Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 November 25

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.

November 25

Talk Page Archiving

How do I archive my talk page? Outback the koala (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ARCHIVE. Good luck! --76.189.101.221 (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Outback the koala (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia be used as an advertising platform?

I came across an article on Runbow Logistics that seems to me an advertisement more than factual. I have the understanding that posting in Wikipedia have to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.105 (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look to be especially promotionally worded to me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted at 00:36, 25 November 2012, so the two of you saw it in its final moments of life. :p --76.189.101.221 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless large parts of the assertions made in the deleted version were completely fabricated (which hasn't been suggested), it's highly likely that it will be back at some point in the future. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, notability was clearly not established. I wish I had a chance to look at it. Oh, well. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any claim anywhere that "notability was clearly not established".

The article as deleted did not clearly establish notability, though.

Are you confusing WP:GNG with WP:CSD#A7? They have different criteria. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's moot. The article's gone. Oh, well. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Like I said... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I really wanted to read it since you said it looked fine. Interesting that it got dumped so quickly, with no AfD. But similar to IP 220's comments, I see so many articles about companies/orgnaizations that are blatantly used for promotional purposes. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Runbow Logistics was deleted under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. This policy allows an article on a company to be deleted "speedily" (i.e. with no discussion) if an admin determines it does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. —teb728 t c 06:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Foreign non-free photos

Could someone please give me some instructions on using foreign non-free photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weihang7 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Usually, it doesn't matter where the photos come from; what matters is where you plan to use them. If you are planning to use them in the United States, then by lex loci protectionis (you don't have to read it if it's too confusing), you just need to comply with U.S. fair use law. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines are at WP:NONFREE RudolfRed (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It would really help if you clearly define what you mean by "foreign" - from where I'm sitting the US is "foreign". Roger (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Gross domestic product

I'm reading about Gross Domestic product by country comparoison - the USA reads 15,075,675 - the heading says dollars in millions.... - notes like that mean you add 6 zeros to the typed number..... the USA's GDP can not be that big........... $15,075,675,000,000 How would that amount even be said??? 15 thousand and 75 trillion???? Please advise thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edition1000 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Added header, and removed initial space that prevented the wiki from formatting the question. --ColinFine (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

15,000,000 - 15 Million

15,000,000,000 - 15 Billion

15,000,000,000,000 - 15 Trillion

15,075,675,000,000 - 15 Trillion, 75 Billion, 675 Million. So it appears accurate. After trillion is Quadrillion, though again, not relevant for GDP. Monty₈₄₅ 01:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I guess you mean the article List of countries by GDP (PPP), which shows the GDP of the USA variously as $15,075,675 million, $15,094.000 million, and $15,290 billion. I guess that the middle column is wrong, and the header should read "$billion"; but making that correction they all say the US's GDP is a little over 15 trillion. I would read the more precise number as "15 point 075 trillion". You could say "15 trillion, 75 billion", but I would find that confusing, and I think many others would as well. --ColinFine (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be said, "15 trillion,75 billion, 675 million dollars". Or, to make it easy using rounding, you would just say "15.1 trillion dollars". ;) --76.189.101.221 (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

To make it even more fun, read this article. Formerip (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Formerip, I read it and it's not fun at all. Haha. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Antonio Tomasulo

The day of death that they have listed for Antonio Tomasulo is the date my father passed away June 23, 2003. He wasn't the same person the article is about. He never owned a business and never had asthsma. His name was Anthony F Tommasulo. Note that our name is spelled with two M's not one. Please correct this. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.123.48 (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have removed from the start of the lines, as they prevent the Wiki software from formatting the text properly. --ColinFine (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A quick look on Google gives this site, which says that Tomasulo was murdered in May 1990, but I don't know how reliable it is. It does seem likely that somebody has confused him with your father. However, changing the article Antonio Tomasulo would require more than just changing the date, because the account of his death is different (and also different from that of your father, from what you say). I think your best course is to post on the article's talk page Talk:Antonio Tomasulo, and see if somebody who knows more about the subject can update the article. In the meantime, since this is a different person from your father, with his name spelt differently, I don't quite see why it matters to you that his date is wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

