Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

Compare the display of this edit to the display of the current version of the article, List of National Historic Landmarks in Vermont. You'll notice that the box in the top left corner of the table is a different color, but why don't we see the text added by the vandal? Of course I'm not trying to vandalise more effectively :-) I simply want to understand better why the broken template doesn't display as normal text. Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your describing two different things. With regards to the #1 box looking a different color, it has to do with the template:

! {{NRHPlegend|NHLD|1}}

versus what was used for the other ones:

! {{NRHPlegend|NHL|2}}
! {{NRHPlegend|NHL|3}}

as for the vandal edit, I don't think they intended to mess specifically with the table in a specific way, but were just performing random vandalism. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text entered in this edit didn't display in the article because it was added to part of table for the style, not the text. When defining the headers, the style options go first after the !, and text goes after the |. The vandal changed the color by removing the last } from {{NHL color}}, but the change wasn't in the right place to affect the displayed text of the table. See this example for how style formatting of a table's headers work. --Mysdaao ^talk 01:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense to me; I've never quite understood how tables here work (this table and similar ones for other US states' lists of National Historic Landmarks were placed by other people), so I couldn't imagine why the text wouldn't appear in this box as it would if I typed it into the leftmost column of a lower line; e.g. type some text between the right braces of the NRHPlegend template in a lower line, and it will display the text. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I was only trying to ask one thing: I've worked enough with these tables that I knew that removing the template would make the color default to a whitish shade (the only reason that I mentioned it was so that you'd know I hadn't forgotten about it!), so all I was wondering about was the way that the random text didn't show. Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I began editing Wikipedia pages before I had an account. The history of those edits is tied to my IP address. Is there a way to merge that earlier history to my new "Named" account's "my contributions" page. In short, I'd like to merge my old IP account into my new Named account. The old IP address account could then be deleted and those edits reassigned (renamed) to the new account.

MKevH (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is not. Sorry. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be possible to change attributions for an edit, but not since 2005 (see this page). However, as that page says, you can list your contributions made with the IP address(es) on your user page. --Mysdaao ^talk 01:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this citation only show a blank Billboard page for anyone else, or is it just me? If it isn't just me, is it some sort of incompatibility between Billboard and WebCite? Are there services similar to WebCite that might work instead? —Akrabbim^talk 03:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also get a blank page, although I do not know of any similar services. Xenon54 / talk / 03:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also got a blank billboard (Firefox 3.5.7)... but I don't see why it matters at present as the original article is still viewable (http://www.billboard.com/#/features/top-25-tours-of-2009-1004053062.story). The Internet Archive provides a similar service and will probably make available an archived version of this web page later this year. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist I have nominated Template:Extra_chronology for deletion, but I cannot tag it, as it is protected. Can someone please add {{tfd}}? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Listing a template mentions other possibilities for nominating protected templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found it under Elizabeth McGovern, but when I click on it it goes to the flower clover. Is it in another location? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shagra (talk • contribs) 07:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have an article on the film. I've removed the link so that won't happen again. Dougweller (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it [1] to a piped red link to Clover (film). That is the common solution in such situations and was already done in Ernie Hudson and Zelda Harris. The link will work if an article is made later and it ensures that somebody doesn't remake the wrong link. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please write Swami Premeshananda instade of Premeshanada. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premeshananda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit.saha70 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you created the article in both places, I have merged them. Please pay attention to the notices on the article though. It's very important that you add references to reliable sources to the article.--BelovedFreak 10:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the relevant portion of our Manual of Style explains, we do not use honorifics as part of article titles; nor do we use them in the body of the text, except in the first sentence of the lede. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to automate the marking of pages as patrolled following nomination for speedy deletion? This would streamline the process somewhat as some editors neglect to mark pages at present. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was a bot that did this, I don't think it's around at the moment though and I can't remember what it was called. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you use Huggle it automatically marks such pages as patrolled. – ukexpat (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i want to know the information about the following topic:

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HAZARDS AND PROBLEMS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.0.38 (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. TNXMan 17:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Has anyone noticed that page statistics has not been counting hits since January 23, 2010? Does anyone know what is going on and/or where this should be reported? Thanks in advance! --Neon Sky (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPT? – ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the Wikimedia Technical Blog explains mysterious server issues. --Teratornis (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on bugzilla. They seem to have fixed it now. :) --Neon Sky (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for an outline or list of how Wikipedia lists the page types in order of how specific they are. ie Portal, Category, Lists, Subpages, & namespace etc. For instance, I'm assuming, you would never find a category page in a namespace page. I think there may also be some page types that lie outside of the main list such as Lists. Here you can have all types of lists including lists themselves. With that said, what would these be considered to be equal to in this list. Thank you in advance.

Imann08 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Not all the various page types lie on a single continuum of specificity. Trying to rank them that way would be like trying to decide which is more specific, a dog or a cat? That doesn't make sense. You could read the help pages for all the terms you mention, Help:Namespace, Help:Category, WP:PORTAL, WP:SUBPAGE, WP:CLN, and look in the Editor's index for lots more. --Teratornis (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that not all of the page types lie in a specific order. I mentioned this in my reference to the lists page type. I have taken the route of the help files and am only here after not finding a decent answer or one that I could understand. With that said, it seems pretty clear that a portal would rank higher than a category which would rank higher than a namespace. To me, it seems that a list would fall somewhere just about a namespace or be the equivalent of one. I can't think of all the page types off the top of my head. I have seen the help pages talking about each individual type such as categories and portals etc. I was just hoping that there was one that put it all together in one big outline or list as there are some that obviously follow some sort of order even though there are others that may deviate from that order from time to time. Thanks again.

