Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 October 20

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.

October 20

Editing problem: page blanks itself

I'm playing around with an internal wiki at work and I've noticed a persistent problem: if I'm editing a page, sometimes all the text will simply disappear if I hit preview or save, and I'm unable to bring the text back or save my changes without re-opening the page in edit mode and doing it all over again (or copy/pasting).

This problem usually happens repeatedly in that, once it crops up once, repeated tries do the same thing and I have to close my browser, open it and try again. This makes me think that maybe it's a problem with the browser? I've noticed this problem doesn't occur when I'm editing Wikipedia, though.

I'm using IE7 and MediaWiki 1.13.2, with PHP 5.2.6 and mySQL 5.0.45-community-nt. Any help would be appreciated. - 144.53.226.17 (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a thought: Switch to Firefox. I think it is WAY better than IE.  Btilm  03:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that phenomenon on my office PC but never on my home PC. Oddly, my home PC has older software. But it also obviously has far less traffic. That might have something to do with it. Both of them use a version of IE. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

adding photo to existing article

Friends -

I see that a biographical entry has appeared on Wikipedia about my late father, Steven Schwarzschild:

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

I have a jpg photo of my father which I'd like to contribute so that it would appear with the article.

How do I do this?

Thanks!

- Maimon Schwarzschild —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maimons (talk • contribs) 01:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your email address - this is a very visible area!

• If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
• If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You can upload files at Special:Upload.  Btilm  02:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

template

What do you think of my new template?  Btilm  02:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary to me. It is easier to merely use {{done}} --~~~~, adding comments as required. I understand you are just now learning to create templates, and practising with parsers, but I would advise against creating solutions for problems that don't exist. Regards, and happy editing, AJCham 03:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. {{done}} --~~~~ is much easier.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Home Page - where's the cursor?

Considering that short of clicking a link right off the bat, Wiki users have to utilize the search function - why is the cursor not automatically blinking in the search field?

This seems like a basic necessity for Wikipedia and I'm baffled as to why this was overlooked... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.208.240 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google? for an explanation. — QuantumEleven 07:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You can also set it as a user preference (although this only works if you log in, I believe). Go to Gadgets, and look for "Focus the cursor in the search bar on loading the Main Page."--SPhilbrickT 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How to give a suggestion?

I think i've got a good suggestion for the way wikipedia displays its articles, but I could not find any suggestion pages at all. Can somebody show me where it is? 129.68.60.145 (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Tim

I'm not sure where to give suggestions, but we do already have a Beta alternative to the regular Wikipedia view $©@®©Ξ 05:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

the Village pump (proposals) is a centralized "suggestion page", but be sure to read WP:Perennial proposals first. Sssoul (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing article

Resolved

 – --Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC); Article userfied and creator advised as to notability.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, I was able to read about LinkedNow.com on wikipedia. When I returned I didn't see the article. I checked your deletion logs but to no avail. Where is it? Why is it missing? Pls help :) Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.243.235 (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes. It was deleted. When you do a search, there will be a red link for the article, click it. If it was deleted, there will be a notice. See here $©@®©Ξ 05:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry, i m not clear on the reason why it was deleted. how can i restore it? I'd like to object this deletion.

BTW, my search is not showing a red box.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.243.235 (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was seen as an advertisement $©@®©Ξ 05:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with this deletion. Are u saying that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunch_%28website%29 is not an advertisement? LinkedNow was on TV, AND 9 different NBC sites. Pls restore it ASAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.243.235 (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone else did it doesn't mean you're allowed to. Log in, and create the page at Special:MyPage/Sandbox and we will see if the article should be kept. $©@®©Ξ 05:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I couldn't agree more with ur first comment. I wonder if you happen to have the content of the deleted article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.243.235 (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do. But only admins have access. Log in, and I will try to recover it $©@®©Ξ 05:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I m logged in now: --Suzan.nguyen (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC). Sorry, but I don't see it under my "contributions".