IP 74, are you claiming that your father is the Anthony Tomasulo (Tommasulo) who is referred to in the "Death of Anthony" and "Murderer indicted" sections of the article (the son of Antonio)? Or are you claiming that your father is completely unrelated to the article's subject (Antonio)? --76.189.101.221 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, the website that Colin linked to says that it was ANTHONY Tomasulo who was murdered in May 1990, not Antonio. (IP 74 claims that their father, whom they say is also named Anthony Tomasulo (Tommasulo), died in 2003.) I did a Google News archives search and all the references to mobster ANTONIO Tomasulo indicate he was born in 1925 or 1926 (based on matching the age given and the date of the news story), not 1917 as stated in Antonio Tomasulo. For instance, this August 1982 story from the Sarasota Herald Tribune includes a photo of Antonio Tomasulo of the Bonanno crime family and says in the body that he's 56 years old, putting his birth year as 1925 or 1926. As well, all the news stories I browsed, including the Sarasota one, said that Antonio's nickname was Boots, not Bootsie. The huge problem with this BLP article is that it has zero inline sources. And with IP 74, we're not even sure yet whether they're claiming they're related to the Antonio and Anthony referred to in Antonio Tomasulo, or NOT related to them. Finally, Colin makes a good point: if IP 74 is saying they're not related to them, why does the date matter to them? Perhaps they're saying that they're not related to them but that the date of death is indeed their father's; and based on that they don't want any readers to confuse anything in the article as being connected to their father. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking we might need to blank most of the article until we can get it properly sourced and cited. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge, I was thinking the same thing, particularly since there are absolutely no inline citations and the article's content is extremely contentious. The entire article is based solely on two book sources, so nothing can be verified. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like four other mobster articles, that were created by the editor who started this one, were deleted for various problems. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

Does the spam blacklist only affect mainspace pages? Figuring that links to goo.gl were disallowed, I tried placing one in the Sandbox (oldid), but it worked fine. I then proceeded to copy the same link into a new article, Old Perry County Courthouse (Ohio), but it was disallowed, so I went with a direct link and had no problems. In particular, I was surprised to see the link in mainspace disallowed; while I was pretty confident that we prohibited goo.gl links, I figured that my admin status made me immune to the blacklist — and obviously not. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLACKLIST says any English Wikipedia page, which I would read as being any page in any namespace, but maybe not. Also, I don't see goo.gl on the blacklist at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, so why is it blocked? RudolfRed (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, the universal blacklist at Meta prevents links to most URL shortening websites. Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

goo.gl is blocked globally at meta:Spam blacklist. The spam blacklist applies to all namespaces. Your sandbox example doesn't display the reference so it doesn't actually make the external link. You wouldn't be able to add {{Reflist}}. A string like http://goo.gl/CF2Wr is allowed when it's not making a link, for example in <nowiki>...</nowiki> as I used here. The spam blacklist also applies to admins. It would be problematic if admins could insert blacklisted links but nobody else could restore them after for example vandalism. Admins can add a blacklisted link to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist so it can be used by both admins and others. And admins can override MediaWiki:Titleblacklist which is for page names and not links. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer about the reference not displaying — I understand much better now. I just now reverted the sandbox to the "oldid" link, and in a subsequent edit I made no changes except the reflist, but the blacklist disallowed that. Just think how confusing that might be to others...Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

your vietnam history timeline is grossly ineffective in presenting facts about american involvement from 1955 to 1959

I suggest you google vietnam war timeline and read the 9th entry..called the history place and see a truely representative reporting of american involvement and then upgrade your vietnam history to reflect these facts.. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.211.17 (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this is the Talk page of the article with the timeline you believe is ineffective (you haven't made clear here which article that is). Maproom (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think '17 might be asking to revise Template:Vietnam War graphical timeline to match that shown in historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html. He/she may want to post a request at Talk:Vietnam War. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not working