Imann08 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Namespaces and categories, for example, are different groupings of pages. One is not "higher" than the other. Category pages exist in only one namespace, the Category: namespace, but category pages themselves can contain links to pages in any namespace. A category itself does not consist just of a category page, but also of the links to that category which occur in other pages. Calling that collection of things a "category" is just a conceptual convenience. The underlying reality is a bunch of code in the MediaWiki software. If you are new to Wikipedia, try to empty your mind of preconceptions. Don't try to force Wikipedia to fit your current worldview, which you formed by experience with other things. Just read the friendly Wikipedia manuals, make some edits, see what other editors do to your edits, and read the manuals more to understand why they did what they did. After a while, Wikipedia will make some sense to you, and you will probably conclude it is different than what you knew before Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portals, categories, lists, namespaces, subpages are different concepts which are used for different purposes and are not part of a hierarchical structure where some are above others. If you have a specific goal with your question, for example where to search or place a specific type of information, then maybe we can help if you say what the goal is. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is the right place to report a typo, but please note that the French version has a typo in the word (and associated buttons) "Chercher" (Search) which currently reads "Charcher". The A should be replace with an E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panfouez (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 January 2010

Hello. Could you be more specific? I'm not sure which article you're referring to. Otherwise, if you spot a mistake, it's ok for you to change it yourself, by clicking "edit" at the top of the page. Or do you mean on the French Wikipedia? In which case, I'm still not entirely sure what you mean.--BelovedFreak 21:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please dismiss this comment. My Wikipedia settings were set on the wrong language therefore making a different spelling of the word "Search" appear like a typo.

I am trying to figure out which extensions Wikipedia uses to facilitate image uploads. I manage a chemistry book wiki used by students and we want to be able to train them to use copyright correctly and using a Wikipedia-like uploader seems appropriate. Is there some place which documents this functionality? Would it be easier to try to make use of WikiMedia Commons? (We have a slightly more restrictive Copyright currently on our wiki: Attribution Share-Alike 3.0). Thanks for any help! Jshorb (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start with Commons:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008Jun#New upload form which should lead you to pages or people who know the details of how the upload scripts work on Commons. User:Lupo might be one such person. For general tips on running your own MediaWiki wiki, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki. --Teratornis (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When someone else requests for an account to be created, where does the request go? I'm not even sure where to look. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The request is found in a restricted interface used to create accounts. You need to be approved by an interface administrator to use the tool. Hamtechperson 22:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were do you ask permission to view the interface? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change my username? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garston (talk • contribs) 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CHU. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Wikipedia:Changing username. If you go to Special:Listusers and find the name you want is already taken, you may be able to "usurp" the name, if it has not made any significant edits. For that, see Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Xenon54 / talk / 22:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to show the vandalism level on every page? Hamtechperson 22:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is, it should be listed in WP:EIW#Vandal. --Teratornis (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a dumb question, but what exactly are deleted edits? Are they edits to deleted pages? I know they are not edits that have been reverted or undone. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, deleted edits are edits made to pages that have since been deleted. --Mysdaao ^talk 00:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And they include all edits (including those that have been reverted or undone). – ukexpat (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it against policy to import an existing article into one's sand box to for editing purposes? Thanks Tiderolls 00:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I think I found the answer. Thanks Tiderolls 00:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been contacted by a user who says that s/he is the heir of a dead photographer and thus the copyright holder to an image that s/he wishes to release under a free license. What's the page that details the standard process for copyright holders who wish to donate images and text? I've looked at WP:IOWN, and I'm not sure that this is it (there's nothing about heirs, for example), and I'm not sure that OTRS is sufficient. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --Mysdaao ^talk 01:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello wikipedia i am a current member of the band xiu xiu for which there is an entry on wikipedia. there are several notations that are irrelevant or are false and i have tried several times to update and correct and complete the entry but every edit i make is reverted to its original. what can i do, as a first hand source, to complete and correct my band's entry and have these edits remain? frequently in interviews people will ask questions based on the site that i will then have to clarify or correct. thank you! Xiuxiufanforlife (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple things you can do:

1. Leave a message on the article's discussion page about who you are and what you are doing, and then edit the article again.
2. Find news articles about your band to use as citations for the info on your article.

I'm too busy at the moment to edit the article myself, but please leave a message on my talk page if you have future issues, and I'll help you fix things up.

Awickert (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI, that is probably why your edits are being reverted.   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 04:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

On this page I edited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Williams_%28artist%29

After a certain point, the text and paragraphs seem to shrink and indent. The page did not do this before edit and does not appear this way in the edit window. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

~~Sketch V~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sketch V (talk • contribs) 01:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In two places on the page you used the <blockquote> function without closing it with </blockquote>. It's fixed now. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! didn't catch that.