Okay. An admin should restore the article into your userspace shortly. $©@®©Ξ 05:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean I can re-post it? What if it gets deleted again?! This is a bit confusing... I was so happy after posting my first article for LinkedNow on wikipedia :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzan.nguyen (talk • contribs) 05:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No. If it is promotional, and you recreate it. It will be deleted. The article will be restored with the User:Suzan.nguyen prefix, where we will review it and discuss it's flaws. You will be notified when and where it is restored to the prefix. $©@®©Ξ 06:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your help :) Hehe, i didn't know I had a marketing gal in me! I will be happy to correct my post to make sure that it adheres to your posting guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzan.nguyen (talk • contribs) 06:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the userfied article promotional, it fails to indicate why the subject is notable - please read WP:CORP. It would be deleted on either ground if moved back to the mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this resolution. Firstly, the article is notable. It includes links to 3 different NBC sites and TechNow TV show where the company was named "The websites of the week". How much more notable does the article need to get? Yeah, I could add more references to 6 other NBC webistes in NYC, Chicago, LA, Texas if you wish. Secondly, what is promotional about it? You and I are trying to resolve the promotional aspects of it. Also, i don't see a copy of it in my sandbox user space: user: suzan.nguyen. As User:scarce stated, someone will help me to identify the promotional material so I could correct it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.243.235 (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

SEE ABOVE! "Okay. An admin should restore the article into your userspace shortly.
No. If it is promotional, and you recreate it. It will be deleted. The article will be restored with the User:Suzan.nguyen prefix, where we will review it and discuss it's flaws. You will be notified when and where it is restored to the prefix." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzan.nguyen (talk • contribs) 18:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down and don't SHOUT! The article has already been usefied and is located at User:Suzan.nguyen/LinkedNow. If you read WP:CORP and WP:N you will see that notability for Wikipedia purposes requires "significant coverage in reliable sources". IMO being named by NBC as website of the week does not constitute "significant coverage". If you can find other reliable sources establishing notability (and that does not include similar links to NBC Affiliates about website of the week), please add them to the userfied article. – ukexpat (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As Ukexpat says, "website of the week" isn't significant coverage. If there was significant coverage at reliable sources as well as that, it might be OK, but I can't find reliable sources of information about it. I found plenty of references to it, but mainly blogs, or very minor (one short sentence) mentions. A search of Google News revealed one hit (in the archives) which was msnbc - but that is coming up with a "page not found". As Ukexpat says, read WP:N which are the general notability guidelines, and WP:CORP which are the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. WP:RS shows the kind of sources which Wikipedia counts as reliable. Find reliable sources (they don't have to be online - if there's been a significant mention in a newspaper or magazine (especially something like the NY Times or Washington Post), then that could be used as well - but significant means more than a sentence or two! Ideally, the paper/magazine should have an article about LinkedNow. Hope this helps -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many companies/products are featured and win on tv, but somehow we have a different understanding of the importance/meaning/notability. I'm upset for two reasons:

1. Fairness. I don't find your requirements to be fair or reasonable. TechNow show, NBC, MSNNBC all did a large coverage on LinkedNow. Yet, u r not finding it notable enough. Agrrrr, how is that notable?! [[1]] ? Is Mashable.com and Vator.tv more notable than NBC or TechNow show that has 7 million viewers weekly?

2. Resolution process. You marked this issue as resolved without a) Notifying me that u uploaded the article; b) Providing feedback as agreed so any problems are corrected.

BTW, I'm very interested how you can explain #1. As promised I added two more references. Sun Microsystems article and SF New Tech [large, 300+ attendees, located in San Francisco]. Pls review and let me know if more references are needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzan.nguyen (talk • contribs) 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Phantomsteve, the company is an online service so why do you require "the paper/magazine should have an article about LinkedNow"? What's wrong with live tv or online large press. What is wrong with a 200 word article in New York like this one? http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/tech/Get-the-Dirt-Before-Taking-the-Job-53978487.html

The notability requirements are what they are. As we have said above, if there are other reliable sources, please cite them. The issue was marked resolved because the article has been userfied and you have been advised as to what needs to be done to support the subject's notability.  – ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing your requirements. They are necessary and I understand them. What I'm trying to find out is why other online companies such as hunch.com can put namely two, yes 2(!), minor publications, and be compliant -- while LinkedNow's TV and major full coverage on NBC is not enough?! Pls explain.

