Wikipedia:New contributors' help page

About Wikipedia Administration FAQ Contributing Tips Tasks Tutorial Help menu Directories Cheatsheet Asking questions Help desk Reference desk Teahouse

About Wikipedia Administration FAQ Contributing Tips Tasks Tutorial Help menu Directories Cheatsheet Asking questions Help desk Reference desk Teahouse

Hi, I'd like to use wikipedia with light text on a dark background, is there an option for this somewhere? Polarpanda (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your 'My Preferences' link at the top of the page, go to the Gadgets tab and there's a box to check under the 'user interface gadgets' section if you want a black background with green text. AlexiusHoratius 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But due warning, it looks hideous. – ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of the first-generation game consoles should be merged with the pong article, but i don't know how! please help me!

- I'm bored a lot 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imboredalot (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Proposed mergers explains the procedure - if you have any trouble after reading it feel free to ask here again. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If, as someone related to a subject, I know certain things to be true, but that there may be no academic or scholarly proof of these facts, how do I get round the "citation needed" problem? I can hardly refer to a sequence of birth certificates can I? Thanks for your help--79.73.29.219 (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, unless you can find reliable sources for the facts, you cannot put them in Wikipedia - note that reliable sources are not necessarily academic or scholarly: reputable news sources are also acceptable.

Having said that, it seems to me that referring to a birth certificate to establish the facts of date and place of birth would be acceptable: it would be a primary source, and the page I just linked to says "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Birth certificates are not published, and I guess that whether one can cite one or not depends on whether or not the particular jurisdiction allows members of the public to obtain an arbitrary certificate. --ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi . I recently made kiwipedia, and i want to know how to delete it. --Edlozz (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been deleted. For future reference, you can place {{db-G7}} at the top of any page that you have created (and only you have edited) in order to request deletion. TNXMan 16:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am not able to include an image on wikipedia which i've uploaded on wikicommonsManurrt (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The syntax is the same whether the image was uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons, which is [[File:Example.png|thumb|Caption]]. Add that to an article, replacing Example.png with the name of the image you uploaded, and replace Caption with the caption to put under the image. There are other parameters you can use, which are at Wikipedia:Images#Using images. --Mysdaao ^talk 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

A new concept of human orientation science was successfully formalized into a discipline - with definition, methodology and principles - through publication of the above mentioned book by Sumitra Publications, Mumbai in 1993 for the first time (ISBN-81-86008-00-4). However, the existence of such a new discipline could not get across to the world academia due to lack of publicity. Both the authors were university level professors, now retired. It is desired that attention of the world be drawn to this nascent discipline through writing a ten-twenty page article on the subject. Would you welcome such a contribution on our behalf in the form of an article/book ?

The subject has been formally defined as follows: "Human Orientation Science can be said to be an integrated science which studies human beings in their mental as well as physical relationship with the artefacts and the situations which they encounter in the conduct of their activities with a view to emphathize, anticipate and draw out the difficulties and irritations experienced by them and to suggest improvements or solutions with the object of making human life more easy and hassle-free."

Eagerly awaiting response.

Shanker K. Modak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanker K. Modak (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia does not accept original research, nor is it a place of first publication. Rather, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and only has articles about subjects that have received significant coverage in independent, secondary, reliable sources. Once the subject has received significant independent coverage, then an article may be written about it. TNXMan 15:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to TNXMan's reply, if the subject matter was to have been peer-reviewed in reliable, independent sources (such as the main international journals covering the area), then it could perhaps be considered for inclusion - however, Wikipedia is not the place for publicising a book, or for original research (as already mentioned by TNXMan). Also, it is questionable whether a discipline which was "formalized into a discipline" in 1993 could be described as a "new concept"! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I added some info to the Colorado State University page re: the University's recent announcement of a $500 million comprehensive campaign and today discovered that info had been removed. Why? It is as valid and factual as the other information presented.

I received a nice message from Joe Smack sooner after joining Wikipedia, but can't for the life of me figure out how to respond to him... or really anyone else for that matter.

Please reply on my Talk page.

