (too many people seem to think it unnecessary), but you can still check the diffs if you wish. However, assuming good faith, I would expect that the editor in question had good reason to deem your link unsuitable and/or extraneous. In which case, you would be better off submitting it to the article's talk page for review rather than add it yourself. Other editors can then make a decision based on policy. If you are referring to an article, see the above response. Adrian M. H. 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to this edit to The Hamptons. PrimeHunter 22:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup templates[edit]

Why are the dates in the cleanup templates done as optional parameters? Wouldn't it work to just use: [[Category:Cleanup from {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}]] and: This page has been tagged since {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}? Or am I missing something obvious? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could use [[Category:Cleanup from {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}]] if you're adding just the category. However, creating a template with [[Category:Cleanup from {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}]] in it wouldn't work because as soon as you saved the template it would evaluate the subst. Something like this might be possible with parser functions, I'm not sure. For more information on subst, go here —Mitaphane _?|! 00:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can go {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}}, etc., but that only works if the template is substed when added to the article (and cleanup templates usually aren't). --ais523 10:51, 1 April 2007 (U T C)

That would be the obvious thing that I'm forgetting, duh. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 18:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title of Article need Capitalizing...[edit]

Hi, I was working on the Coffee Bean Bears page, and noticed that the title of the page is not capitalized, but there is no way for me to fix this. Can you fix it so that the first letter of each of the words in the title are capitalized? It currently reads: Coffee bean bears - but should read: Coffee Bean Bears. Thanks for any help you can give.

Unless your account is new, you can use the Move tab. See WP:MOVE for info. If your account is too new, or you are an anon editor, let us know. Don't forget to sign your comments. Adrian M. H. 22:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed the move for you. --Ybbor ^TSurvey! 23:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps?[edit]

Re: Dame Edna Treatment. I found this while reviewing recent changes and added tags for notability and sources, then commented on the creator's talk page to give him the opportunity to improve it. He has since blanked the page (I have not bothered to revert it, given the content). Is it a candidate for speedy deletion? Adrian M. H. 22:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found the answer, I think. WP:CSD#G7 Adrian M. H. 22:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]