~~Sketch V~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sketch V (talk • contribs) 01:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a registered user, but not autoconfirmed. I want to finish an article and need to upload an image to insert into the article. How do I obtain this permission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SysBio (talk • contribs) 03:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be autoconfirmed when it is at least four days old and has made at least ten edits. Your account is old enough but has made four edits. Make six more edits to any page on Wikipedia and your account will be autoconfirmed. If you don't wish to do this, you can also make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. --Mysdaao ^talk 03:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed to be exact. I can put in a request for you if you like. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Helpdesk, does anybody know how I could get the userboxes (under the header 'About Me') into the center of my userpage? Thanks! JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've centered them for you. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Thanks! JulieSpaulding (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to see on my screen the verses of this poem but saw only data about it. How can I achieve this?

Thank you,

Geraald Buckley <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.192.59 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email oversight-llists.wikimedia.org.

Reformatted to remove initial spaces --ColinFine (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the same user, though under a different IP, asked the same question on the Humanities ref desk:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When editing English-language articles I sometimes encounter language that assumes that the reader is from the United States. I correct such language when I find it. I know there must be a Widipedia term for this error (assuming that the reader is from the United States). I never know what to put in the Edit Summary to explain what I fixed. I have already looked and looked in the Wikipedia Help but haven't found a reference to this problem. What is the term, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviaa (talk • contribs) 07:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "problem", exactly. As I recall, the editing rules say that an article on a subject that's clearly American should be in American English (favor instead of favour, et al.) If it's not so easy to make that distinction, the standard procedure is that once someone starts an article, it stays in whatever version of English it was in, unless a good reason arises to change it. As an example of the standard, if you're writing about the President, you would use American English. If it's about the Queen, you would use British English. If you're writing about the Moon, you would probably go with whatever the article started with, and the important thing is to keep it consistent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are talking about is different varieties of English (as Bugs assumed), look at WP:MOSVAR. But I read your question about something a bit different: referring to things which are familiar to Americans but not necessarily to others in ways that make no concession to non-Americans. I don't know of a discussion on this ssue. --ColinFine (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Help Desk!

I've been helping contribute to Wikipedia for a long time. Growing bored of only adding text/facts, I decided to branch out and document some of the local points of interest in my area. I have read your guidelines on taking/editing photos, but I have a few questions that need some clarification.

1) In taking photos of a well known person, (i.e., a sports figure), is permission needed from that person to submit a photo? 2) Does Wikipedia strive to have a photo of every "person, place, and object"? Are there some things that are excluded from the list of things needing a picture? (For example, I can take a picture for Chestnut Ridge Park and Bishop Timon – St. Jude High School. While not big articles in their own right, shouldn't they still have pictures?)

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streetsabre (talk • contribs) 07:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your second query, it's fine to have photos of things that don't have "big articles" (around here those short articles are called "stubs"). For instance, I've added photos of Champlain Valley Union High School, Hinesburg, Vermont, and Monkton, Vermont. The articles are barely more than population figures and yet, they have images. The high school article was quite a bit smaller when the images were added and look at what's there now. Dismas|^(talk) 08:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question. Depends first of all on the country of origin of the photograph, wether or not it is required, but almost everywere you have to consider Personality rights. If the well known figure is at a public space, where he reasonably can be assumed to be photographed (sporter at sportsvenue for instance. Actress at the red carpet etc..) then it is almost always OK. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to be uploading free images (ie. with no copyright - like the ones you have mentioned) please consider uploading them to the Commons where they can be used by all Wikimedia projects. You could also upload several pictures on the same topic there, even if, say, only one is used in an article. Then, when an article gets longer, it may require additional pictures. You'd need to register there and then uploading is as simple as it is here. Once an image is uploaded at the Commons, you can link to it here just by using [[file:example.jpg]] and it automatically links to the image on Commons. Pictures are helpful on any article however small. --BelovedFreak 12:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to create a separate account on Commons, just head over to Special:MergeAccount to enable unified login. Should work for all Wikimedia projects, except where your current user name is already taken on a particular project. – ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help everyone! I'll be sure to take everything into account as I go on a photo scavenger hunt across Buffalo :D Streetsabre (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the following message on my "User talk:Salizaf" [I would like to state that the image is my property, and I do not wish any copyright restrictions put on it. In other words, - GNU Free Documentation License and - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license may be applied on it] Its description may be changed to File:Dr. S Z Hasan.jpg if need be. The message I got is reproduced below:

Salizaf (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting us about this. If you want to donate a picture for which you are the copyright owner to Wikipedia, you need to follow the instructions given at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, which explains how you can verify that you are indeed the copyright owner. If you have any further questions about this particular issue, you might be better off asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions as the folks who contribute to that noticeboard are more knowledgeable in copyright matters than most of us who answer questions here! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the answer I'm looking for, so here goes: is there a way to find out wether a vandalizing IP is already being investigated? IP in question is 83.104.72.243; currently blocked, far as I can tell. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they are being investigated, it would be listed at WP:SPI. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to WP:RFF. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