My Page Curator is not working, just showing the new pages. It won't let me mark an article as reviewed, and that toolbar isn't there. Am I missing something? Thanks, TBrandley 07:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC) - I've corrected the broken link - David Biddulph (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Its working fine for me. I just now marked a page as reviewed. Are you sure you are accessing the new pages through Special:NewPagesFeed. New pages accessed through Special:NewPages would not have the toolbar. --Anbu121 (talk me) 07:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am. It was there before. TBrandley 07:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Its working for me in Chrome and Opera, but not in IE. There was a similar complaint two days back. --Anbu121 (talk me) 07:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm in Mozilla Firefox. TBrandley 08:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle doesn't work for me in Internet explorer at all now, but does work in Mozilla. There seems to be an ongoing problem there affecting many users. Valenciano (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hello friends. Do you know how I can spot and revert vandalism very quickly? Thanks, CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 08:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Curtaintoad, Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism to familiarize yourself with what is vandalism and what is not vandalism. The ideal place to begin vandal fighting is Special:RecentChanges. Some quick tips: 'Hide bots', 'Hide logged-in users' and watch out for 'Tag's. After gaining experience (ideally a month or two) at Recent changes, you can request for rollback permission to use advanced tools like Huggle. --Anbu121 (talk me) 10:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that even registered users can vandalize; you can check the contribs page for new editors as well. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 15:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reply ;) CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 05:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Rowspan not working

It seems like rowspan syntax may have changed. It is screwing up in the second table at Alfonso Gomez-Rejon#Filmography.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the problem that the table is sortable? - David Biddulph (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Rowspan and sortable don't mix. That's why the table sorting code now removes the rowspans to make sorting possible. — Edokter (talk) — 09:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It should be fixed at bugzilla:41889 but may not have been deployed yet. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Am I suppose to just leave the article alone until the deployment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Or remove sortable from the table until then. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I previewed changing sortable to <!--(hiding until bugzilla:41889 is deployed) sortable--> and there was no change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you edited the right table? There are two sortable tables in the section. And if you mean that you placed a comment inside the quotation marks in class="wikitable sortable" then it may or may not work without side effects but I certainly don't recommend it. Software will often give special treatment to things in quotation marks. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Wrong table.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Playworks the American Organisation

I'm Steve from Playworks® Oz. We were a registered company and registered our logo- a jesters Cowl , with 'Playworks' in bold letter around it. This was registered and we are currently updating the logo. Sports for Kids have not been trading under the name and were not a 'Not for Profit agency,' under that name until 2 years after we had registered this. They also run very similar programs but are much larger than us and we think their work is fantastic. However, the dichotomy here is that Wiki reflects a global attitude and Playworks® is registered property. If we are not seen to be protecting our IP then we are at the very real risk of losing it. Also the use of the name 'Playworks' has meant a burying of our work under the vast global social web sites. It is an issue. We are not suggesting that Playworks and their details are removed from Wiki, but Playworks may be in breach of international IP laws. We are in quite the same field.

We look forward to a response please Steve Durbin Director Playworks®

(Now Playworks Oz) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.232.190 (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear, to me anyway, what you are complaining about. Are you asking for the logo in the Playworks (organization) article to be removed? or to be replaced by a different one? Or are there two different organisations called "Playworks", which the article confuses? Maproom (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I did some searching on Google. Apparently, there are two organisations, both called Playworks, one based in the United States and another based in Australia. The American organisation is notable (it was profiled on the New York Times) and has an article on Wikipedia, but the Australian organisation does not.--xanchester (t) 11:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I had the same immediate thought as Maproom: What exactly is IP 58 (Steve Durbin) requesting? And what does he mean by "Protecting our IP"? Did he actually mean to say "protecting our logo" or "protecting the "Playworks" part of our name"? It appears that IP 58's organization operates in Australia, while the one in the article does so in the United States. According to Playworks (organization), the U.S. organzation operated as Sports4Kids from 1996-2009, and since then as Playworks. And IMO, their logos look absolutely nothing alike: Playworks Oz (Australia) logo, Playworks (United States) logo. Also, I notice the logo on the Playworks Oz website has a trademark logo (TM) at the end of the full name, and not the "®" after "Playworks", the way IP 58 referred to it. However, we are in no way legal experts; we are volunteer Wikipedia editors. Therefore, based on IP 58's statement, "Playworks may be in breach of international IP laws", I suggest he read WP:LEGAL, which states, in part: "If you are the owner of copyrighted material which has been inappropriately added to Wikipedia, a clear statement about whether it is licensed for such use is welcome and appropriate. You may contact the information team, contact the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent, or use the procedures at Wikipedia:Copyright problems." --76.189.101.221 (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Revised wording of question