Thank you,

Flrdude (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article history, your additions were removed by User:ElKevbo because they were "not particularly notable", the concern seems to be that while your edits were about something that was true, it was probably of trivial concern to an encyclopedia article. If you wish to discuss these edits, the best place to do it would be at Talk:Colorado State University; you should notify the above user by leaving a note at his talk page User talk:ElKevbo asking him to discuss the matter at the article talk page. --Jayron32 05:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed that someone undid a comment I left on the discussion page about an anime. It was removed apparently because you aren't supposed to review the anime. I don't dispute the person's right to remove my comment, but I do think that the wikipedia entries might be more useful and interesting to users if reviews or ratings where allowed for Anime articles. So my question is, who sets policies like the no review policy, how do they decide, is it possible to get policies changed, and what is the process? (sorry, I know thats more than one question, but it seems more efficient to ask them all at once) I don't really want info about this particular issue (anime reviews), I just would like an overview of the process. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dburson (talk • contribs) 16:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's less about "reviewing" the anime, and more about not simply leaving comments about your personal opinion of the anime. As the contributor who reverted your edit noted, discussion pages are not intended to be used for opinions or as forums, they are strictly for discussing how to improve the article. GlassCobra 16:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this question disappeared after I asked it, so I asked again, I'm not sure how to remove the second attempt, but you can disregard it. But you didn't actually answer my question, you just tried to head off what you think I'm going to do next, I again, would like to know WHO decides, HOW do they decide, Is there a process to change policy, if so what is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dburson (talk • contribs) 16:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages, WP:NOTFORUM and Wikipedia:Five pillars. It's a very fundamental Wikipedia policy that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article. The Internet has lots of other places where you can discuss things unrelated to writing Wikipedia articles. Suggestions for policy changes can for example be made at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) but changing Wikipedia to become a general forum about more than 3 million article subjects is unlikely to happen, and I don't know whether the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia on a tight budget would allow such a change. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for a more general discussion about policies. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen other users with customized signatures. I would like to customize mine, but do not know how. Can you answer this for me? --Paperfork (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can customize your signature by going into Special:Preferences. Please see Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature for instructions and guidelines regarding what may not be placed into a signature. GlassCobra 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the top right of your browser there's a little link that says, "My preferences", click this, and on the page that you come to you should see a little box labeled: "Signature". Whatever text you put in here is produced when you sign with ~~~~, and has a timestamp added to it. Remember to tick "Sign my name exactly as shown.".

For more information either ask here or see WP:SIGNATURE. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know how to move a proposed article done in the wizard to a wiki page. It's on the non-profit Aid For AIDS. Please help - so confused! Thanks. Marcomgirl (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any user who is autoconfirmed can move pages, which happens automatically once an account is at least four days old and has at least ten edits. The edit you made to ask this question was your tenth, so you should now have the ability to move User:Marcomgirl/Aid For AIDS by pressing the "move" tab on the top of the page. --Mysdaao ^talk 22:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Marcomgirl (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have experienced misuse on one Wikipedia page by not registered users and I would like to request/issue protection for the page. Please reply on my talk page. ThanksAfp1 (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. TNXMan 12:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering how to figure out what font number I need for different colors. For an example <font color="#66FF00">I am the voice of mud</font>. that gets me this: I am the voice of mud --★The voice oɟ mud☛^{I am your voice!!☛}_{my sandbox}★ 00:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at web colors. Your signature is an abomination, by the way. Algebraist 00:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are articles about a subject the editor is involved with automatically COI?

i.e. If I am a psychologist and I am involved in research on "The Effects of Electroconvulsive Shock Therapy on the Estrus Cycle of Rats" will it automatically be a conflict of interest for me to author an article on that subject or say, The Effects of Electroconvulsive Shock Therapy, or the Effects of Electroconvulsive Shock On Female Reproduction?

I would think that familiarity with a subject would be necessary to produce high quality articles but there seems to be a lot of discussion about articles being nominated for deletion due to the author being intimately involved in some aspect of the subject. There is a whole series of conflict of interests archives. [1][2][3]IMHO conflict of interest does not preclude notability but I'm not sure this is the view taken by many admins. What's your take on this?

My POV - If I am knowledgeable about a subject, involved with it as part of my work, and willing to share the information but likely to be tagged for deletion after putting great effort into writing something; why would I spend the time to write about it? As a matter of fact I would go one step further and say that some level of self interest is involved in the writing of almost any article, with the possible exception of paid writing, which coincidentally has been deemed by some admins to be a conflict of interest.