someone is using my email address om myspace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.56.125 (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go here and contact their help desk. – ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at BYG Actuel; under the Discography heading, but before the table, there is a lower case Y. I can't see where it's coming from and when I edit the page I can't see it in the raw text. Can anyone help remove it, please? Many thanks, --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was hard to find, but I fixed it with this edit. – ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Would never have spotted that, since it was in with the table data but appeared outside it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you link to a table? I don't mean linking from a table. Navstradomous (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make sure that the table is in a specific section (with a section header using == Section ==) and then you can link to it by using [[Article-name#Section]] -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm guessing you can't directly link to a table, only to a section. Navstradomous (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously didn't phrase that properly! You can't link to a table directly, but if it's in a section (which has a heading, in the same way that this section has the heading == How do you link to a table? ==) then you can link to the section. If you could give more details of which table, in which article/page, then we could give more specific instructions. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My company has their own Wiki and currently they have an image as their table. I was planning on converting them into wiki format. Usually in the article, it would say See Table 1. The issue is certain articles have more than 1 table in each section. Navstradomous (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can if you add a hidden anchor (a supressed section heading), see Wikipedia:Anchor for more info. Nanonic (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually most modern browsers can link to any block element (including tables). You just add id="name" to the table. Wether or not that is advisable to actually do.... Not sure. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Want to add photos, for example http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DIBLA7_Salone_Automobile_Torino_1968.jpg, to English Wikipedia article, novice contributor Hoov23 (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't add an image from another language Wikipedia to an English Wikipedia article. The image has to be uploaded either to the English Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons. --Mysdaao ^talk 18:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the image on It Wikipedia has been tagged for upload to Commons. – ukexpat (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but File:DIBLA7_Salone_Automobile_Torino_1968.jpg on the Italian Wikipedia has been tagged for moving to Commons since 2006. However, the user has uploaded it to Commons as File:DIBLA7 Salone Automobile Torino 1968.jpg and used the image in Di Blasi Industriale S.r.l.. --Mysdaao ^talk 19:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note a lot of "papers" written to support this technology. Where are the clinical trial studies that would support the accuracy rate claimed??? I cannot find any. Could you please direct me to either the clinical trial studies themselves, or the founder of this supposedly unfailable technology Kari Mullis. Thank you S Olson <removed e-mail address>

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address.

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way I can download entire wikipedia to hard disk do that I don't have to waste time connecting to the internet? Will you ship a hard copy of the encyclopedia to an address I mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discomboulate (talk • contribs) 18:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DUMP. – ukexpat (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You can download the entire Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:DUMP) - but bear in mind that the entire Wikipedia takes up a lot of space - it takes up more than 2.8 TB when uncompressed. A hard copy is not available - it would need over a thousand volumes (see Wikipedia:Size_in_volumes) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a request to make about the article Rollies, which currently states that the subject, a brand of cigarette rolling papers, is "part of the Rolling Supreme family of products which is related to Conwood." I don't know a great deal about Rollies, though I have verified this brand is owned by a company called Rolling Supreme.[3] However, the reference to Conwood makes no sense; Conwood is/was an unrelated company now named American Snuff Company that makes smokeless tobacco. Unsurprisingly, a Google search[4] reveals the top combined mentions for Rolling Supreme and Conwood are this Wikipedia article and its mirrors. I happen to work with Reynolds American, which owns American Snuff Company, so I'd prefer not to remove this personally unless someone else here says OK. Or, if someone else is willing to simply remove this reference to Conwood, I would appreciate it greatly. --Piedmont NC (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the information, as it is unsourced. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! --Piedmont NC (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And well done for your exemplary behaviour in stating your potential conflict of interest, and asking here! (You could also have asked on the article's talk page). --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with the edit summary in this diff? It appears differently in the history, but both are very unusual, and I don't know what's happened. I've scrolled down in my browser, so I know that it's not something stuck to my computer screen. Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's just a bunch of Unicode characters stuffed in there for some odd reason. The editor was probably just trying to be funny. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see the passengers list of crash plane in 2000 august 23. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.9.70 (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might find what you are looking for in the article about Gulf Air Flight 072. If you cannot find the answer there, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps. --Mysdaao ^talk 18:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Barbie omits a very important era where BillyBoy* designed the first designer Barbies, created a show which toured Europe and the USA and resulted in a painting by Andy Warhol ...made for BillyBoy*, which is still is in his possession. He had most the designers and artists of the world dress her, a precedent in 1984, a collection he still owns. He designed the first two dolls with a designer's name on a Mattel Barbie doll box.

He wrote a best selling book in many languages, the first which talks about Barbie as a sociological phenomeon and also creating the popularity of collecting the doll.

The way in which Barbie is perceived now and the dolls Mattel creates now, are from his seminal work of the 1980s. This info is lacking in the article on Barbie doll on Wikipedia.

I have tried adding this information by editing the article. The reply was that it seemed off-topic. It is not off-topic.

Do I need to create an entire article on Wikipedia just for this or does it get put into the existing article?

Alec jiri (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you write up the text that you want to add to the article in a user subpage, add properly cited references from reliable sources, then head back to the article's talk page and ask for your text to be reviewed with a view to being added to the article? – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was looking at the wikipedia page [5] Which is a list of all Social Networking websites. I noticed that the one that I am apart of is not on that list. I was wondering if I would be able to add it, and how would I go about doing so? my page is http://www.peoplestring.com/?f=website As I am an affiliate of this network I wanted to know if I must get permission from the company to use my link on this list which I will do from the chief marketing officer first. I can also get an accurate accounting of whatever information would be needed to put on the chart. I appreciate your assistance, and look forward to your answers.

