Help desk
< April 12	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 14 >

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.

April 13

Who decides what a "fact" is...

I work with a band called FAMILY FORCE FIVE who found many errors on their Wikipedia page. They have asked me to change them. I tried to change them, but Spence "The Chef" told me I was wrong about what I changed so he reverted back to the old page.

He wouldn't let me take off a made-up genre that the band HATES just because there was a press reference from some journalist that made it up. It haunts every interview the band does - because journalists do research on Wikipedia to interview the band.

He wouldn't let me correct the label listing for the band. There were initial negotiations with Tooth & Nail records and the band used to be on the website, but they are no longer on the site and the band never was actually on the label. Wouldn't the band know this best? (or at least better than Spence "The Chef"?)

This is making the band and their manager insane and they, as a result, are making ME insane. Is there anything I can do about this??

-Jamie Roberts Big Machine Media www.bigmachinemedia.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneSane (talk • contribs) 00:42, 13 April 2010

The band should know what has been written about them. They should be able to provide credible references that back any changes that they want made. They should also understand that anyone on the Internet could say "I'm working with the band" and demand that changes be made without any references to back it up. In the end, Wikipedia is not a set of facts. Wikipedia is a set of credible references. If the references are wrong, Wikipedia is wrong. -- kainaw ™ 00:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate what Kainaw says, Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not "truth". So any and all "facts" need to be backed up by references - so you need to find, credible references that note the correction. Also, a note that if you are associated with the band, you should read up on the conflict of interest guidelines to make sure that you avoid any claims of impropriety. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this to talk:Family Force 5#Genre discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article into the news

The article Nuclear fuel bank covers a topic that will be hot at the Nuclear Security Summit (2010), but I don't see how to get it into the news. Method? Simesa (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NVM - Going to start at [1]. Simesa (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about getting a blurb in the "In the news" section on the main page, see WP:ITN—in particular, the "Procedure" subsection. Deor (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needing a copy of GED

I need to know how to go about getting a copy of my GED.Jpace69 (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. – ukexpat (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit

How do I edit pages? I would to help by I am not sure what to do? Do I need an administrator's permisson? If so how do I get it? thanks! -Mark—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.164.54 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 13 April 2010

No, you do not need an administrator's permission. Be bold. And there will be an 'edit' tab at the top of every page. Hope this helps, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also take a look at WP:How to edit. – ukexpat (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Duguid

I was looking at karl duguid's page and it said for colchester he made 386 appearances but on soccerbase it says he made 385. Im not sure. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facts that are mentioned differently in reliable sources should be mentioned differently citing the sources on the wikipedia article page. If a majority of sources give one number of appearances, and a minority of sources give another number, then the appearances should get a similar importance in the main Wikipedia article. For example, the minority sources could be mentioned as footnotes... ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gracie and Zarkov

I was wondering how I would go about finding out why an article has been restored after deletion. Is there an "AfR", (meaning Articles for Restoration, similar to the AfD) or what do I do? I contacted the Admin who deleted the page initially after consensus at WP:AfD (not the same one who restored) and he referred me to WP:DRV, which as I understand it is for reviewing article deletion, which is not what I want.

The message below is the one I sent the Admin who deleted the article initially after delete consensus. (User:Kevin):

The article Gracie and Zarkov was placed on AfD on 30 September 2009, and eventually, after being relisted twice, consensus was reached. The consensus of delete was confirmed by you when closing the discussion. Yet the AfD tag was then removed (this remains the most recent edit), and the article continues to exist, 5 months and 15 days after you closed the discussion. I was wondering if I have missed something here, or should the article be deleted after all? If so, would you mind doing the honours, as I am not an admin :P
Thanks in advance, -m-i-k-e-y-.

