Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 June 25

Help desk
< June 24	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 26 >

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.

June 25

Rollback feature broke?

When i used the roolback feature i have for a artcile that had been messed with it said it reverts the edits but when i checked the artcile later it still had the edits that had been done is this meant to happen or is my roolback broke?--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:Rollback, only certain editors have the rollback ability — are you sure you were ever one of them? Also, perhaps the problem has something to do with this notice on your talkpage — perhaps your rollbacking was taken away temporarily because of 3RR.

Additionally, I understand you have reading issues, but in the future, try to add the section for your question by clicking the link that says "click here to ask your question", in the grey box (you'll have to click it again on bottom of the next page, because they give this process a lot of red tape, it's pretty frustrating). Hope some of that helps! $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 16:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Request admin help

Hi, I don't know if this is the right place, but I wanted to make a request, so an admin could delete this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/hacktolive.org I think it can be seen it is done was good faith, and that the links are useful... i was told to request a speedy deletion, that is was clearly not spam, but I don't know which tag to use... If someone would take care of that, I would appreciate it. Thanks SF007 (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done I don't think there's really an applicable criteria. It was a bot's false-negative, so I went with WP:IAR and deleted it anyway. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

:) yeah, I think in this case that is OK. many thaks ;) SF007 (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing my user id

Hello,

When I was signing up for Wikipedia, I chose my initials plus last name. However, in thinking about it, I would rather have something that is not so close to infringing on my privacy.

Is it possible to change my user id and if so, how do I do that? I have looked around and cannot find an means of editing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcgibson (talk • contribs) 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can change it for you. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Changing username. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I tell someone about the hacked Barack Obama page?

see above... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.80.113 (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by Hacked. There are no hacked pages here. Anybody can edit the article.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  01:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you could describe the problem? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought perhaps the article had been vandalised, but it's semiprotected and all the templates it transcludes appear to be protected or semiprotected, so it doesn't seem likely. However, the original poster may have seen (for whatever reason) and old version of the article, in which case they may need to purge their cache to see if the vandalism disappears. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem Displaying American Airlines Flight 77

A screenshot of what I see at the very bottom of the article. Notice: no templates, no categories

I have a problem displaying this article. I've tried purging the article and clearing my cache, but it only seems to provide a temporary fix. The page ends abruptly at after the references, does not display the FA-Star, does not display the {{Sept11}} or {{9-11 hijackers}} templates, and does not display the categories. I've looked through the code and haven't found anything. Help, please. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks complete at my end.. I don't know what to suggest :( Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine here in Firefox 3 under Mac OS X (10.5, with all software updates). Also looks fine in Safari 3.1.1 on the same machine. VegitaU, what operating system and browser are you using? --Tkynerd (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 3 on XP. -- VegitaU (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that browser customized? ... it could very possibly be a Firefox bug or a bug in a customization script. Category bar not there rules out wiki-code. It's not on the server side, that's for sure. My best guess is a script/extension/add-on you're running on Firefox is excluding it for some reason. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The only add-on extension I have is CacheViewer and I disabled it, restarted FF, and there's no change. It's happening when I view The Garden of Earthly Delights too. Probably will experience this problem on other FA articles. -- VegitaU (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point, it's probably better to start a village pump thread and figure out what the problem is, no one here is likely to know. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I copy what has been written here and paste it over there? -- VegitaU (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, provided you keep the signatures. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