All My Best,

Damon Belle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetstring (talk • contribs) 21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're from the company, you probably shouldn't be the one adding it or writing about it (since it would be a conflict of interest, see our Business FAQ for more details). But in general, unless there's already an article in Wikipedia on the PeopleString, it shouldn't be added to that list (since the article should be written first). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 21:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noted the attack page page (:-)). There is a page on an organization (I am not affiliated with it) that I have a long-term interest in improving. In general, it is generally poor and contains some nonsense about the history (overuse of internet sourcing). But I have not has a chance to rewrite this part yet.

However, my question pertains to a section at the end. The section is a collection of any possible scandal that the editor or editors can find. Every once in a while it is added to. There is nothing else on the page of recent history, just this stuff at the end. I suspect that this is someone (or someones) with a beef against the current executive director.

Short of adding in a bunch of innocuous stuff from their press releases to counter-balance, what is the proper thing to do? Mzk1 (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide the article's name? Generally speaking, WP:NPOV is the governing policy. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 21:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Council of Young IsraelMzk1 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I wanted to suggest an idea for wikipedia.org. I was wondering if it has ever been considered to get the wikipedia globe in the upper left hand corner of the website to start rotating, like a planet or something like that. I think it would look really cool, or have a banner/ticker of somesort that scrolls the topics users are searching for real time on wikipedia.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.184.238.132 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be sort of interesting, but I think that would seriously slow down performance. Also, for people who have very slow connections, like me, pages would take much longer to load. However, one interesting Wikipedia logo is File:Bouncywikilogo.gif. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is only for questions about using Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions. Thanks! South Bay (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And see Commons:Category:Animated Wikipedia logos. It might be possible to change your personal view of the Wikipedia logo by monkeying with your skin or user JavaScript, but you would have to create an account first. There is approximately zero chance you could convince the Wikipedia community to change the logo for everyone. That would be like changing your national anthem. --Teratornis (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments relate to articles in your website relating to the subject of climate studies and climate change. I feel that Wiki is not the best source for information on the subject and that the information provided in its pages relating to global warming, a controversial issue, are square with the side of those who are proponents of the theory of climate change, and this means that the whole picture is not conveyed. Unfortunately, it would take a lot from me, as a user, to go through and criticize what information has been put on the websites, but honestly I think that there is some bias.

I can provide my two most compelling examples to reinforce my point. On the page "Winter of 2009--2010 in Europe", where the "Causes" are discussed, no reference is made to the assertions by climatologists (from the IPCC, of all places) who assert that the planet is entering a "cooling" phase, and that the winter of 2010 is part of a natural phenonmenon. Instead, the causes are squarely attributed to El Nino. The page on "solar variability" fails to incorporate the fact that proponents of the global warming theory assert that a change in solar variability can affect climate. I hope that this will help and that these pages might be edited. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.196.20.228 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your best bet is to discuss this on the relevant talk pages (Talk:Winter of 2009–2010 in Europe and Talk:Solar variation - I assume the latter is the one you meant) and present reliable and independent sources verifying the facts that you believe need to be added or changed. On the talk page, concensus can be reached on whether the article(s) should be changed. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review the rules under WP:EIW#Dispute. On Wikipedia, the editors who win ongoing content disputes (and disputes over climatology are ongoing here) are usually the editors who have put in the most work, and have the most cognitive ability, to understand Wikipedia's rules. As you have not yet learned the correct name of this site, you will be at a disadvantage in any dispute with editors who have learned far more about Wikipedia than that. Not because getting the name right is important in itself, but because you probably haven't learned many other things that your opponents know about Wikipedia. The more controversial the topic, the more you must know about Wikipedia to write about it on Wikipedia, and make your edits stick. (Wikipedia is very much a meritocracy which rewards ability and effort - which makes it somewhat surprising that Wikipedia is often a whipping boy for conservatives who claim in other contexts to deplore the moral hazard of giving people unearned handouts. Wikipedia hands out information for free, but not influence. Would-be influencers must out-work all the other people who are working to influence Wikipedia in other ways. It is an elegant Darwinian competition which free market proponents should relish.) Global warming is a "controversial issue" primarily among nonscientists. Within the scientific establishment, there is little doubt that humans are changing the climate by burning fossil fuels and chopping down forests. That's why virtually all the world's important scientific societies have endorsed the basic conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Until the folks who are still confusing the public are able to convince organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society to change their official policy statements on climate change, such dissidents will be at a disadvantage when editing on Wikipedia, where authoritative opinions matter a lot more. We see the same thing with other "controversial issues" like Evolution where scientific opinion is largely settled, yet some non-scientific pressure groups continue to attack science. Biologists internally debate a few details of how evolution proceeds (see for example Richard Dawkins vs. Stephen Jay Gould), but there is little scientific argument that evolution occurred and is ongoing. Incidentally, the winter of 2010 has not been unusually cold where I sit. I'll know it's cold when the Ohio River freezes over completely like it last did in the severe winter of 1976. --Teratornis (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it Administrators can access deleted articles in the archive. Is there a log or some kind of oversight of what articles administrators are accessing out of the deletion archive. andyzweb (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Algebraist 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, if they were to move it to userspace (whether their own, or another user's) then this would show up on the deletion log. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rather than tag this stub for "notability", it seems it might be an article for deletion or speedy deletion. article asserts no notability as a comedian. the one citation is a dead link. a mention of rivera's criticism of the catholic church could be merged into article on the pope at the time i suppose. i've never gone further than a "notability" tag (i.e, never done a speedy deletion or article for deletion request). thanks for help.--98.113.187.11 (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would not be eligible for speedy deletion, as the mention of his criticisms of the Catholic Church would be an assertion of notability. You could still tag it with the notability tag, or propose it for deletion. If you think this might be controversial, you can send it to Articles for Deletion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than try and delete it, why not try to improve it? I am sure there are Italian sources for this person, and those could be used as sourcing to try and help establish the notability of this person.   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have suggested that too... a very quick search yielded this, this and this - the last gives DoB etc... and all of these are from January 2010... I'm sure there's more out there. I don't read Italian, but an Italian-reading editor could find a few refs I feel -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a complete tyro, so please bear with me.