After there had been some discussion of the original question, the OP came along & changed the wording of the question. As there had already been some discussion before the wording was changed, I have reinserted (in its original place above) the question to which other editors had already replied, & I have added (below) the new wording of the OP's question. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Playworks® has been a company with "Playworks" as a registered Trademark. Sports for Kids have not been trading under the name and were not a 'Not for Profit agency,' under that name until 2 years after it was registered. They also run very similar programs. We think their work is fantastic. However, the dichotomy here is that Wiki reflects a global attitude and Playworks® is registered intellectual property. If we are not seen to be protecting our IP then we are at the very real risk of losing it. We are not suggesting at this time that Playworks and their details are removed from Wiki, simply that the organisation may be in breach of IP laws. Whether Playworks in Australia is reviewed in the New York times or anywhere else is not relevant.

Several points have arisen from this, first, Playworks appears unable to Post to Wikipedia with it's own provenance because this company also uses it's name. Secondly Playworks® is part of a registered trademark, of a company that works in similar ways through Play, albeit in Australia.

A third issue has arisen to our knowledge of Registering IP in one country but then, due to the net, a global presence. In the paperwork every company receives in regard to their IP, TradeMarks etc, there is an onus upon those company's to i) Use their IP and ii) defend their investment. What is not clear is to what extent. We were under advisement to make representation of this registration of the Trade Marked wording, "Playworks®" where registration was legally made in 2007 and we have now done so. Thank you for your comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.232.190 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 25 November 2012‎

Thanks, David. Yet again, IP 58 talks about his objections with the other Playworks and says what he doesn't want with regard to the article, but gives no indication of what he does want? In any case, the bottom line is that this is clearly a legal issue, not an editing one. While IP 58 may be "under advisement to make representation of this registration of the Trade Marked wording", we are not judges and this is not a court of law. You are making your "represenation" in the wrong place. And Wikipedia does not in any way represent the other Playworks, nor any other subject of a Wikipedia article. So I'll repeat to IP 58 what I said above: I suggest he read WP:LEGAL, which states, in part: "If you are the owner of copyrighted material which has been inappropriately added to Wikipedia, a clear statement about whether it is licensed for such use is welcome and appropriate. You may contact the information team, contact the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent, or use the procedures at Wikipedia:Copyright problems." And IP 58 should be aware that he should never change any of his comments once they've be responded to, as he did here. Instead, new comments should be added to the bottom of the thread. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for not having signed off. It is late here, it was an error and since you are voluntarily wading through reams of this then please be assured that I am both grateful for and fascinated by your work.

Thank you for bringing to our attention the TM rather than the ® -This has been a place holder whilst the web site is altered and will be rectified. The 'Playworks' name and not the Logo is the issue and that was why I wondered about the apparent legal Gap.(which there is.) It is worth noting that there is significant difference between a Registered Trademark & Copyright. The international law used to be quite clear. Register a Trade Mark in one country, or in Europe or pay an absolute premium and register Worldwide. Having chosen Australia then it is a legal responsibility to point out where an infringement of Intellectual Property may occur.(that is where the Gap comes in.) With the internet growth someone else registers or uses intellectual property (in this case the wording 'Playworks' and is able to market themselves internationally and have an impact on the other company or companies, hence the reason for Trademarks in the first place. Please understand that the only legal undertaking that we were advised to take at this stage was to simply state that the name 'Playworks' is part of a Registered Trademark. Please note that we provide leadership in playing and training for teachers and young leaders in Play. We work with universities and corporations and do a lot of what this excellent company in the US do. I edited the initial paragraph because it was poorly constructed and I was embarrassed by the way it read. I do think that Wiki will possibly run into more questions from businesses from all sides of the water on this issue though. (As an adjunct and for the author above, a representation is simply a formal statement, made to an authority (wikipedia) so as to communicate an opinion, position or protest.)

