Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Manderson.utsystem (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 14 December 2009 (→redirect title: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)
    • For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
    • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
    • If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
    • Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
    • For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
    • New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).
    Ask a question


    Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!


    December 11

    Change name on listing for Q (music video director)

    Hi,

    I wanted to change my name to "Director Q(Quattro)" instead of "Q (music video director)" are you able to do this for me?

    Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafilmguru (talk • contribs) 00:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The title is ambiguous, therefore should have a parenthesized phrase describing the subject. It should rarely include proper nouns. Also, we do not use honorifics in titles, as you suggested using "Director". ZooFari 00:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can change the title of an article by using the Move tab. However, Q (music video director) has been nominated for speedy deletion as it does not establish the importance of the subject, and besides that it is unacceptable to Wikipedia in tone and in lack of sources. Furthermore, if you are Q (as it appears from your question above) you should not be editing the article in the first place, as it is a conflict of interest.
    Sorry for this, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place for self-publicity. --ColinFine (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If however, you wish to change your user name, then WP:CHU is the place to go. You might find that they recommend simply abandoning this account and starting another. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not his user name that's the issue, Andrew: that's 'Lafilmguru', and seems unexceptionable to me. It's the article itself: you've nominated it for speedy, though Jayron's declined and suggested WP:AFD, and others have added other cleanup templates; but only from this question here does WP:COI become apparent. --ColinFine (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    I agree with most of that, Colin, but I only made my preceding comment when I looked at the username change request sitting on his userpage. When he says "my anme" in the first sentence of the OP, that's conceivably ambiguous. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    Right. I hadn't seen that. --ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That spam's long overdue for an AfD anyway; could somebody start one (don't have the tools here)? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Now playing at AfD. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you make a wikilink to a category, rather than adding the page to that category? Samwb123T-C-@ 03:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Put a colon. [[:Category:Tests]] will give you Category:Tests. Tim Song (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Samwb123T-C-@ 04:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Search box drop-down: ordering?

    Does anyone know what determines the order of suggestions that drop down when you start typing in the search box? -- saberwyn 05:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no idea, but you might find clues by following links from:
    such as:
    Why do you ask? --Teratornis (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curiosity, stemming from the fact that when I type "HMAS" into the left-hand search box, the results come up in the following order:
    1. HMAS
    2. HMAS Melbourne (R21)
    3. HMAS Sydney (D48)
    4. HMAS Creswell
    5. HMAS Sydney (R17)
    6. HMAS Perth (D29)
    7. HMAS Australia (D84)
    8. HMAS Albatross (air station)
    9. HMAS Canberra (D33)
    10. HMAS Cerberus, Victoria
    There doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason to why these results appear, and in this order. Same in other searches: the ten suggested results are not alphabetical order, and it doesn't appear to be based on the article's assessment or importance rating. -- saberwyn 00:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the order the articles were created?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is based on number of links to articles and if it perfect match or not. --rainman (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Creating a Topic

    I am the IT Administrator for a non-profit organization that has approx. 40 major US Companies as it's members. We are a community of licensors who share best practices for protecting, promoting and enhancing brand integrity. Our visions is to continuously improve brand licensing. This company is less than 10 years old but half of its membership is Fortune 500 and we would like to list our company, its mission, vision and accomplishments. How can I create a page for this company and have sole responsibility for it's content and modifications. If necessary telephone contact with myself and the company Executive Director is possible if necessary for verification of authenticity. Please let me know the best way to do this. I can also provide a link to our main website. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DakotaSurfer (talk • contribs) 06:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You should not create articles for organizations you are affiliated with. See WP:COI. Also, you have no control over any content you post to Wikipedia, see WP:OWN. The upshot is there is no practical way to do what you are asking. If your organization is notable, then someone who has no connection to your organization will likely create an article about it someday. If your organization does not meet the qualifications listed here, or most importantly, the qualifications listed here, then it is not notable enough to merit an article at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 06:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem accessing in site

    Hi,

    Am not able to access the site en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–10_UEFA_Champions_League

    since the HYPHEN is there between 2009 and 10, its getting an error. Please let me know how to access this link.—— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.16.14 (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It works fine for me. Try following this wikilink: 2009–10 UEFA Champions League. -- saberwyn 07:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that Google search is pretty robust against funny characters and so on. Try this search:
    I bookmarked a Google search on Wikipedia in my browser toolbar, and I use it to look up articles on Wikipedia because Google is faster and usually less annoying than any other method I know. Wikipedia's built-in search has improved, but I still like Google better. --Teratornis (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem arises because the character in the title is not a hyphen (-) but something else (–), It looks line an – to me. Is there a policy about using such characters in article titles? Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 09:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See MOS:DASH. 2009-10 UEFA Champions League (with hyphen) redirects to 2009–10 UEFA Champions League (with en dash) so things are in order. I have not heard of other users being unable to access page names with dashes. Which browser or software do you use to try to access the page and what happens? Are you clicking a link to Wikipedia from a Google search results page? That sometimes causes problems for some Internet Explorer users but it doesn't appear related to use of dashes. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cross reference to other languages

    I wonder if the following question was discussed / decided upon in the Wikipedia environment, I surfed a bit around but did not yet find an entry on this.