The article on "Meerschaum" is very short, with a paucity of citations.

Several years ago I did extensive research on this subject and have an extensive bibliography, mostly annotated.

1) May I, and if so, how may I, add a references section to an existing article?

2) May I use my existing format or is there a standard template I must retype everything into?

Thank you for your consideration.

Chelovek2010 (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion for improving the Meerschaum article. My advice would be to discuss this on the article's talk page (here) and present the information (along with the bibliography) there - a discussion can be held to see if the consensus is to insert it, and how. Without knowing what you want to add, and what references you want to use, I can't advise any further. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am anxious to find the source for your picture of the costume worn by the Harvey Girls depicted in your section on that subject- it is uncredited as to its source. My email is Users email —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.60.192 (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Non-prose components to see why it is allowed in the article ...

I have remove you email as per Wiki-policy ..so i hope you come back here to see message !! ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "source"; but if you're referring to File:Harvey-uniform.JPG, the file page indicates that the uniform itself is in the "Arizona Railroad Museum" (by which I presume that the Arizona Railway Museum is meant) and that the photograph was taken by a person named Jot Powers. Deor (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the article McCrone report and would like to disambiguate it from the article McCrone agreement. I know there are pages explaining the process but I'm either too tired or too dumb to figure it out. Any help would be appreciated. Jack forbes (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that in this case a headnote would suffice—something like {{about|the report on Scottish independence|the agreement involving Scottish teachers' working conditions|McCrone agreement}}, which would produce

You could also put a corresponding headnote at the top of McCrone agreement. Deor (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am from wyoming. I work in a school. Our teachers won't let students use wikipedia because it can be edited. So is it true that your pages can be edited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.54.73.35 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is indeed Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There are some that are protected from editing because of vandalism, but most of the pages can be edited. Some teachers don't want pupils to use Wikipedia for their course work, as you don't know if a specific article has been vandalised or not (although the vast majority of vandalism is very quickly caught and undone!). My advice to students is to use Wikipedia as a first source - a good article will have a list of references and sources of information (some also have further reading) - use those for more information - those are the sources which a teacher is more likely to accept, especially if they are from a printed book which you can find in a library. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is freely editable - you just edited this page to ask this question. But it's really a nonproblem. In general, students shouldn't be using Wikipedia, or any tertiary source for that matter, as a basis for any serious schoolwork. Any encyclopaedia, Wikipedia included, should be used at most to kickstart research for primary and secondary sources. Many teachers simply ban Wikipedia because they negatively perceive the open nature of this site, when they should ban all encyclopaedias. Xenon54 / talk / 02:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it this way. When your teacher assigns you a research assignment, they want you to create a report paper about your topic. You are expected to research good sources about your topic, and write a summary of what you learned, citing the sources you got it from. So, the dilly is this: Wikipedia is basically a collection of research papers! So isn't every single encyclopedia written. That's all an encyclopedia is, just a collection of topical research papers. You teacher doesn't want you to use Wikipedia because that means your simply reading other research papers to write your own. Seems silly, right? Its like reading your classmates research paper and then writing yours based on his. Instead, your teacher wants you to go to the places where the people that wrote Wikipedia went to when they were writing THEIR papers. Find the books, journals, etc. used at Wikipedia articles and USE THOSE to write your paper! --Jayron32 04:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All good advice guys but, I don't think the ip is a student. He/she says they work in a school. Jack forbes (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, Jack... that's why my reply was not written to a student! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Phantomsteve. It was a late night and tiredness can make things a wee bit blurry. :) Jack forbes (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say they said the poster was a student. You only said you didn't think the poster was a student. It is not clear how much we can read into your use of the word "but". --Teratornis (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Special:ListGroupRights, autoconfirmed or confirmed users can mark edits as patrolled. How do you do this? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Special:NewPages. When you click on a page that has not been patrolled (highlighted in orange), you will see a link in the bottom right corner of the new article that says "Mark this page as patrolled". TNXMan 03:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to post an update to a page I am a fan of. The edit was deleted and I was told it appeared to vandalism. There as a link to"talk" to the user who removed my edit. I tried the link but must say even though I have been a profession in the computer industry for over thirty years and am familiar with most systems I bump into, I could not figure out who to accomplish the simple task of conversing with the user who was removing the edit I was posting.