Warm Regards,

Steve.

+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.232.190 (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, the volunteer editors from around the world on this page are not here to serve as legal experts, judges, or a court of law. This is the Help Desk, which, as the top of the page states, is "only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia". I will repeat: you are making your "representation" in the wrong place, so we do not need to hear any more of your detailed legal arguments or explanations, or comparisons between the two Playworks organizations, because they are meaningless here. You are inappropriately and incorrectly treating this help page as if it's the Wikipedia headquarters or legal department. It has been clearly explained to you, twice, what to do (read above regarding WP:LEGAL), yet you have not acknowledged this guidance or are choosing to ignore it for some reason. That is your choice. Although you've been asked multiple times, you have yet to state any specific request relating to using or editing Wikipedia, which is the sole reason this page exists. So, unless you have a relevant question, there's no need to continue this discussion. In the future, you should sign all your comments by clicking on the blue pencil icon at the top of the edit box. Or type four tildes (~~~~). --76.189.101.221 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Steve, I read through everything an I am not clear on what you want Wikipedia to do. If you are concerned that Playworks (organization) could be confused in Wikipedia for Playworks Oz, Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Article titles policy that helps figure out ways to distinguish topic names. If you are concerned that Playworks (organization) or Playwork appears in Wikipedia in a context that is not Playworks Oz and that this might affect your rights in your trademark, you might want to consider that your trademark relates to use on goods or services. Wikipedia is neither goods nor services, so that does not raise trademark issues. Instead, Wikipedia is a conveyer of other's information, and that may only raises copyright issues. You might be confusing trademark law with copyright law. In any event, wikimediafoundation.org is where you may want to state that the name 'Playworks' is part of a Registered Trademark. You also can notify the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team, who would handle trademark issues and notices. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding a please read note at the top of a talk page

is there anyway to add a please read first note at the top of the page which can then link to previous discussion on teh same topic and add reference to the same discussion so lessen the chance of repeat new topics about teh same thing because users do not read the archives, also it be good if there first force to read it before getting to edit talkAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There are FAQ temples, such as used at Talk:Harry S. Truman or Talk:Order of the Arrow. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Diff and alternatives

Is there a place where the Wikimedia diff display (that is used when comparing versions of a file between two edits) is discussed?

Is there a facility for feeding two versions of a file to an external program to perform the diff, such as Emacs?

I often find myself trying to figure out diffs between edits with similar-looking characters, such as "−" and "–". Is there a command or keystroke in Emacs to display the Unicode for a character in the mark, or some other easy way to do the same thing? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(1) Perhaps Help talk:Diff? (2) Yes, see the checkbox "Use external diff by default" on the "Editing" tab of your preferences - there's a link to a manual page provided as well, but I have never tried it. (3) I use this web page to identifying characters. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Bugs and requests can be posted to bugzilla: but search first. Some things are already there. User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff often gives a better diff. It can be enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing has the option: "Use external editor by default (for experts only, needs special settings on your computer. More information.)". I haven't tried it. There is apparently an example on the talk page. A search [1] may also help. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; the web page for identifying characters looks handy. The rest looks complex and fragile. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

wikEdDiff is simple to enable in preferences and simple to use. The normal diff is still shown. Below each diff is a green triangle you can click to see an alternative diff. You can just ignore it when the normal diff looks OK. It varies which diff is best but when the normal is poor, wikEdDiff is often better. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Title blacklist problem