( see Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_4#Wikipedia_isn't_for_Paid_Editing )

Jonvanv (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, no this is not automatically a COI. A conflict of interest is when an editor is motivated by other factors rather than encyclopedic writing, these may include money or status. If you can write about a topic neutrally in an acceptable manner than you are not writing from a conflict of interest. If your relationship with the topic makes writing about it difficult or impossible without adding bias to the article (purposely or accidently) than you operate under a COI. For example, it is almost impossible to write an article about yourself of a business you own, but if you have a standard career such as being a teacher than your experience with the position may help the article. And naturally, if you write in a specific way for monetary benefit or personal clout than that is disruptive editing with a COI. This essay summarizes my view of the matter quite well. From how you summarize your situation, I don't think you would operate under a COI and I would welcome your edits until substantial evidence can show otherwise. ThemFromSpace 05:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest our no original research guideline as further reading; while you are of course free to edit our articles, please note that information added, including conclusions drawn and synthesis, must have reliable sources to back it up. GlassCobra 15:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I would like advice about the proposed article I wish to move from my userspace to go live, however before I do, I need guidance as to if it is suitable and also how I get it into the right catergories.

Thank you for any advice.

Mustardyellow (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MustardyellowMustardyellow (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mustardyellow/space2 - Please take a look at WP:CORP for guidance as to notability. If you can find sources that support notability then you should cite them, and such sources must give significant coverage and not just passing mentions. If they have appeared on the TV shows and in the papers mentioned in the draft, it should be easy to find references. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add new fields to an already existing infobox template, or is there a way to create a new template. Could someone help with the formatting syntax. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollidon (talk • contribs) 15:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibox coding can be tricky, so the best thing to do would be to leave a message on the template's talk page suggesting the change. Also, if it is a template that falls within the scope of one or more Wikiprojects, a note on the relevant Wikiproject talk page(s) would be a good idea too. – ukexpat (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please help me undo the obvious vandalism on the Suffragette page? I undid it to the last version but see that hasn't sorted it. I see people reverting vandalised pages to several versions earlier. How is this done?

Peteinterpol (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete,

Thanks for helping out.

There are two ways to do this.

• In the history tab, click the radio buttons of the last good version, and the current version, and hit enter. This will provide you with a "cumulative diff" of all the intervening changes. If you click "undo" at the top right of this diff page, and save it, it will go back to the last good version.
• Alternately, in the history tab, click on the date/time of the last good version. That will take you to the last good version. If you click edit, then save, this also goes back to the last good version.

Let me know if this is unclear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Floquenbeam. I had a look at this but am still puzzled. Where you say, "In the history tab, click the radio buttons of the last good version, and the current version, and hit enter. This will provide you with a "cumulative diff" of all the intervening changes. If you click "undo" at the top right of this diff page, and save it, it will go back to the last good version.", I can't see "undo" at the top right of the page. Is it a button, or a hyperlink? I can only see the "undo" at the end of the line for each revision. Is that what you mean?

I also had a go at your second solution, but I see the page is unchanged; again, am I missing something?

Thanks

Peteinterpol (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First question: It's a hyperlink, not on the history page, but on the diff page. If you click two radio buttons on the history page and then either click the "compare selected revisions" button or hit enter, the diff page will come up. At the top will be two headers; next to the top right "Current Revison as of" header is an "(undo)" hyperlink.

Second question, I'm wondering if the page is unchanged after you try this because the change you were trying to make has already been made? If there's no difference between the two versions, the software won't save a new version of the page.

A good place to play around with this, without having to hunt for pages needing to be undone, is the WP:SANDBOX.

Hope that was clear; if not, we can give it another shot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience Floquenbeam, trying out both methods in Sandbox has made it much clearer and I see how it works.

Best wishes.

Peteinterpol (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few questions.

I notice some people making comments within an article explaining why something is wrong, rather than deleting a section that's questionable. Is that the right way to do it, or if I'm positive something is a personal opinion, or incorrect, do I just delete it?

Same with links - on the belly dance page there's a whole section on belly dance in the UK which lists a few belly dance schools and events out of the hundreds existing in that country - there's no reason why they are important, it seems like just a way to get links. Do I ask the question of the community or just ditch it?

Finally, I was gobsmacked to see Wikipedia entries for individual pop music singles (Akon's Bellydancer, for instance). Is this justifiable?Marisa Wright (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, almost any subject can have an article as long as it's written neutrally and has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources (which makes something notable). As for the list of belly dance schools in the UK, that sounds like indiscriminate info to me that probably can be removed without any issue. Please feel free to post again if you have further questions. TNXMan 01:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your first question: the general recommendation is to be bold: if you find something wrong, correct it. But it's not always clear what is the best way to correct it: do you simply delete something that's wrong, do you try to correct it, do you research to find missing sources, do you tag it and maybe put a message on the talk page? What if I think that's wrong, but I'm not an expert on the subject and I think I may be mistaken? What if something is unreferenced but I haven't time right now to go looking for sources?