I understand some content is "protected" I did not have any idea it was at a level this deep. If my post is disputable, there ought to be a mechanism for even the most rudimentary discussion on the dispute. Did I miss something?

By the way the edit was on the Author Diana Gabaldon's page. I am a big fan. I own all of the books she wrote on her first series and loved them. When I saw her new series, I wasn't sure but figured I would give it a try. I was disgusted by the complete switch from a writing style that was romantic and perhaps more graphic than I cared for to a style that was suddenly focusing the theme of the book on a gay Soldier having graphic sex with his step-brother. As a fan,if I had read that comment, I would have saved myself the money, time and the experience of trying to find my way through the book hoping it was just a brief part of some key to a bigger story.

I realize my opinions are not politically correct, but I was careful not to be either mean spirited, vulgar or offensive in any way. Unless my thought are offensive. If that is the case, free speech and tolerance are dead, and wikiapedia is the shovel being used to bury them. I do hope I am mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1qaz1qaz1qaz (talk • contribs) 06:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions on discussing a matter of dispute can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. However, your content was, in fact, unencyclopedic. Wikipedia only publishes neutral content. That is the content that can be backed up by reliable, secondary sources. An editor's personal opinions or observations are not permitted in an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was harsh of User:Love dance of scorpions to describe your edits as 'vandalism': I think he/she is breaking the Wikipedia guideline "assume good faith". But there is no doubt that your edits did not meet Wikipedia's requirements, specifically they were not neutral, and they were not backed up by reliable sources. If you think that there is something more at stake than your personal opinion, I urge you to begin a discussion at Talk:Diana Gabaldon (pick the '+' at the top to start a new section, and give it a suitable title: then you can reach agreement with other editors over how the issue should be resolved. Remember to sign your post on talk pages by ~~~~.

You could have begun a discussion with Love dance of scorpions the same way: pick the 'history' tab at the top of Diana Gabaldon, find an edit by that user, and pick the 'talk' next to their name. That will take you to the user's talk page, and you can begin a new section by picking '+'. --ColinFine (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Colin, the tab to click at the top would be labelled "new section". You see a "+" because you enabled a gadget to make it look smaller. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please can someone get back to me.

Taritam (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can just edit the article. Alternatively, if we know what article it is, we can do it. If the comment reveals personal information which you want to have permanently removed both from the page and from the page history, email this address giving the details of the page and if possible (using the page's history) the date/time the comments were added. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys! I've created the Joe Ontario page but I made a mistake since the http link was wrong... so I deleted the wrong page (Joe ontario) and recreated a new one: Joe Ontario... now the problem is that when I openthe new page it tells me that I wanted to delete it!!! And I don't know how to fix it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theraf90 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the "page history" tab at the top of Joe Ontario, you will see it has been nominated for speedy deletion by another user, on the grounds that it does not sufficiently assert how Joe Ontario is notable enough to be in an encyclopaedia. This is probably because your article has no references or citations to back up the facts in it. It is also slightly promotional in tone, and needs rewriting in more neutral and factual language.

Please don't remove the speedy deletion tag. If you want to challenge the speedy deletion nomination, follow the instructions on the tag, place a {{hangon}} tag on the article, and explain the reasons why you feel the article should be kept. You will also need to find some credible references to add to the article soon, otherwise it may well be deleted anyway. If you are sure Joe Ontario is notable enough for Wikipedia, it would be a good idea to cut and paste the contents of the article into an off-wiki document in case it does get deleted. However, if this happens, please DO NOT recreate the article in its currrent form. Instead, paste it into a sandbox in your user space. You can create a user sandbox by clicking on this link: User:Theraf90/Sandbox, typing in the space and saving the page. You can then work on improving the article without the danger of it being nominated for deletion in this way. Regards, Karenjc 12:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a members of a politcal group, we have added ourselves and a link to our website in the Puntland page. Someone keeps on deleting the entry of Puntland Independence Movement in the politics section of Puntland page.

I do not know how to stop this person. It is as if the person wants to abuse the page or he may be from a unionist political group who oppose our political ideals.

Please inform me how I could stop this, How do I request the attention of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaa1371 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, your edits to the page were removed due to original research and verifiability concerns and not in an attempt to "abuse", when information is added to Wikipedia it needs to be sourced, however, you are strongly discouraged from editing articles with which you are affiliated with the subject thereof as there is a possibility you will have a conflict of interest. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 12:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please read WP:COI. You have a conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from editing material to do with your political movement. If you do edit such material your edits must be entirely factual and written from a neutral point of view.