FLAGGING

I've seen this many times on wikipedia, and it bugs the HECK out of me. On several pages, there's a huge banner saying THIS ARTICLE REQUIRES CLEAN UP TO MEET WIKIPEDIA'S STANDARDS. And yet . . . I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO FLAG A PAGE. Someone please help! How do you flag a page so that some moderators get on the job and clean it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillonthebookworm (talk • contribs) 02:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The easiest way to do this is to click the edit this page link at the top of the page and add the following text to the top: {{cleanup}} You can get more information on editting Wikipedia pages in general at Wikipedia:Introduction. You can learn more about templates (the thing between the braces) at Help:Templates. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 03:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you click on the "edit this page" tab up the top of a page, you can see the code used for various things. For example, these tags are usually created using transcluded template messages, identified by a name enclosed in double braces, such as {{cleanup}}. This template adds the notice, and it also puts the page in a category that identifies articles needing cleanup (and other templates do the same thing, for other purposes - like the need to add references, or rewrite in a neutral point of view). However, there are no "moderators" on Wikipedia - there are normal editors, which includes you and me, who can do the cleanup needed, and there are administrators (also known as "sysops"), who have a few more tools at their disposal to keep the place running (relatively) smoothly, but who have no more editorial control over articles than anyone else. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, as with everything on Wikipedia, messagebox templates should be completely self-documenting. A template such as {{Cleanup}} should itself answer any questions it raises, such as the question above ("How do I put a messagebox like this on another article?"). Wikipedia is a gigantic do it yourself project, and new users may jump in just about anywhere as their starting point, so every part of Wikipedia has to explain itself - a lone user sitting in front of a computer has nobody else handy to ask for an explanation. Of course this Help desk is part of Wikipedia, so we always have the Help desk as the backstop explanatory tool, but forcing users to go to the Help desk is not efficient. We couldn't expect all 47,328,125 users to come here with every question. Therefore, when we get a question on the Help desk about something in Wikipedia, we should look at that something and see why that something itself wasn't able to answer the question it raised. In this case, the {{Cleanup}} template has a link to WP:CLEANUP, which does somewhat circuitously describe the process, but a reader would have to know enough about Wikipedia to decode at least one synonym ("banner", which should link to WP:TEMPLATE) and an ambiguous verb in the passive voice with missing actor ("placed" - by what?). The {{Cleanup}} template does indirectly document itself, but not in a way that someone new to Wikipedia would likely understand, as the reader needs to make several unobvious inferences to get from the general text on WP:CLEANUP to seeing exactly how to place {{Cleanup}} on another article. It would be nice if {{Cleanup}} had a visible and obvious link to its own documentation (Template:Cleanup/doc). Instead we seem to expect readers to already know enough about templates to identify the template page from the rendered template, and then to know that a template on Wikipedia will usually have its own documentation. --Teratornis (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Viewing deleted articles

Is there a way for admins to view deleted articles without restoring them to the mainspace? Epbr123 (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Go to Special:Undelete and find the article. In the page history, you will see the diffs as you would in a normal page history. Click on the latest revision, and it'll show in wikitext; then click "show preview" to see the article as it looked just before deletion. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Peter. Epbr123 (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Very welcome. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Filiquarian Publishing appears to be publishing Wikipedia articles with no acknowledgement

(I did look for a more appropriate place where there were active editors but couldn't find one). This am I spent some time doing what I thought was deleting copyright violations on Middle Ages. It turns out that the book, The Middle Ages for Know-It-Alls[1] is simply a copy of our article. And it's not the only one, see [2]. They are publishing under a GNU licence but not mentioning Wikipedia. Ditto for instance [3]. I would be very unhappy to find any of my work in such a book.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, under GFDL, Wikipedia's text can be used, published, advertised, rewritten and adapted for any purpose. It's certainly odd to find a published book based on Wikipedia's text...I've never seen that before. But technically there are no legal restrictions against it. You could perhaps mention its existence on Talk:Middle Ages, flagging to let people know that the source is unreliable. I'm not really sure what to do about that, except contacting the publisher and asking them directly. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no requirement to mention Wikipedia, since Wikipedia doesn't hold any of the copyrights. I can't access the relevant pages of the book, but from the fact they have (as required) reproduced the entire GFDL, I assume they have the required 'history' section listing all contributors. If you aren't happy with this sort of re-use, you really shouldn't be releasing material under such a free license. Algebraist 11:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But the relevant Wikipedia guidance says says "Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement)." I searched the book for either Wikipedia or the url linking to the article, and couldn't find it. The D.B. Cooper book doesn't seem to mention Wikipedia either, but I'm checking, see [4] where an editor who bought the book was discussing it. Thanks for the swift response. Doug Weller (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A backlink is sufficient, but unnecessary. Some other method of acknowledging authors is OK (I think strictly the entire article history should be reproduced), and Wikipedia has no rights in the document at all. From the legal point of view, it's just a random website that's been publishing other people's GFDL material. Algebraist 11:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So do I have this right? What is necessary is that there is some form of acknowledgement of the authors. If they don't, and anyone is unhappy, it is up to the unhappy editors to complain, not Wikipedia. (That's ok, just checking to see if I'm right). Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be how it's interpreted. See WP:GFDL for the precise version. Algebraist 12:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks both for clearing it up for me. Doug Weller (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Filiquarian now has an article, if anyone wants to check or augment the material. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not meaning to be rude towards yourself, but I tagged the "direct copies" section with an inline "original research" tag. We don't want it to look like we only created that article so that we could "respond" to them doing that (I'm not implying that's the case, I'm just saying we should definitely cite an external source regarding that). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