There's no single answer to these questions. What I'll do is something like the following:

• If I'm sure something is wrong and unsourced, I'll delete it
• If I think it's wrong but I'm not sure, and I have time (and interest) I'll research it, correct it if necessary, and source it. (I hope I don't just replace unsourced material I believe to be wrong by unsourced material I believe to be right, but I'm sure I did in my early WP days)
• If I haven't time or interest for that I may tag it with {{fact}}.

For material that I have no reason to doubt, but is unsourced, again if I have time and interest I will look for sources for it, otherwise I'll tag it with {{unreferenced}}. I would be entitled to delete unsourced material irrespective of its correctness, but I generally don't: it's better to fix the problem, or tag it inviting others to fix the problem, than to lose the information - provided it is information of value.

For material which just does not belong (trivial and other non-encyclopaedic material) I sometimes just delete it, but I admit I'm not as bold as I could be.

This is just my personal approach, but I hope it partly answers your question. --ColinFine (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To specifically respond to your first point–it is never acceptable to explain within an article why something is wrong with the article. There are two main places for such comments; on the talk page associated with the article, if you want to discuss the point with other editors, or in the edit summary if you do make the change (or both).--SPhilbrickT 17:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently involved in using cocacola as medical treatment i bezoar. It has been documented to work but i can't see any edit possibilities. is it locked or something? how do I find out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakn09ab (talk • contribs) 22:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-Cola is currently semi-protected so that only established editors can edit it. This is done sometimes to prevent high-profile articles from becoming targets to random, "drive-by" vandalism. You need to become autoconfirmed in order to edit, but the threshold for that is rather low, you only need 10 edits and 4 days experience to become "autoconfirmed". After you pass those limits, you will be able to edit that article. As an aside, you need to read the wikipedia guidelines and policies WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:BURDEN in the meantime, and be certain that the information you wish to add is properly cited to reliable sources, if it is not, then it may be removed as soon as you try to add it. --Jayron32 22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have two questions to clarify the situation: firstly, you say "I'm currently involved in using cocacola as medical treatment" - is this a research programme? Secondly, you say "It has been documented to work" - where is it documented, and has this document been peer-reviewed? Which medical journal(s) can we find this in? The reason I am asking is that as a matter of policy, Wikipedia cannot accept original research - we need evidence of peer reviews in respected journals to show that the outcome is medically accepted, rather than just some research that has happened, and the researchers have concluded that it works. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question for the New Contributors' Help Page? It looks as if you are trying to write an article. This is not the right place for it, and if you tried to put what you have written in an article it would rapidly be deleted as advertising, and probably also for lack of notability. Please also read WP:YFA. --ColinFine (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I wrote an article (biography) on a living person and apparently there are no enough sources or references. I already added links to different sources and references, but the message requesting more sources is still in the page (Adelina von Fürstenberg's bio). Could you please explain what kind of sources I should add in the article? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Open09 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your question. Looking at the Adelina von Fürstenberg article, I see three references

1. Hangar Bicocca: The home page doesn't mention von Fürstenberg. A search of their website found 5 references to her "curating" exhibitions - but personally, that does not show me that she is any different to any other person who arranges/hosts exhibitions.
2. Marina Abramovic, Balkan Epic: von Fürstenberg edited this, but I can't find any indication that she is any more notable than any other exhibition organisor.
3. Stories on Human Rights: IMDB shows that she was the producer of this.

To be honest, I agree that these sources do not actually demonstrate that she is notable. Also, the fact that I had to search to find out her connection to the references isn't a good sign - any web-based references should take the reader straight to where she is mentioned.