Per a request at WP:AN, I've created User talk:7&6=thirteen/Archive 6 through User talk:7&6=thirteen/Archive 10; the user reported that the title blacklist was preventing these pages from being created. Why couldn't a non-admin create these pages? Archive 5 was also created by an admin, but 7&6=thirteen was able to create Archive 4. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think because of the username. Ruslik_Zero 18:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

meta:Title blacklist added this in June 2012 [2]:

#URI like page titles
.*[?&]+[^=]+=[^&]+.*

That matches when the user became unable to make userspace pages. They could try making a request for MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist, but it's a confusing username. I wouldn't rule out that they were told to change username instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• The blacklisting was probably because of some spam pages that were created, but "6" seems to be an invalid name for a variable so "&6=" is unlikely to be used by a spammer any more than any other random combination of characters. Maybe the blacklist should be changed to allow these. Peter James (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

a new desighner drug supposadly sold as a showergell

I was searcing the web for the newest desighner drug out there and looked at a page and a drug called (2 5i). I tried reasearching the chemical properties the on wikipedia and found nothing about it, fyi. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.59.225 (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

See 25I-NBOMe and 25C-NBOMe, both of which mimic the effects of LSD.[3] In general, see 25I. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions such as this belong on The Science Reference Desk.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How to get a page created for a band?

I've tried creating the page myself (3 times) and that hasn't worked. I've also tried requesting a page be made (again, no luck). The band is easily verifiable with music that's in the Billboard top 20 album charts right now. It shouldn't be that difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigbarr2003 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CREATE and WP:NHD. You can also get help at the Teahouse. A band with a Billboard top 20 album and no article? Hmm. What band? Just a note... you should sign all your comments by clicking on the blue pencil icon at the top of the edit box. Or type four tildes (~~~~).--76.189.101.221 (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hijacked page

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

On the rght side of the page, it shows the file name as "Dick Clark American Bandstand 1961.JPG IM G A Y thts y my name is spelled this way LOL!!" instead of showing the picture. I cannot find a way to edit/update it" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.59.236 (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Already fixed. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That was juvenile vandalism, which happens a lot on Wikipedia. Vandalism is usually fixed within minutes.--xanchester (t) 18:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Something seems to have gone wrong with ClueBot on this occasion, so it was actually like that for getting on for a day. I fixed it with a null edit. Formerip (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Killing Time, Star Trek Novel

This section of the entry on the novel "Killing Time" by Della Van Hise is inaccurate if not an outright lie. How can this be corrected?

Killing Time (Star Trek novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Killing Time

Killing Time is a Star Trek: The Original Series novel written by Della Van Hise.

The first edition was recalled and destroyed, due to a romantic subtext between Spock and Kirk, and was replaced with an edited version. [1]

• The truth is the initial print run was recalled due to the fact that an unproofed version was sent to the printer, which also happened to be the version not reflecting certain small changes made by Paramount. The second edition contains minor changes, and sometimes one or two sentences deleted. There was never a recall due to "romantic subtext" between Kirk and Spock. This was all about an editing snafu. People need to do their research correctly!

Della Van Hise and Wendy Rathbone (source: the author herself) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.6.223 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It does sound like the sort of thing that gets inserted as peurile vandalism; but it is referenced to what appears to be a reliable source: since I haven't a copy of the book, I can't check it.

It seems to me that there are two possibilities.

• If that book does indeed claim this, then it should stay: the criteria for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
• If the book does not make such a claim, then the sentence is unreferenced and should be removed.

What should not appear in the article is your version of it, unless you can find a reliable source that states it. In any case, that version would be too trivial to appear in the article.