Thanks, -m-i-k-e-y-^{Talk / C} 09:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logs show that the article was restored on 28 November 2009. I'd think the admin (User:Anetode) who restored the article is probably best placed to answer this - have you tried to contact him/her? Gonzonoir (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, you were directed to the right place. WP:DRV is a process to review articles which have been deleted, to see if that decision was correct. In many cases, the original decision is affirmed, and the article remains deleted, in other cases, the original decision to delete is reversed, and the article is restored.--SPhilbrick T 11:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is extant at the moment, and I'm interpreting -m-i-k-e-y-'s question as one about why, specifically, it was restored. In this case he would need a link to a specific prior discussion at WP:DRV (if one took place) to understand why this article, which had been deleted following an AfD discussion, was brought back. So he's not looking to open a new discussion, but to find out whether one previously took place. I thought the restoring admin would be able to point the way. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection my initial advice here wasn't that good - I didn't realize DRV was so handily searchable, or I would just have looked for an archived discussion straight away and pointed -m-i-k-e-y- to that (or, finding none, suggested contacting the restoring admin). Sorry for the runaround! Gonzonoir (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There also doesn't appear to be an archived case at WP:DRV relevant to this article, so again I think contacting the restoring admin will be the best way forward. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YOU SAY YOU WANT HELP

You say you want help with your accuracy, but I have been trying for the past 30 minutes to add Maryland to your list of confederate states, as verified by your OWN acknowledgment of the Mason-Dixon line, and have come up with nothing but frustration. Do you have to be a web site developer to correct a listing???—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeannevski (talk • contribs) 10:14, 13 April 2010

Take a look at our tutorial if your edit isn't looking like it should. However, I think a bigger problem is that what you are adding is not true. The Mason-Dixon line was never the Union - Confederate border. Maryland, Delaware and West Virginia are all below the line, and they all remained part of the Union despite the fact they allowed slavery. Xenon54 / talk / 10:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Confederate States of America are listed on many pages. Which page were you trying to edit? As Xenon54 says, Maryland was not Confederate. See Maryland in the American Civil War and Mason–Dixon Line. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will I be contacted if my article is refused/deleted?

I submitted an article yesterday and I am curious to know how long it takes to be approved and if I will be contacted to confirm if it has been accepted or refused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrim1980 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 13 April 2010

Articles are not "approved" before being published; the page you have created at User:Henrim1980/The Mustangs will stay there unless it is moved. You will be able to do this yourself once your account is autoconfirmed. However, I can see that in its current form it is not yet ready to be moved; even after some copyediting the article still completely lacks reliable sources which could be used to verify the contents, and the tone is too promotional. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thumperward, thanks for your feedback, im new to this and need all the help I can get, could you please let me know where in particular you feel the article is to promotional in tone, and also I need a little help with the resources area - henrim1980 13:20, 13 April 2010

Read WP:PEACOCK for starters. Phrases that catch the eye as unacceptably promotional are, "unusual on the blues rock circuit as their albums are made of entirely original material" (oh, really?); "came to national prominence"; "the famous^{[citation needed]} Eel Pie club’s Search for New Blues Talent competition" "one of the most lauded blues rock bands in Britain today" (sez who?), "dynamic energy" "visible warm camraderie" "authentic, traditional blues sound"; and the use of choice favorable pull quotes taken out of context. This is a promotional piece, not an impartial article. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've made a few amendments, could you possibly take a look and let me know, if its any better --henrim1980 18:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The references do not directly back up the statements made; you need direct links to pages which make the comments, not just links to the home pages of the publications. If the articles in question are not online, you can provide issue and page numbers. There's still some promotional tone problems, such as this statement:

Their concerts showcase singer Adam Norsworthy's dynamic energy, and often he runs and jumps about the stage throughout each concert, whilst maintaining a visible camaraderie with the other band members

Material which can be seen as interpretive should be avoided unless it can be tied to a source. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for your help its looking very nice now, I didn't think it would be so tough to get an article sorted for here, what do I do if the references aren't recent, so maybe arent showing up on the websites any more, I will however see if I can find them elsewhere. I do have to say though, I was looking at 'The Brews' page the other day and nothing on their page is backed up by ref and its totally promotional, how come that page made it on?, just curious as my page seems to be getting a really hard time :0) --henrim1980 08:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrim1980 (talk • contribs)