What you need to add are references from reliable, independent sources which amount to significant coverage. A quick search found very minor mentions at Google Scholar, Google Books and Google News. Some of the News hits may be significant, but a quick look through them only showed minor coverage (often along the lines of "von Fürstenberg organised xyz" - although the first hit was a NYT one, which may be useful). Keep looking for reliable sources! Incidently, mention should be made of the the indictment on October 27, 1994 of von Fürstenberg "for embezzlement, forgery and forgery and use of illegal workers" - articles should cover all aspects of a person's life that are relevant to their field of work, both positive and negative. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<article text removed>—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Tall (talk • contribs)

Hello Richard. I have removed the text of the article you placed here. This page is for posting questions and the text of an article or proposed article does not belong here. I'm not sure what you were going for in writing this here, but if it was a review, I would tell you that the article text, as posted, cited no sources verifying the content and read like an advertisement. Also, and more importantly, I've just discovered the text was a copyright infringement of this website. For that reason I have deleted the article you posted separately. You have received a message on your talk page about this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to get my contributions up (http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Paperfork&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia). Do you have any ideas or tips for finding errors? Paperfork 13:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paperfork. First of all, Wikipedia isn't about getting high edit counts - quality is more important than quantity! My main tip for finding errors is to look at articles about subjects in which you are knowledgeable. Read through them, compare the article with the cited sources - perhaps find other reliable sources - and make corrections as required. If you find an article which has few or no references, look for some - use Google Scholar/Books/News to find useful reliable sources (be aware that if the subject is not English - for example a non-English politician, film, etc - you may need to use the native language terms for searching - and even then, you may not find much information online!)

If you get any local newspapers, see if there is any information in there which can be added to relevant articles. For example, my local newspaper mentioned William Stanley (as the centenary of his death was commemorated) - I went to add this to the article, and found there was no article! So, a bit of research later, I created the article - if you look at it, I found a lot of reliable sources - although the article still needs some tidying up!

Basically, just get stuck in - start with subjects you know a lot about - or can research. Good luck! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Manual of Style and its subpages over and over until you have all the information thoroughly internalized. Then click on "Random article" under the WP logo on any page. In the article to which that takes you, you will probably find several typographical errors, violations of the style guidelines, formatting problems, and perhaps errors of fact. Fix them. While you're there, Google a few random phrases in the article to see whether there are any obvious copyright violations. If there are, remove or report them. Consider adding the article to your watchlist so that you'll know if someone comes along and blithely readds the copyvio. Then click on "Random article" again to move on to a new page. (This advice is only partially facetious; with enough people doing this, it might actually have a noticeable effect. One could also trawl through the categories listed at the top of Wikipedia:Cleanup to find articles in need of attention.) Deor (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed an error on the GTA IV page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV#Synopsis). Note that under Synopsis, on the right, there is a table of the chronology of the game, which I can't seem to edit in normal editing mode (clicking edit at the top of the page), as it seems like an embedded object. How can I make changes to this table and others like it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weirdo81622 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a template/navbox, not a table. What sort of edits do you want made to it? Intelligentsium 00:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above link on "template" is not so relevant here. Help:Template is better. The box at Grand Theft Auto IV#Synopsis is generated by the code {{Grand Theft Auto chronology}}. This means the source of the box is at Template:Grand Theft Auto chronology which, like other transcluded pages, is linked at the bottom of the window when you click "edit this page" on Grand Theft Auto IV. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering how to submit a link to my site. I have a live webcam on my parakeets 24/7. Well the light actually goes out from 11pm to 4:30am to give them a break, but for the rest of each day they are live. I thought that maybe this would be a good link to content about parakeets or pet birds. Thanks. Hello Parakeet www.helloparakeet.com or http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hello-parakeet TC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.161.75 (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, I do not think that your link would be suitable for inclusion, as I do not feel that it meets the criteria at "What should be linked" - it also meets condition 11 of "Links to be avoided", which states that Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority [should be avoided]. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a hypertensive patient after taking beta blocker comes in shock ,then how will manage them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhinav abhay (talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer. Contact your General Practitioner. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"New product introduction is often the best strategy to arrest the decline in sales and profits."Do you agree? Expalin the other straegy option that are available to secure this objective/discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.139.55 (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Humanities section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. However, they may tell you to do your own homework. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 not to do others' homework, but merely to 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/talk|contribs\ 17:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameonea (talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like you are trying to write an article here. This is a place to ask questions, not post proposed articles. Check out Wikipedia:Article_wizard_2.0 for a convenient way to start a new article.--SPhilbrickT 01:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I´m new to editing Wikipedia and have uploaded a file in error (CHEVROLET-BONANZA-4.0-CUSTOM-L-8V-DIESEL-2P-MANUAL-58750752009111620121854.jpg, caused by fat finger syndrome, sorry.) Is it not possible for regular folks to delete files, or do I have to wait for an admin to do it?