If the claim is in the book, you could still argue that it was too trivial to be appropriate to the article, but you should not then remove it as wrong. It would then be up to a consensus of editors to decide the matter. --ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• There's a detailed write up at Elizabeth Woledge (March 22, 2005). "From slash to the mainstream: female writers and gender blending men". Extrapolation. 46 (1): 50.. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

parsed coding in editor window

Hi - I'm still struggling with the new editing toolbar. In particular I'd like to re-enable the auto parsing that used to exist where various hatching was present and if you clicked on a wikilink or url the browser opened another tab with that link opened. Simply turning on the 1.0 version of the editing toolbar via unchecking enhanced toolbar doesn't do it. Any suggestions? --Smkolins (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

wikEd seems to have the feature you're referring to. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 22:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow - thanks. Somehow that got turned off accidentally about the time of the tool bar change and I got the idea it was because of that.... thanks! --Smkolins (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

conor stevenson scottish football player

While try to access my sons page i see it has been taken over by another connor stevenson and all my sons football career information and refrences have been deleted from the page i would be grateful for any help on this. your james stevenson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimlad38 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I see you have reverted it. That is right. But there might easily be other sports people elsewhere called Connor Stevenson, and if an article were written about one of them, it would be necessary to disambiguate the articles. But User:Connorconnor did not go about it in the right way. --ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Italy tropical cyclone 2006.jpg

Hi,

I happen to land on this image. There was a NASA copyright on it but the description mentionned this is a land base radar image from Italy, unlikely to be from NASA. Since there were no external link to verify the real source and copyright status, I finally found a publication that seems to indicate the origin. I would like to know how to proceed to proposed a deletion this image or at least discuss its validity.

Thanks,

Pierre cb (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the original source information went unchallenged for two years, I think you should list this at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files where some specialists will look at it thoroughly. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Pierre cb (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Grimms' Fairy Tales

Sorry, I wasn't sure how to add to the Talk page for this article.

I notice that one of the editors has insisted that "Brothers Grimms" is proper English, and so the title of the work and its Wikipedia page should be "Grimms' Fairy Tales." That is not at all proper English; it is, everywhere I have looked except here, "brothers Grimm," "brothers Cray," and so on. Every cover or title page I have found online is "Grimm's Fairy Tales" or "Grimms Fairy Tales" -- most often the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlunday (talk • contribs) 22:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the article was previously named Grimm's Fairy Tales, but there was discussion and a consensus to rename it. You can see the discussion on the the talk page here: Talk:Grimms'_Fairy_Tales#Requested_move RudolfRed (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Why Hasn't Wiki expanded to sharing their content (pages) with social media like facebook, twitter, etc, as many websites have done so far?

Make wiki social media friendly. There so many topics here (in wiki) that many people would like to share, link, like, etc into the above social media and others, that I think wiki is slaking if wiki has not yet done so, or have is still pending but not resolved to implement.

The problem of encyclopedias, specially with the way "wiki" presents its content, is that other people who don't chat, but instead read, find it very disappointed to not be able to link the content they are reading to their social media, because, well...who knows?

However, I believe, this change can help intellectualize how people portrait themselves in their social media, if other people connected to them (friends) also find out that wiki is an excellent source of information. --I reckon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.181.124 (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to make suggestions at WP:Village Pump; but have a look at WP:PERENNIAL#Share pages on Facebook, Twitter etc. first. My personal view is that I come to Wikipedia (which is not called 'Wiki') to create an Encyclopaedia, and I go to Facebook to chat and interact, and I want them to remain separate. --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe wiki should become social media friendly

What makes you think wiki is not a social media...given that editors are allowed to talk about the article in special editor able pages such as "talk."

Therefore, I reckon --wiki should expand their connectivity to other social media worthy of making wiki citable to their on social audiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.181.124 (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The talk pages are pages to discuss improvements to the article in question. Wikipedia is not a social media. Please read the link in the section above, as well as WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. If you disagree with this policy, then please discuss on the Village pump (policy). This page is for help in using Wikipedia, not to discuss changes to policy. Singularity42 (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, please be aware that Wikipedia is not "Wiki". "Wiki" is a type of website or software. "Wikipedia" (or WP as an abbreviation) is an online encylcopedia project that uses wiki software. Singularity42 (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia may be used, or misused, as a social medium. But its purpose is to be an encyclopedia, and I hope it will remain that way. Maproom (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Users with Wikipedia accounts can install the Sharebox script, see WP:Sharebox.--ukexpat (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Linking directly to these things would take focus away from writing the encyclopedia, which is the object of the exercise. Why would we wish to invite this? Britmax (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)