Can't add wikilinks under photo at Wake Island Conference

Hello, I'm trying to wikilink the names of the various military officers under the photograph at Wake Island Conference. However, when I do so, it breaks the photo. Is there a trick? (And, can you either perform the edits for me, or can you post a copy of your answer at the talk page of that article?) Thanks JD Caselaw (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit [2] was missing a '[' before [Secretary of the Army Frank Pace|Frank Pace]]. 3 of the 4 links would be red so I don't know whether this would be good in a caption. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see Deor has linked the right targets.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New and in need of some help with my article

Please can you help me bring my article into shape so that it will be accepted, im told it has a promotional tone to it, please could you take a look at it tell me which bits are creating that tone also I need so help with regards to the reliable sources, how do I show them? henrim1980 13:48, 13th April 2010—Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrim1980 (talk • contribs)

Check out WP:PEACOCK and then look at phrasing like "famous", "most lauded", "visible warm camraderie", and "well received". You have relevant quotes from Musician Magazine, but no citations. See footnotes and WP:CITE for help.--SPhilbrick T 13:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now amended the areas I'm told I was falling down in, please could you take a look and tell me what you think--henrim1980 18:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong link on http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Portugal

The link to The Portugal News, (General Information, National newspaper in English) has now changed from www.the-news.net to www.theportugalnews.com To verify, please contact <blanked> Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulluckman (talk • contribs)

Please do not include your contact email in your query. If you think that the URL is incorrect, then be bold and correct it yourself. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal is semi-protected but I see you became autoconfirmed shortly after posting here and have now edited the article yourself. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

What is the huggle whitelist? Immunize (talk) (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of trusted users whose contributions are ignored by Huggle when identifying potential vandalism; you can find it at Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are all autoconfirmed users on the list, or are only administrators on the list? Immunize (talk) (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Huggle/Config says "whitelist-edit-count:500". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which would mean all users (that means it excludes IPs) with more than 500 edits. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 20:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox

How can you make a navbox collapsible? 92.28.234.155 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the documentation for the state parameter at your navbox link. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one unfortunately, the only code I've got is:

{| style="width:100%; margin-top:1em; border:1px solid #999; font-size:90%; text-align:center;"
|-
! style="background-color:#3366CC; color:#FFFFFF; padding:0.2em 0.5em;" nowrap="nowrap" | {{{header}}}
|-
| style="padding:0.2em 0.5em;" | {{{body}}}
|}

As you can see, only parameters are for the header and the body. 92.28.234.155 (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you referred to something using Template:Navbox when you linked there in your question. See Help:Collapsing instead. For example:

{{{header}}}
{{{body}}}

Which page do you want to edit and what do you want in the box? It may be better to use Template:Navbox or something else in Category:Navbox (navigational) templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I wikify this page?

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

What changes need to be made for it to be wikified?{{subst:unsigned}}

Consult our Manual of Style. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've actually looked over the Manual of Style a few times but can't find exactly what in the article I need to change. Could someone just take a quick look at it? Any advice you can offer is much appreciated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yzaerpoor (talk • contribs)

Places need to be wikilinked; the list of television appearances (highly non-encyclopedic) needs to go; the article needs to be stripped of gratuitous honorifics (i.e., "Dr."). Above all, you need actual citations with properly-formatted references. I'll try to help on few of these.--Orange Mike | Talk 18:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike. I'll work on those changes over the next couple of days. --Yzaerpoor (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed all of your changes- thank you so much. You made [citation needed] notes for the universities where he's spoken and the different media stations where he's had interviews. Should I add links (as citations) to mentions of the events at each of these institutions?--Yzaerpoor (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see WP:FOOT and WP:CITET in addition to WP:CITE. --Teratornis (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous broken images after uploading first one

Resolved

Hey guys,

I just recently opened an account and now have the ability to post images. I've been working on an article (though it's not live yet), and I've been uploading images to my user page in the process. The first image I uploaded was fine, but every single consecutive one has turned out to be a broken image link. As soon as I hit the "upload" button, all I get is a broken link. The original is fine, but the others have never shown up. All of the images (including the first one) are JPEGs and are of similar size, suitable for the size limit.