outdent] I agree with Grey Knight's point. There is indeed an external source that has made the complaint ("The publisher...just printed up lots of different Wikipedia articles and offered them to sale to people not letting them know that they are all just the Wikipedia articles you can get online for free"), but it isn't necessarily of sufficient quality to use as a citation. See "Don't waste your money" here. Does anyone have a better, or would the one given be OK to add? In the meantime, I have tweaked the article slightly to improve its neutrality: more on the article talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, what they are doing is probably legal as far as copyright is concerned, and it's our fault that we have such a permissive licence. What is not OK, however, is publishing our articles Diabetes and Clinical Depression without saying very clearly that this is just information from a wiki that was not screened by an expert. By the way, the cover art of the books in this series is also based on illustrations from the articles. I found 25 such books on Google Books. [5]

In a sense this is not our problem. But there are some scenarios under which this can have bad consequences for us. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnote styling

I used the old "ref" template in New Fighter Aircraft program to include a footnote (you'll see it). The way I put it in makes the placeholder within the article show up as a number, 1 in this case. However there are a number of other references, which also start with 1. I seem to recall there is a way to replace the default number with some other symbol, and I'd like to use that if possible. Does anyone recall how to do this? Maury (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You are using {{ref}}— its documentation shows you how to create a label. You might want to use the similar {{note}}, which may be less confusing to follow-on editors. You can also wrap your notes section with {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} to format the text as in the references section. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

responding to comment without signature

Resolved

 – $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 17:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish to respond to a comment on the discussion page. The person who left the comment did so without leaving any signature: no IP address, no 4 tildes, no member name, etc. Is there any code I can put at the end of that comment to show it is closed, i.e. that my comment is not part of it? Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment will be available in the page history, which can be found by clicking the top "history" tab to the right of "edit this page". The talk page will be linked. You could use {{unsigned}} to sign the comment for him (for future reference) based on the page history. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(Example) {{subst:unsigned|PeterSymonds|25 June 2008}} will yield

—Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSymonds (talk • contribs) 25 June, 2005

thanks!Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to use {{unsigned2}}, because it formats its variables in the same order as they show up on the History tab. So, the above example would be {{subst:unsigned2|15:02, 25 June 2008|PeterSymonds}}. You just copy & paste the info from the History tab and insert a pipe symbol between the date and the username. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

I have a unified account and is there a way I can redirect ll my other userpages to my Wikipedia userpage, since that is my home wiki. Thanks :-)Cssiitcic (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. You could place a note at the top of your user/talk pages saying you can only be contacted on Wikipedia. But there is no global redirect for userpages. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You could use a soft redirect by putting {{softredirect|en:User:Cssiitcic}} on the other wikis, that's the best you could manage. A few users are doing this already (example). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you could also add interwiki language links in the usual manner to go between Wikipedias (but not for other projects like Wiktionary et al). Again, if you look at la:Usor:Grey Knight, you can see an "English" option in the sidebar. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete tags