Please review my changes and references: User:Suzan.nguyen/LinkedNow If ok, pls post the revised article back online. Thanks! —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

Other stuff exists is not a helpful argument in these type of discussions, we are dealing with this article and whether it meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. For what it's worth, I don't think the Hunch article adequately deals with the notability of its subject matter, but that's a different discussion. As far as your draft is concerned, no I don't think it yet sufficiently addresses notability. The NBC affifiliate articles are all identical so really only amount to one source.  – ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How about TechNow's reference, SUN's article and SF New Tech just added. Why are they not sufficient?

Because they do not amount to the required significant coverage. Passing mentions, directory-like entries and regurgitation of material provided by the company do not count. – ukexpat (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully object your use of "significant coverage". Per Wikipedia : "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."

Note that this defintion does not discuss the number/instances of coverage. I find your editorial review overly strict, unrealistic and biased. I would like this issue to be escalated. Per your definition, you are looking for some specific number. TechNow show and 9 different [syndicated but independently operated == different sources] per this definition is a "significant coverage". Please let me know how to proceed in order this issue is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzan.nguyen (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to escalate. My views carry no more weight than those of any other editor. I have stated my view and others are free to agree or disagree as they see fit. If you want to move the draft to the mainspace, go ahead and let's see what happens. – ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I do not feel that the coverage you have presented is what I would consider to be significant, but YMMV. It may be that I am one of very few editors that feel that the cited references do not meet the criteria. It may be that many other editors would feel that the article is fine as it is. As Ukexpat says, our views carry no more weight than any other editors', your own included. Feel free to move the article (see How to move a page) if you feel that the article is ready to go onto main article space. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the use of the company's logo on the article page - there is no fair-use rationale and you claim to be the copyright holder. If you are unconnected with the company, there appears to be a copyright issue. If you are connected with the subject of the article, and are indeed the copyright holder of the image, then there is a potential conflict of interest - see WP:COI. At the very least, your role in the company should be declared on your talk page. DB 103 245-7 ^Talk 22:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Even more of a problem as the logo has been uploaded to Commons, not to En Wikipedia. There is no evidence of copyright release or that the OP owns the copyright so I have nominated it for deletion from Commons. For non-free use of logos on Wikipedia, see WP:Logo. I have also "nowiki"ed the categories until the draft is moved to the mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect location Information

Guam Adventist Academy (Guam Micronesia Mission SDA) is improperly labeled as Notre Dame High School further identified in Wikipedia as a Catholic co-ed high school.

Notre Dame is located at 13 degrees 20' 41" N, and 144 degrees 45' 39" E on the south end of the village of Talofofo.

I'm a long time resident of Guam and my girls have attended Guam Adventist Academy. We have lived a couple blocks away. I tried to make the correction but could not move the "W" link. I did change the coordinates for Notre Dame on the appropriate page.

This information can be verified from the Guam Map Book published by the bureau of Statistices 2008. Each school is clearly labelled: Notre Dame on panel 22 at 4A, and SDA on panel 27 at 4B.