regards GrahamTM (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion does require an admin, but you can speed up the process by placing a {{db-author}} tag on the file page (here: File:CHEVROLET-BONANZA-4.0-CUSTOM-L-8V-DIESEL-2P-MANUAL-58750752009111620121854.jpg). Gonzonoir (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! GrahamTM (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been having some ongoing discussions with a couple of WP reviewers and editors about a new article I have been trying to create. Originally, the article was deleted because the administrator felt it wasn't written in a neutral enough tone. I've re-edited the article at User:Julieapeck/BizFilings. One of the reviewers involved in my discussions thus far said I might be able to get someone to take a look at the newly edited page and give me some feedback -- before I move it to the public side. Ideally, I'd like to get the tone right before the page gets moved, rather than having to argue against deletion again. Can you help? Thanks. Julieapeck (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Julieapeck. I'm doing a bit of tidying up of the draft, then I'll look through it for neutrality etc. I'll leave a comment on your talk page when I'm done! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for your help! I'll look forward to your comments.Julieapeck (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely new to Wikipedia and would like to know the process of getting Fixie Bicycle Company page available through a wiki search. When I search wiki for Fixie Bicycle Company the reference page or any other world related to Fixie page for that matter nothing returns from the show. I would like to also attach references that relate to the fixed gear an single speed bicycles that are already on wiki and reference them to Fixie Bicycle Company page. Further more what is the difference between Fixiebc at the top of my page and My Contribution, which one is viewable by the public? If I ever do figure this out I would to assist more in the effort

Fixie b. 06:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixiebc (talk • contribs)

Your username, Fixiebc, indicates you are associated with Fixie Bicycle Company and want to create an article on Wikipedia in order to promote the company. In that case, you should not be editing Wikipedia just to promote the company because it is a conflict of interest. Your username may also be a violation of Wikipedia's username policy because it is promotional.

When you are logged in, "Fixiebc" at the top links to your user page, a page intended to be used to facilitate communication between users about Wikipedia, and "my contributions" at the top links to your user contributions, a list of edits you have made. Both are viewable by anyone using Wikipedia. --Mysdaao ^talk 13:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Mysdaao's reply, I would like to add that Fixie Bicycle Company does not appear to meet either the General Notability guidelines or the Notability Guidelines for Companies. I can find no indication that this company is notable - there are no Google News hits for it, and all of the Google Search hits are social networking sites, which are not reliable sources of information for Wikipedia. They are a new company (founded in 2009 according to your Facebook account) - which is another indication that they are probably not a notable company at the moment. The two websites associated with it are a blog and an eBay shop (the blog started on 16th Nov, the ebay Shop seems to indicate that the company has been in existance since 30th Sept). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find where to report this but I have seen that the David A. Kolb page has been vandalised. I felt that trhis should be reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.65.32 (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. If you'd like to know more about how to revert this kind of thing yourself, there's some useful info at WP:Vandalism (or you can ask here). But if not, thanks for the heads up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add references to an article. Someone else did them properly but I don't understand how they did it. They gave me some links. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiDan61#Jesse_Chac.C3.B3n . Please help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saduski J (talk • contribs) 17:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates can be tricky for new contributors and they are not mandatory to use. In [4] WikiDan61 used the <ref>...</ref> and <references/> markup described at Help:Footnotes#Single citation of a reference or footnote. Inside <ref>...</ref> Template:Cite news was used. There are other templates designed to cite other types of sources than news. Wikipedia:Citation templates shows many of them. Each template has a number of named parameters written to the left of a '=' sign when the template is used. Those names cannot be changed (without changing the source code of the template which is complicated), but many of them can be omitted or you can leave a blank space to the right of '='. If you want to use a named parameter then you write something to the right of '=' and the template automatically formats the output. Multiple named parameters are separated by the pipe character '|' (may look like a broken line on your keyboard). Does this help? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to PrimeHunter's reply, I have left a quick guide to references on your talk page - I hope it helps! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda like. Its pretty hard. Like, I click "edit" to reply to this and now I can see more stuff like <nowiki> as well. Is the computer putting all these in? I've just made a few edits and I have a screen of computer code to understand first

(I also got an edit conflict error and lost the post I was going to make.)

Thank you for the help, I will go and read it a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saduski J (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the nowiki stuff in order to display the markup codes instead of applying the codes. See Help:Wiki markup#No or limited formatting—showing exactly what is being typed. You will normally only need to use nowiki when you are discussing markup code and not when you are just using it. I realize it can be confusing. I actually had to edit your post because you wrote <nowiki> in it and that was interpreted as markup. The edit conflict window includes the text of your post. You can edit it there or copy it to a new edit window. See Help:Edit conflict. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot figure out how to place a table to be positioned at the upper right of the page. I physically moved the text upward, but that got me no where. Any help is appreciated.