I've double-checked the file names multiple times. It doesn't bring up an error message saying the file isn't there; the image simply shows up as a broken link. Here's an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Garbage_goat.jpg

I tried getting help via the IRC page, and everyone there claimed to see my images, while I do not.

(Just as a disclaimer, not all of my photos have permissions labeled on them, but I'm the process of doing so. Just so you know.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Llwrce/Spokane_Sculpture_Walk

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Llwrce (talk • contribs)

Follow the guidelines and see what happens :) --Lotje (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not very helpful as the images have already been uploaded. I see them just fine in the draft article. Have you tried clearing your cache and/or doing a server purge? – ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... upon using a different computer they look fine. I'll remember to try clearing my cache next time in case that happens. Thanks.

Bold text problem

Resolved

– ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intro to Steve Reid has a formatting problem, where the bold is seemingly broken. The correct wikimarkup is being used, but not being rendered correctly. Currently, it appears to be rendering as:

'Steve Reid (January 29, 1944...

This edit is where it breaks. I could temporarily fix it by reverting that, but the edit itself was correct. (Someone else has temporarily fixed it with this edit, by adding nowiki tags. But that seems like a non-ideal workaround..?)

Any idea if this is a bug, or what needs to be done? I can escalate to VPT is necessary. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did this get it? TN X Man 19:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That fixes it visually, but is it correct formatting to have the apostrophe-s in italic? I don't mind either workaround being used, if there is no ideal alternative; but if it's a bug that might effect elsewhere, then perhaps it should be looked at by a dev? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is proper formatting to have the apostrophe-s in italics, but I couldn't point you to a WP page that says that. As for contacting a dev, I think "it's a feature, not a bug©". There is only one character for the apostrophe, however, the same character is also used for italics/bolding. So it's performing as programmed, they just happened to be typed next to each other and cause confusion. TN X Man 19:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's a bug in the current parser; this used to work fine. You can hack around it with <nowiki></nowiki> tags, like this: JAZZIZ's. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit count

Although the contribution page shows 12,000 edits my preferences page says I have 56 edits. Is this normal for a few days after a username change or is this an odd occurrence? Shannon ^talk _contribs 20:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your username is Shannonchan and X!'s edit counter is displaying the edit count for Shannon1. This is probably what you need, although you need to opt-in to see your edit count. TN X Man 20:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops ... I forgot to change my sig after I changed my username. And I am Shannon1 because I changed my username recently. Shannon ^talk _contribs 23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid repeated renames can sometimes cause problems with attribution of edits. Like PrimeHunter said on the edit filter page, sometimes it can take a few days for the edits to re-attribute, but I've seen at least one example of a rename where reattribution never happened, so I would keep a watch on it for a while and come back here if the edit count in prefs remains low and you want it to change. I saw this name change happen a few days ago since I often read WP:CHU, and I remember that a few days ago, the software was saying your username (I dont remember which one) was unregistered and yet had >10000 edits, and that doesnt seem to be true anymore, so it looks like at least something has changed since then. But Preferences and Popups still report you as having a very low edit count and as having registered only 3 days ago, which is likely the reason why you're being treated as not being autoconfirmed. That, at least, should go away in a few more hours, even if the edit count doesnt return to normal. —Soap— 12:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found them: [4] Looks like a bug, I'll ask. Prodego ^talk 20:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it is. Prodego ^talk 21:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what can be done about it as the contribs seem to be on User:Shannon1 (usurped3)? Shannon ^talk _contribs 00:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't delete content