Thank you for your assistance.I'll happily attach copies of the above panels if I have an e-mail address to send to.--114.142.215.171 (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you want done. We don't appear to have an article on Guam Adventist Academy; where did you see it "improperly labeled as Notre Dame High School", and where did you fail to "move the 'W' link"? Thanks for correcting the coordinates in the Notre Dame article, by the way. Deor (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is at Notre Dame High School (Guam). I can't quite figure out what's wrong with the coords. Nyttend (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Printing articles

Sometimes when I want to print an article that is more than one page, I press print and the whole article prints out. Other times when I press print it only prints the first page. What am I doing wrong? Theodore23 (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What browser and version are you using? Are you pressing a print icon, selecting File > Print or using the Printable link in the left toolbar? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You know there's a link to make a printable version on the right hand side, right? Click that, and Ctrl+P is a pretty global print hotkey.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Printable doesn't do what you think it does and it really isn't useful for printing unless you have an ancient browser. See Help:Printable. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

fuel consumption calculation

How are viscosity, density and heating value related to fuel consumption in a boiler using bunker oil as fuel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.18.98 (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web.
If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The question seems a bit vague. Density and viscosity are relevant to fluid dynamics, so it seems the answer depends on the details of the mechanism that feeds fuel to the boiler, but the question omits any such detail. Sometimes homework questions contain red herrings. --Teratornis (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This help page is for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. Questions about other topics should be asked at the reference desk. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Uploading logos

I want to upload a small picture of a logo (Hungarian Post Office) to Commons, believing it to be legal (~fair use). I know, Commons does not accept fair use images (as I saw, the same logo was deleted several times). However, if you go to articles like of Adidas, Puma, you see logos, with the *Non-free logo* template. So what? How can I upload a logo picture without it being speedy deleted?poisonborz (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Although Commons cannot have "Fair Use" images, Wikipedia itself can, under certain conditions. See Wikipedia:Non-free content -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidently, if you look at the logos you've mentioned, you'll see that they are on Wikipedia, not Commons. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the English Wikipedia. Commons is "Wikipedia", too. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, Commons is a Wikimedia project. For use of logos on Wikipedia, see WP:LOGO. – ukexpat (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

For more information see:

• Commons:COM:CB#Trademarks for the (few) types of logos which are allowable on Commons.
• Commons:COM:FAIRUSE for fair use images not being allowed on Commons.

--Teratornis (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Category:Logos shows some examples of logos that are currently on Commons. Some of them may be copyright violations that no one has noticed yet, which is a possibility in general for images on Wikipedia or Commons. --Teratornis (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How to change name of file

I found a file which needs to be renamed (spelling errors). How do I go about it? DandyDan2007 (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Only administrators can move files. Place this template on the file page to have an administrator alerted: {{rename media|target name.jpg|reason for name change}}. Be aware that there is a large backlog, so you may be better off speaking to an administrator directly, (or running for admin-ship yourself =P) Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In case an admin happens by, the file in question would seem to be File:Slovenia Flag Proposla 1990 before independnce.svg. I'm not sure that the misspellings of "proposal" and "independence" really matter, though. Deor (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Spelling errors matter because they waste people's time and divert scarce mental resources away from useful work. When someone sees a misspelled word, it contradicts their expectations and tends to jar their attention away from whatever they were focusing on at the moment.

• Fohre eggzammpul, ewe porbablee kant reed thiss sentense az fast az u kud iff it wuz speld kerrectlee. Pluss u problee fergot wut you wur thinkeeng abowt jusst now.

Humans have only a limited amount of short term memory - just four to seven "chunks" - so when a person notices and thinks about a misspelled word, it pushes something that does matter out of short term memory, interrupting the editor's flow. An editor who leaves misspellings around for other editors to trip over is slightly degrading the usability of Wikipedia. Even if the misspellings are somewhere that doesn't seem to matter much, such as a filename. --Teratornis (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Has file renaming been re-enabled? I thought the only way to rename a file was to re-upload with the correct filname and delete the incorrect one. – ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been on Commons, see: Commons:Commons:File renaming. Incidentally, if a file is on the English Wikipedia and not on Commons, one way for a non-administrator to rename the file is to move it to Commons under the new name (and then update all the references to the file to use the new name). An administrator will usually delete the original file from Wikipedia within a few days after someone moves it to Commons. This is only applicable to freely-licensed files. --Teratornis (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How do I capitalize my entry name?