    Some of us read more then one language. Some of us even contribute to Wikipedia in more then one language.

    My question is: If searching for a certain topic in Wikipedia english and there is no entry in english - why not show that there are entrys (if there are) in other languages, or at least provide a link how to search for entry's in other languages. This would make Wikipedia more international.

    Same question refrased more general: Is there a way to meta -search wikipedia if there is an entry on a certain subject in any language wikipedia? Rembertbiemond (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Short answer: no.
    Longer answer: As far as I am aware, there is no way to search different Wikipedias from this one - it would be hard to keep the indexs updated for 266 (at last count) Wikipedias together, if not almost impossible! Add to this the fact that most searchers wouldn't want to see other-language-Wikipedia results in their search. An interesting question, though! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The closest approximation that comes to mind is that you can search for all the Wikimedia Foundation wikis that display a given image on Wikimedia Commons. For example, an image I uploaded appears on four projects. If you have a particular topic in mind, you can look at image categories on Commons to find images that might appear in articles about that topic. However, this would not help at all with articles that only show images that are on the local Wikipedia and not on Commons. If you are feeling ambitious, you might be able to write a multilingual search tool on the Toolserver - which does try to maintain a central index for all the Wikipedias. Among the many problems you would have to solve would be coming up with a robust method to guess the probable titles of articles for a given topic in all the other language Wikipedias. Given that we don't always find articles under the titles we expect in our native language, that would be a challenge to say the least. --Teratornis (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that a lot of potential articles won't have the same name in different WPs because of language differences. For such a system to make sense, it would need to differentiate between names and other article titles. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the answers so far. Is this something to take to another forum? to let more people reflect on it? I think the idea (suppose others have thought about it also) would especially valuable for other languages then english because for so many people english is their first second language. It would be extremly user friendly when in those countries where almost everybody speaks english as a second language like most countries in europe and you search for a person or topic and have no search result you would get the answer: click here to search for- or to get- an answer in XY lets say english...

    And i dont think it is technically imposseble although i am not a techie. I agree on the point about distinction between names and other topics. Rembertbiemond (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How are you searching? If you use an external search engine and limit the search to wikipedia.org sites, then you can search for names in Wikipedias of any language. You might have to look through a few screens, but if you Google ' "Cristiano Ronaldo" site:wikipedia.org ' then you'll see a few different languages show up. Only works for proper names, of course. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Help.

    Hello,

    I recently wrote a wiki article for one of my favorite bands that I saw didnt have a wikipedia article yet. I can see the article under the "my contributions" tab, but when I search for the band in the search bar on the left, the article doesnt come up. I checked all my grammar, and I have a fairly good writing style, so I guess I trying to figure out if my article was accepted or not, and if not why. Any help here would be greatly appreciated, because I spent a lot of time writing this article and I dont want to have wasted my time for no reason. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfmrock (talk • contribs) 09:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reboot The Robot? SpitfireTally-ho! 10:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The search bar auto-completion can take several days to notice that an article has been created. I wouldn't worry about it. Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 10:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The job queue appears to be rather long right now, so it could take some time. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gadget850: Domas fixed the job queue today, it's back at 150000 jobs now, relatively healthy compared to the 65 million of last week. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're misunderstanding the process, Hfmrock. Your article doesn't have to be 'accepted' - as soon as you created it, it was there in en.Wikipedia for anybody to look at, though as others have said it may be some time before it gets indexed.
    However, your article has a number of problems, which others have noticed and added tags to it for. The most pressing one is about notability: if you are not able to demonstrate that the band is notable (by Wikipedia's criteria) the article will certainly be deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c x2) To clarify, whether an article is found through the search function, as opposed to using the Go Button has nothing to do with acceptability or not of the article, which has indeed been successfully posted by you as an entry in the mainspace of the encyclopedia, where articles reside. Articles will appear through searches once Wikipedia indexes its pages, which can take some time. Please note that the article is deficient in a number of ways. Please read the maintenance tags posted at the top of the article, explore the links provided in them, and reform the article appropriately. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Aligning tables and images