The material about the Puntland Independence Movement seems to have been removed from the Puntland article because it does not meet Wikipedia's criterion of verifiability. This is because your only source for the material is a link to a website which appears to be published by the group itself, which is not a reliable source. Material that is not verifiable may be removed by any user at any time. The Puntland Independence Movement material needs references from reliable third-party sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles or other published information (not self-published) about the group, and this also applies to the Puntland Independence Movement article, which also lacks such sources. Find the references, and try discussing further changes on the article's talk page. Karenjc 12:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a search, including Google's news archive. Nothing except Wikipedia and mirrors of Wikipedia. I've therefore taken the PIM article to AfD and once again removed the material from our Puntland article. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what query Doug used, but this google news query suggests the movement is real, but the capitalization of the name is suspect. LeadSongDog come howl 14:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put "Puntland Independence Movement" (including the quotation marks) into Google's news archives, I think you'll get nothing. Some of the articles from your search seem to mention movements, etc, eg [6], but are they the same organisation as the one in question? Other articles seem irrelevant entirely. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked this already at the village pump, but I did not get a good answer (no offence, whoever you were). I'm wondering on how to edit from a DS, as it would be much more simple than having me holed up in a computer chair. Thanks,

Buggie111 (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a DS? --ColinFine (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo DS?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if so there is a Nintendo DS Browser version of Opera that's reported to be able to browse WP, but I can't believe that it would be usable for editing in Wikipedia, there's just too little screen space available. LeadSongDog come howl 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a Nintendo DS. Ok, thanks.

Buggie111 (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if someone could take a look at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The most recent edit added six in-line citations, but in a form that created a second list of numbered footnotes in the References section. The additions are fine, but it also has meant the citations appear as ^[CAST] in each case. I've never seen this "look" before but it seems a little odd. Thanks. RadioBroadcast (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it may look strange, it is perfectly valid on Wikipedia! However, I have put the publication details in a new "Sources" section after the refs, and incorporated the CAST refs into the main ref list. I know many editors prefer this format. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Phantom Steve!RadioBroadcast (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the references for CAST were specifically after the CAST external source, which seems to make sense, under what conditions would it make sense to actually do reference groups, if not there?Naraht (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How I do? I've created my page yesterday: MIKEREADfr and that's give me a new page on fr:wp ahem, MIKEREADfr; in fact's I've got my own page MIKEREAD and MIKEREADfr now also on fr:wp. It was a few moment, I've change my password, to give the same expexting that will be clearest as usual: MIKEREADfr here and MIKEREAD on fr:wp ... How I do now, it doesn't work. Thank's--MIKEREADfr (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC) finally I' asked to renown my account here as "miguel nocte"--MIKEREADfr (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page (User:MIKEREADfr) is blank, and your talk page (User talk:MIKEREADfr) just has the words "Well well". Your French Wikipedia user page (fr:Utilisateur:MIKEREADfr) does not exist, and your French Wikipedia user talk page (fr:Discussion utilisateur:MIKEREADfr) contains a welcome message, and another message which is about changing your username (I think! My French isn't great!) They suggested asking at the French Wikipedia Bureaucrat Noticeboard (fr:Wikipédia:BB). However, we can't give advice about using the French Wikipedia. You might want to ask your question at the French Wikipedia's Help Desk which is here if you don't want to ask at the 'crat board. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To rename your account, go to WP:CHU -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank' a lot Phantomsteve, brrrr...(french!)--MIKEREADfr (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article that seems to have no categories: Selective school.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know - I have added it quickly to a couple of categories. In future, to add an article to a category, edit it and at the bottom, add [[Category:category-name]] and then save it. Many articles are not in categories, especially if they are relatively new. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use HotCat, available as a gadget from the gadgets tab of your user preferences, or by adding the installation script to your .js file. – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiki -- I am very much a newbie - want to get my band - Harmonious Wail www.wail.com onto Wikipedia -- can I do this or do I need someone else to start the process? thanks -- <e-mail redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmonious wail (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not - please take a look at WP:BAND and WP:COI. – ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to promote your band. May I suggest some other sites, such as www.myspace.com or www.facebook.com? They both are more suited to your purposes. Wikipedia does contain properly written encylopedia articles about notable bands, but it is not advertising those bands in any way. --Jayron32 19:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to repair a broken citation link in the article "John F. Kennedy assassination," but the HTML source for the Notes section of that article says only {{reflist|2}} and does not include the actual citations. How can I make the repair? Thanks. Rl1rl1 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To edit the reference, you'll need to find the corresponding superscript number in the article and edit that section. The reference is located between a <ref> tag and a </ref> tag. TNXMan 19:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the article Voice of Jihad I'm trying to cite http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=34838&tx_ttnews[backPid]=412&no_cache=1 , but the citation comes out garbled, I assume because there are brackets in the url. Is there a way to work around this? Thanks.Prezbo (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to percent encode the brackets— see m:Help:URL#URLs in external links. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new "link inserting" dialog of the upcoming beta will do this when needed btw. Though i just noticed that it's broken for links that have a ] But i have reported this a few minutes ago to the developers. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a quick-and-easy way to find out what articles one has created? Other than remembering to write them down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Special:Contributions/Baseball Bugs. Scroll all the way to the bottom and there's an "articles created" link. TNXMan 00:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful. Thank you! I had not noticed that item before, and I see editors specifically listing pages they've created. No need. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My name is in red fonts? If I have done something wrong please state the exact problems. If it is something else please let me know when my name will return to blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuntrek (talk • contribs)

Your username is blue [red] simply because you have not edited your userpage yet. Simply add something and turn that frown upside down (or your link blue, whichever). TNXMan 00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had to correct an obvious mistake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias, mi amigo. TNXMan 00:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can u get spores from a dead mushrooom thats been stored for a month? if so...how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.125.132 (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. Liquidluck✽talk 02:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of personal research, is there a way to save and export the tables found in Wikipedia to database programs like Microsoft Excel? Joey80 (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]