Resolved

 – $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 17:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This page, Normal Loss Expectancy, has had a speedy delete tag on it as a copyright violation. This was removed, presumbly in good faith, by the editor when they added the hang-on tag so I restored the tag. It has now been removed by another editor and so I belive it should not be restored as it's contested. However the user that's removed it has a very similar username to the user that created the article so I believe they're the same person and so have removed the tag in violation of policy. Not sure how to proceed given that there's no hard prove they're the same person. Throughout the content of the page has remained basically the same. Dpmuk (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the page as a copyvio; the text was effectively lifted from the site. See WP:SSP for reports of sockpuppetry against policy. If you wish to pursue that line of inquiry, that's the best place to do it. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect that they've only created the accounts for a few pages (all copyvios). If it continues I'll report on the page you link to but I suspect it may quietly go away. Out of interest would I have been right to restore the tag? If not what should I have done? Dpmuk (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. If they remove it, warn them on their talk page with the user warning templates. When you have distributed four warnings, report them at WP:AIV. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

SupporttoBioBus (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to enjoy my wiki times without distrubing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SignIDlike (talk • contribs) 17:34, June 25, 2008

I concur. Gary King (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is an actual question, this section should just be removed. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 17:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

Why my account may be blocked even I revert my "vandal" I made? Vandal is NOT exist to Wikimedia because of all edit is preserved permanently, vandal will revert soon.BuManWiKiZhenHouQu (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea is, you should not vandalize articles at all. People visit hundreds or thousands of pages a second, and the vandalism will be seen by people. New editors can test their editing by pressing "show preview" or using the WP:Sandbox. 18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, you are free to create and mess around with subpages of your user page. Also, it looks like your native language is Japanese — please remember that the English Wikipedia (this one) expects all contributions to follow the standards of English, so some of yours might be reverted for that reason. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 18:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about Infoboxes?

I made an InfoBox based on one of the general templates. How do I get rid of the line that shows up "view" "talk" "edit". Also, how do I make my own InfoBox, would I be required to submit it for approval, If so, how would I do that? Here I will show you:

DynaWave Reverse Jet Scrubber
Emissions Control Technology Type:	Wet Gas Scrubber
Licensor:	MECS, Inc.
Introduction To Market:	Mid-1970s
Number of Installations:	300+
Technology Website:	www.dynawavescrubber.com
Licensor Website:	www.mecsglobal.com

If you build your own, then you can remove it. You don't need approval to create an Infobox. Gary King (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To not show the view/discuss/edit links, simply delete the line |name = Infobox/doc. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• If this article is going to be about a company, you should use {{Infobox Company}}
• You need a proper non-free use rationale for Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. See Image:Att svg.svg for an example.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider making the view talk edit into a mini-style, so it just says v d e. Also, it's a good idea to make that logo a bit smaller. Mac Davis (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And before you create and article that uses it, please read WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How to you submit for assessment/get comments on the editing you have done.

I am a new member (just made my account a couple nights ago, and I find Wikipedia very confusing. I recently added much more information to an article about the platforming video game, Asterix & Obelix XXL. I noticed that the article was rated as a stub, and hoped to raise it to the "start" class, but I couldn't figure out how to submit for assessment. I'm not trying to get it as a featured article or anything, but I wanted some comments and opinions form other users. Can someone give detailed directions on how to submit an article on the assesment scale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ISmellDonuts (talk • contribs) 18:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually you can just re-assess it yourself. The only levels on the assessment scale that really need other people's input are "GA", "A", and "FA". Gary King (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I like to get it for "B" as well...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 18:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was referring specifically for WP:GAN, WP:FAC, and project-specific A-level assessments. Gary King (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the talk page: Talk:Asterix & Obelix XXL. You will see that the article is under the purview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games; looking on that page in the navbox on the right you will see a section for Departments, then assessment, which links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment. Here you will find the rating guidelines. You can add the article near the end of the page to ask for reassessment. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a problem with an editor self-assessing his own article as a B for the Military History wikiproject - it had no citations or references and was word for word from a 150 year old book, but wasn't attributed to it. I told the lead co-ordinator and he was not happy about the self-assessment at B level. Doug Weller (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Some people, myself included, feel that B should be assessed by someone else. A note on the talkpage of an active contributor to the associated project should be enough. Some projects have assessment pages where you can make requests for assessment. Milhist has WP:MHA#REQ. Woody (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To summarize: Wikipedia is confusing. Prodego ^talk 19:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I add words to wikipedia

How Do I add words to wikipedia please? Thank you

LJ Budow

There is an "edit this page" button at the top of every page that you can click on to edit a page. Gary King (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Or if you meant, "how do I add a new article?", then see Wikipedia:Your first article. If you meant that you want to add the definition of a word to Wikipedia, then this is not the place and you want Wiktionary. Dismas|^(talk) 19:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent Changes for two namespaces?