Resolved

I would like to make dejaclick be DéjàClick. How can I make this change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebWonderGal (talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done it for you, but in future, click the move tab at the top of the page that will take you to Special:Movepage. --Lcawte (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MOVE. --Teratornis (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding references

Resolved

To add a reference I'm adding <ref>reference details</ref> and, after adding the {{reflist}} to the bottom of the article, I'm getting a linked reference list. I'm trying to use the same reference more than once in an article. How do I do this without getting a duplicate reference in the reference list? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 16:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

<ref name="nameforreference">reference</ref> give you then for others same reference use <ref name="nameforreference" /> give you --Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks a lot! ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 16:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:REFNAME for details. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

sound proofing?

Resolved

 – I assume, anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sound proofing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.106.56 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Soundproofing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did my wikipedia page get deleted

I was doing a post on the comfort suites in palm bay—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollydacat01 (talk • contribs)

Because you shouldn't be using wikipedia to advertise your company. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Why was my page deleted? The most common reasons are:

• The subject was not notable enough to have their own article
• It was a test page
• It was vandalism

To find the specific reason a particular page was deleted:

1. Go to the Deletion Log
2. Type the page title in the case-sensitive search field
3. The date, time and reason for deletion will be displayed--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Even easier, look at your talk page. To do this, notice the line of words at the top of the page that read:

Try Beta Ollydacat01 My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out

Click the words "My talk". Jc3s5h (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I add an external link to different topics of same section

I want to add an external link [of an historical site] to various topics in history. Am I allowed to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by James kolkata (talk • contribs) 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your question is quite ambiguous. There are many different kinds of external links, and not every link might be allowed on wikipedia; To make this even worse a link might be perfectly fine for article one, while being useless in article two. Your best bet is probably reading the external link policy. If that policy specifically recommends against adding your link you should not add it - otherwise you should be bold! and add it to the article. You cannot do any permanent damage doing so, so if something is wrong another editor can always undo or change your addition in case this is needed. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be the webmaster of the site so see Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Email received in Spanish

I've just received an email from WikiAdmin [wiki@wikimedia.org] but it seems to be in Spanish or something and I don't understand it. This is how it starts:

Quiesto/a PL290,

A pachina Descusi n usuario:PL290 de Biquipedia ha estato creyata por l'usuario Manuel Trujillo Berges o 20 otu 2009.

Is there a way to request it in English? I don't know who to contact as the email has a reply-to of reply@not.possible. PL290 (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Im cannot really read Spanish, but from what i can decipher it seems to be one of those standard messages that are being send out when a user account is created on a wiki. A possible explanation for this is that you accessed the Spanish wiki for the first time after you unified your user account. I received similar messages from various wiki's when i went there to check is a new article already existed in a particular wiki. Apparently thee unification system creates a new user on a wiki once you access it - which triggers these messages on some wiki's. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't Spanish, it's Aragonese. PL290, you visited that wiki earlier today (an.wikipedia.org), it created an account automatically, the user Manuel Trujillo Berges welcomed you when he saw your user name created, and this is an automated email telling you that your talk page on that wiki was created. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks both. PL290 (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Applying WP:NTEMP and WP:NOTNEWS to new article's.

A quick question regarding the articles Jessica Watson and Laura Dekker, and this type of articles as a whole.

Both article's are about two living persons trying to achieve the world record of the youngest round the world solo sailor. Both article's subjects have received significant news coverage but this coverage only describes the ATTEMPT to break the mentioned record. If the attempt fails the article's will simple fall under temporal notability and news coverage, but in case the attempt succeed permanent notability is assessed.