Resolved

On the page for film producer Stephen Woolley there's quite a bit of irrelevant info about a film director called Sandro Vakhtangov. I went to remove it but on editing it there's nothing there! Any ideas what's going on? yorkshiresky (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Someone messed up {{Film-bio-stub}} which is transcluded into the article. I reverted the edit and that fixed the problem. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, thanks for that.yorkshiresky (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is where the Related changes link in the left toolbox helps. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh

Resolved

– Pirate^Argh!!1! 18:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_%28mind_game%29

This is a disgrace. O_O what do I do to delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.235.51 (talk • contribs)

WP:Articles for Deletion, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good reason to have something deleted. –Turian (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean if I don't like it? It's a terribly written article and no one will ever be able to fix it. It's supposed to be a wikipedia article on how some people pretend there's a secret universal game that involves just not thinking about the game. Not written like it actually exists. 216.51.235.51 (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, feel free to try to improve it if you feel the problem is with the way it's written. As for deletion, it might be worth reading some previous discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (2 nomination), Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game) (second DRV), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (fifth nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (6th nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 21, as well as Talk:The Game (mind game). --Beloved Freak 23:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get my talk page to archive. If anyone can fix the code, I will owe you 1 internet. Pirate^Argh!!1! 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do it manually. And what the hell do you mean by owing me an internet?

Raa G gio (talk)

23:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One tube?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this would be less work, as I'm lazy. If you don't want the internet, that's fine, but you aren't going to earn any with that attitude. Pirate^Argh!!1! 23:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Is that like an internet-slang term or something? I don't participate much in chats outside of Wikipedia.

Raa G gio (talk)

23:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the  around the mizabot template. That makes it a comment and the bot won't recognize it. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Are you sure [5] didn't work? User:MiszaBot/config#After you have set up archiving says: "The bot runs once a day at a preset hour, or twice a day for WP:AN and WP:AN/I. Simply wait for the next cycle and you should see the bot's entries in the history list of your article". You commented out the code 2 minutes later so it seems MiszaBot didn't get a chance. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, the first time I did it I waited several days (but commented it out ), then I copied someone else's setup and waited. dunno why it didn't work

An "internet" and "series of tubes" are (childish) jokes that I never get sick of. Pirate^Argh!!1! 23:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first time in your above link you incorrectly set archive = User talk:Example/Archive %(counter)d. User:MiszaBot/config#Parameters explained says about the archive parameter: "the target page must be a subpage of the current page". The second time looked correct but you only waited 2 minutes before commenting out the whole code.[6] MiszaBot cannot find commented out code. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Pirate^Argh!!1! 00:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost login details

My predecessor created an account for Business New Zealand - my employer. There is no record of the login details here at Busienss NZ office and I urgently need to update our deatils which are now way out of date.

Please can anyone help?

Stephanie Moakes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.89.198 (talk)

Err, what? Pirate^Argh!!1! 23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deja Vu Pirate^Argh!!1! 23:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you refer to User:Voiceof who created Business New Zealand but you are not allowed to use the account per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Role accounts. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations if you want to edit about your company. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any account or unregistered user is able to edit Business New Zealand. You can create your own account but note the pages I linked. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Wikipedia in Wikipedia

Is it allowed to cite all or parts of one Wikipedia article to prove information in another Wikipedia article - for example, if I am citing information from the Columbia River article which is a FA? Shannon ^talk _contribs 23:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no. Your best bet would be to find the similar ref and cite that. –Turian (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, WP:CIRCULAR and Circular reference. In short, citing a Wikipedia article to verify information in another is referencing incest. You can, however, cite cited information from another article, using the third party citations the other article uses. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon, Why don't you give a quick look at Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia? ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia is about citing Wikipedia somewhere else, not in another WP article here. The answer to Shannon's question is no, you can't use Wikipedia as a reference in a Wikipedia article. Luckily though, if Columbia River is an FA, all the relevant info should have proper references, so you can just use those.--Beloved Freak 08:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]