I wonder, is it possible to show Recent Changes for two different namespaces? Gary King (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Reading over Help:Recent changes I would say no. -Icewedge (*bleet*) 19:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I assumed no, but I figured perhaps it would be possible with some URL hacking. (Note: This is hack, and not hacker.) Gary King (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See the links under WP:EIW#Query. For example, you might be able to use the API to construct such a query. I think anyone inclined toward hack-ing on Wikipedia would be all over the API. We need someone on the Help desk who knows how to use it, since we seem to get at least one question almost every day about how to do some sort of complex query that Wikipedia's standard interfaces won't do. --Teratornis (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've built applications with the API before, so I think I'm pretty familiar with it. I've found my own answer. :) Gary King (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to article page tabs

I just noticed that on article pages, the leftmost tab now says "page" rather than "article". When did that change? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't. You've probably got your interface language set to en-gb in your preferences. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I see "article" for article pages, "image" for image pages and "project page" for this page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why en-gb puts it to page (we English aren't too stupid to understand the meaning of the word 'article', you know)...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooops I did change ny default language to en-gb (even though I live in the US, I still speak and write - where appropriate - Brit English). Like Dendodge, I don't understand why the article/page difference exists. Oh well, all part of life's rich tapestry. – ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I had always assumed that when it said "English" it naturally meant "English", so I hadn't looked for a "British English" option - the option currently labelled "English" should be renamed to reflect whichever dialect it actually represents. DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I only use British English so color (shudders) etc. are spelt right...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 22:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, apart from changing "article" to "page", the switch to en-gb also replaces the "add new section" tab with the old "+" tab, and changes the display of "what links here". I haven't noticed any difference in spellings though! DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take a flying leap to a conclusion, and guess that all the interface changes (like replacing "+" with "add new section") were made to the US English settings, and the UK English one was left alone. Given the number of people who complain about changes to the interface, maybe this is a good thing since they can always stick to the old version of things by switching to UK English. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But what does the UK English setting actually do apart from that? DuncanHill (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've found another difference - the message below the edit box (about copyrights etc) is much longer in the GB-en version. DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And the drop-down box for choosing namespace on "what links here" calls has "(main)" instead of "article". Still no spelling differences found. DuncanHill (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And the "whois" box on IP talk pages is missing with en-gb. DuncanHill (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

National Income

Importance of national income —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.72.50 (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Measures of national income and output and the many links therein have a lot of information. Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Request Moves on Talk Pages

How do i request a move on over 40 articles, all the articles are teams and seasons from the Mexican First division, there was a user that moved most of them, i want to move them back, but i want to move them only if everyone is all right with it. How do i put the request on the articles Talk Page. Erik93 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Put the main discussion at Requested Moves, and on the individual talk pages just put a small section leading everyone to the discussion (if you ask nicely, someone may be able to use a semi-automated tool like AWB to put the notices up). Just make sure the notices are worded neutrally (i.e. say "discuss whether to move the articles" rather than "we're going to move the articles and I need your support"), so you aren't canvassing support. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding Images to page

When I click on the upload image or image information form links I keep getting this error message: The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups Autoconfirmed users, Administrators.

What do I need to do? It is for the St. Louis College of Pharmacy page and I take the photos that will be added to it. Hoffmannse (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Autoconfirmed, to prevent vandalism. Mac Davis (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

flagged articles

I am having to do research for a writing class. The teacher asked us to check if a topic we have selected has been flagged for lack of proper documentation, where do I find these "flags"? What do they look like? Thanks 23:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if an article has insufficient references, it might have the {{refimprove}} template applied to it. (Click the link to see how it looks like.) However, none of the information found on Wikipedia is guaranteed to be accurate by any means whatsoever, so use it at your own risk. Gary King (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Individual statements in an article may be flagged with a {{fact}} template, which is a depressingly common occurrence. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)