My question is what should be done with these article's: Should they be removed under WP:NOTNEWS or perhaps WP:CRYSTAL as they initially only have temporal notability, or should they be tolerated until it becomes clear that there will be no notability - IE: In this case, until the record breaking attempt fails? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If they are not notable now they should be deleted. However, both could meet the general notability guidelines since there is significant coverage. It could be argued that the coverage is not trivial news which means that NOTNEWS and ONEEVENT could be interpreted as not being a factor. The circumvention attempt in itself could also be considered notable which would remove the BIO requirements all together. It might be worth considering renaming the articles, merging them into an article discussing circumnavigation (a quick search chows a list and an article available), or allowing them to stand as independent articles since the information might be considered noteworthy. This looks to me to be the perfect battleground for inclusionists (hey, this is info people may want!) and deletionists (baw... this isn't worthy!).Cptnono (talk)

Your highlighting the exact issue im struggling with - subjects receiving significant coverage while they are initially not really notable enough for an encyclopedia. A similar event is the recent Colorado balloon incident, which initially was little more then an unusual news item. Ever since it got major news coverage a federal investigation has been launched to investigate if it was a hoax. I thoroughly doubt this is the first time something similar to this happened, yet most of these cases slink away unnoticed.

I could argue that balloon boy is not more notable then any other attempt to get on television, but this is currently a major event in the media. You could almost argue that BECAUSE the media gave it major coverage, it became notable. If either Laura Dekker or Balloon Boy would have received a short mention in a newspaper as an unusual story/world record attempt they would have never been notable enough for inclusion as their personal role doesn't warrant inclusion, yet the media generated an event of such size it warrants inclusion. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tell me about it! I used to believe that Wikipedia had a set precedent but after watching the notability for biographies talk page and others it is clear that there is an epic ongoing struggle on what noteworthiness is actually required. Wikipedia:Recentism adds a whole new dimension. I personally don't find Watson or Decker significant enough for this project. However, there are some good articles on stuff I would have never thought would be. Also, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However, there is still a lot of debate on notability, as for obvious reasons, not every person, business, or street can be considered notable, so on such topics, the line has to be further drawn." per WP:OUTCOMES makes it even more confusing. Sources could certainly support Jessica Watson's maritime circumnavigation attempt. Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, creating clear cut rules for a system with an infinite amount of input and an infinite diversity of data is nearly impossible. The September 11, 2001 attacks was originally a news article as well, but it created such a massive response worth including. Laura Dekker, Balloon Boy and Jessica Watson created a lot of feedback in the short run, but if i ask you five - or fifty years from now who balloon boy was the absolute majority won't remember or know. In that aspect it is a non encyclopedic article.

On the other side, we have bands such as O-Zone who have one big hit and are then never heard of again. Those won't be known remembered in fifty years as well, but most people would argue that documenting the evolution of musical history would require including them. To make this even worse, sometimes the media hype alone is worth documenting, while the subject of the hype really isn't. Take Jade Goody. Technically taken she is a victim of cancer, just like so many other thousand poor souls every year, yet the masses of media attention warrant an article. I predict that in fifty years this will be on a list "Most hyped news items" while the actual reason is mostly a footnote.

On a more practical side, I think your Jessica Watson's maritime circumnavigation attempt shows a good method to test subject is notable. I think checking against this line would help: A subject only warrants an individual article if they are directly responsible for the reasons of notability for an event.. Im certain it has its own share of logical and usability problems, but i think its at least an extra tool in the belt for dealing with these articles. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to add an external link

Hello, I have been trying to add a single, appropriate external link to the David Lynch page, but I keep triggering some sort of spam filter that prevents me from doing so. I have been receiving messages in error, denying me the addition of my link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynchtexture (talk • contribs) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The link is a blog and was therefore reverted by an automated bot - see WP:SPS and User:XLinkBot  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And in view of your user name it is probably linkspam too. – ukexpat (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors of an article

Is there a way to see a list of contributors to an article, with numbers of edit counts? I know the pdf fetcher retrieves the information (sans edit counts) somehow, but I was wondering if there was a tool or special page for it. —Akrabbim^talk 23:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Am I correct in that you want a list of editors ordered by the number of edits they made to an article? Two tools I know of can do that: the external website WikiChecker (help desk example, quite slow to load), which also does edit counting, and the toolserver tool WikiSense (help desk example). Xenon54 / talk / 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are exactly what I am looking for. Fantastic, thanks! —Akrabbim^talk 00:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)