Lastly, once I am happy with the layout, citations, etc., how do I submit the article I just created in my sandbox?

One last thing: other than asking questions here, how do I properly ask a review to check my work in my sandbox before formally submitting it for genuine publication on Wikipedia?

Many thanks,

Carmen2u (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Carmen2u. OK, let's go...

1. The table: what you really need to do is to use an infobox. I have put one into the draft article for you, using the data you used on the table
2. For a review, you can go to Requests for Feedback.
3. When you are happy with it and think it's ready, read WP:MOVE which explains how to move it from your sandbox to article space. However, you need to be autoconfirmed to do so (basically, have 10 edits and your account being active for 4 days (96+ hours). You can either wait, or ask an autoconfirmed editor to move it for you.

Can I recommend that you read some of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies - I am leaving links on your talk page - and be aware that as it stands, the article will need reliable, independent sources of information - at the moment, all the references are from Aase's own employers' websites! If you have any other questions, feel free to ask them. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia, and would like to add some images to my article, but when following the instructions in the "help:wiki markup" pages to go to the "upload page", I get the following message:

The action you have requested is limited to Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users.

Could you possibly let me know how to get around this?

Many thanks, Hermione p (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your account must be autoconfirmed before it is allowed to upload images (i.e. it has been active for four days and made at least ten edits). Once you reach those thresholds, you'll be able to upload. TNXMan 13:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I further explain that the 4 days means 96 hours! So, you will be autoconfirmed at 17:03, 12 December 2009, as you have more than 10 edits. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, all the references given in Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man's Impact On European Seas are from the project itself! I would advise you to find independent, reliable sources of information to back up those references. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pleaes i need urgent attention from this web link i want to ask my question directly to any body who can help. this is an assignment which needs numerousn contributiopns. help me get connected now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikechukwuwu (talk • contribs) 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is unclear, but if it is a homework question, please note that we will not do your homework for you. – ukexpat (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did some edits today to this article and all were removed. I received a message that one edit did not conform. I'd like to know why it did not conform and why all of my edits were removed. Quantummech (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quantummech. The reason why your edits were reverted is summed up in the edit summary of the revert: unsourced/poorly sourced changes that are not neutral. The editor in question left a message along these lines on your talk page. In Wikipedia, articles need to be written using a neutral point of view - with information referenced from independent, reliable sources. Your edits did not meet these criteria. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2over0 has provided a helpful and comprehensive analysis on the article talk page. Verbal chat 08:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I search for the word "Mexicans" (the people) or "Mexican People" I am always redirected to the article on Mexico (the country). What I want is for "Mexicans" to be it's own article that dresses Mexicans as a people/ethnicity/nationality/diaspora etc, and is separate from the 'Mexico' article that is focused on the country of Mexico. Germans, Italians, Puerto Ricans, and Japanese all have their own individual articles that are separate from their respective countries and deal more with them as a people than the nations they are from. Could someone disambiguate "Mexicans" so that it becomes it's own article instead of redirecting to Mexico? I tried it myself but I couldn't get past the run-around of wikipedia's regulations and endless links. When the process is done I ask that I get a notification on my Talk Page. Thanks in advanced. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and made Mexicans to be a redirect to Mexican (disambiguation)#People. I feel that Mexican is right to be redirected to Mexico, so I have left that as it is. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better target is Demographics of Mexico. Similar in scope to articles like Italian people, etc. that Ocelot links above, just a different naming scheme. I was about to make Mexicans, Mexican people, and People of Mexico redirect there; but I don't want to step on your toes, PhantomSteve, so I'll wait to hear if you disagree or not. I agree Mexican has too many meanings to go directly there, so I think it should stay a redirect to Mexico, or perhaps even better, make it the disambiguation page, instead of the current location Mexican (disambiguation). You'd need an admin to do that, and should start a discussion about it at WP:Requested moves if you want to do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections, Floquenbeam - it makes sense to me! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. We'll see if it sticks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if a child is having difficulty having a bowel movement since birth, and enemas have been given in order for them to clean them out, can this be the cause of them having toxic megacolonClueless concerned37 (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) this child has several other problems since birth, one being diagnosed with Smith Lemli Opitz Syndrome, or is toxic megacolon due to thatClueless concerned37 (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Just looking for some answers, and if anyone has heard about this and experienced in their child, please respond.[reply]

1) Sorry, Mario, but your Princess is in another castle. 2) Wikipedia is not a substitute for a medical opinion. Regardless of the information we give you, you're best off contacting an actual doctor. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 03:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer. Contact your General Practitioner. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do, however, have existing articles on both Toxic megacolon and Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome, and it is possible these may be of interest or of use to you. Karenjc 07:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nailene is a global brand of mass artificial nail and nail treatment beauty products. Pacific World Corporation, which manufactures and markets the Nailene brand is headquartered in Lake Forest, California, United States, based in South Orange County, CA. Nailene continues to be an innovator and a leader in the artificial nail and natural nail care categories and has the most premium brands among consumers worldwide, representing a 40%+ market share within its categories. “Nailene hopes to speak directly to women who wear artificial nails and use our French Manicure products, with the full understanding that our consumer loves to experiment with all kinds of beauty products and is very engaged in most cosmetic categories,” according to Nailene’s business unit head and Marketing Director Tricia Buenvenida.

History Pacific World Corp., a leading global manufacturer and marketer of mass beauty and cosmetic products, was founded in 1973 to be the exclusive distributor of Hawaiian Tropic suntan products in California. Since then, Pacific World Corp. and its President, Joseph Fracassi, have been adept at identifying product trends and capitalizing on them through strategic marketing.

About 1980, Pacific World Corp. began to explore niche marketing ideas that would carry it into the manufacturing and marketing of health and beauty products on a national and international scope. In 1983, the Nailene brand was introduced to fill a genuine consumer need—a salon-quality artificial fingernail sold at retail. The product line has expanded to include application systems and accessories.

In 1994, Pacific World Corp. launched a new natural nail care product line, Professional Solutions. It quickly became the fastest growing natural nail care brand, outperforming many of its well-established competitors. The natural nail care line has since folded into the overall Nailene brand.

Pacific World Corp. continues to be an innovator and a leader in the artificial nail and natural nail care categories and has the most premium brands among consumers worldwide, representing a 40%+ market share within its categories. Today, Pacific World Corp. has over 83 products on the market and continues to develop and expand its beauty product portfolio with new products in development.

Pacific World Corp. headquarters is located in Lake Forest, in Orange County, California, including its general offices, manufacturing and warehouse. The Company operates an assembly facility in Mexico through the maquiladora program. Products are sold in over 40,000 doors in mass, drug and food chain retailers in the United States. Overseas, the company’s brands are represented by a distributor network in 39 countries.

Tbuenvenida (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is available to walk you through creating an article. --Mysdaao ^talk 16:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to make a text glow?--The voice oɟ mud^{I am your voice!!}_{my sandbox} 16:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "glow"? And do you intend to ever make a contribution to Wikipedia? If you're after social networking or personal webspace, you're in the wrong place. Algebraist 16:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh just forget the glow, I don't need it anymore. and yes I do intend to make "a" Contribute to Wikipedia,I'm working on an article on Microsoft Word, about Jacques-Yves Cousteau -It's a timeline. And I also have fixed several typos.--The voice oɟ mud^{I am your voice!!}_{my sandbox} 17:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

I was wondering...could you give me feedback on a couple of references I wish to add to article page (okay to use as they are?):

Ref: M,W "Who's Who 2009 A@C Black Publishers Ltd".
     M, W "http://www.ukwhoswho.com/public/home.html."

many thanks Melissa12345 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is a reliable source, as they tend to accept information from the subjects of the listings without vetting it in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created Jesse Chacón but the person's full name is Jesse Escamillo Chacón.

Other biographies are indexed by the full name. How do I fix it?

Signed Saduski J (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to move the page as described at WP:MOVE. – ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I forgot to ask my other question, is A Directory of World Leaders & Cabinet Members of Foreign Governments: 2008 - 2009 a good enough citation for his middle name?

Signed Saduski J (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link I can use to see a list of newly created articles or pages? Tythesly (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is: Special:NewPages. – ukexpat (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have listings for many bands' albums with no song titles. I have a vast record collection and would like to add song titles, albums details, possibly photos. how do I do that? Mcmliv54 (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have layers and layers of people giving conflicting advice, and people who want to be right at the expense of others. Is there somewhere on wikipedia that is nice and pleasant to experience? Or is it all ugly? Xme (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]