    In List_of_National_Treasures_of_Japan_(sculptures)#Statistics the two tables and one image (map) are properly aligned in firefox, meaning the two tables are one above the other aligned left on the page and the map is positioned right aligned. In IE however the small "Age/National Treasures" table becomes center aligned between the large "Prefecture/City/National Treasures" and covers part of the map. How do I make the three objects aligned properly in any browser without one object covering another? bamse (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking both from Safari and IE8, I cannot see any misalignment. Perhaps it was already fixed? Otherwise, what verison of IE are you using? Intelligentsium 22:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IE8 and a rather small screen (1024x768). The problem is still present. Maybe browsershots can reproduce the result if you don't have a small screen.bamse (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-archiving a discussion

    Is there any policy against the moving of an archived discussion back onto an active talk page? I ask because my last one was auto-archived while I was taking my time to make a response. Thanks in advance -- Chelydramat (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure about any policy statement on this, but in general practice I think it's OK to bring back a discussion if it was auto-archived after a short period of time. If a thread has been inactive for more than a few days it might be better to start a new thread.
    Note however, that the term "archiving" can be applied to a discussion that has been closed. This can be done if the discussion is off-topic, in bad faith, or for other reasons, and is usually denoted by a coloured box appearing in the background and some text above the thread. I don't think that's what you're describing, but I hope to avoid any misunderstanding. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Page created not posted

    Yesterday I created a page called Nutrition Department. I did not complete it before I needed to logout. Now I can't find how to get back to it. I saved it several times while I was writing it. Please don't tell me that work is lost. Can you tell me how to navigate to it? Thanks.Nutritiondept (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'm afraid it is lost. By the time you posted this, this account had only one other edit ([1]). The page Nutrition Department was never created. You probably couldn't have saved it properly, and there is no way to retrieve it unless you have saved it offline somewhere. There's nothing we can do about it. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 17:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The most common cause of this problem is that you clicked on the Show Preview button instead of the Save Page Button:


    If you do not click on Save Page, the edit will not be kept. You have not created any pages from the account you are using, so unless you saved a local copy, the work has been lost. --Mysdaao talk 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I did click Save Page several times while I was working on it. I thought that since I was in the user section of wiki that it would save it to a place where I could retrieve it. This is my first attempt to write an article, so I'm a little challenged with the navigation. Since I saved it, is it hiding somewhere? Nutritiondept (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not listed in your contributions, so it would appear not. – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Your contribution history (here) shows that you have 4 edits (1 to the Sandbox, 3 to this page). As I am not an admin, I can't see if you have any deleted contributions. I would have suggested that perhaps it had been deleted, but Chamal_N above is an admin, and would have seen it. This must mean that you didn't save the page - it is very easy to click on "Show Preview" instead of "Save Page" by mistake - I think most of us have done it, even if we have a bit of experience here! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just gone back through 12 pages (of 500 items) of deleted - that's back to the middle of the 9th. Nothing there, checked for strings "nutr" and "depa" - in case it was miss-spelled. Same result in "new pages". Did the page actually save? - i.e after saving you would have had to select "edit" again to edit some more. Also sorry to add even more woes, but if the article is about a company/organisation, then your user name could be in violation of user name policy - see WP:ORGNAME.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And are you absolutely sure you were editing here on the English Wikipedia? There are many mirrors and forks of Wikipedia, as well as thousands of other wikis running on the same MediaWiki software, many of which look very similar to Wikipedia. You could try scrolling back through your Web browser's history to see what pages you have recently visited. You should try working through the Wikipedia tutorial so you are familiar with basic editing. Also note that new articles by new users are very likely to get deleted because Wikipedia has complex rules for content, and few new users will guess the rules correctly without reading our friendly manuals first. See WP:YFA and WP:BFAQ. --Teratornis (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you mean this draft in a subpage of your userspace?LeadSongDog come howl 21:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That subpage was created just 10 minutes before you posted the link so I doubt it. – ukexpat (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And 5 minutes after Teratornis' comment, which was the last one before yours. As Ronhjones is an admin who has carefully checked the deleted logs, we know it didn't exist in at least the last 50 hours. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that I have reported the user name to WP:UAA as the user page clearly indicates it is a group/multi-user account in violation of WP:ORGNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've therefore popped a {{uw-username}} on his talk page - maybe (s)he will change their name to a more suitable one.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked Soxred93's edit counter and it reported that 4 edits made by the user had been deleted. Perhaps an oversighter deleted the revision in question? --TheGrimReaper 11:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has 4 deleted edits that are visible to administrators and not oversighted. All 4 were made after the user posted here. It was creation and editing of User:Nutritiondept and User:Nutritiondept/drafts. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has been blocked as promotional.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 14:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Report corporate sock-puppets

    How does one go about reporting a user who's sole purpose appears to be to promote a particular group, company, or other interest?--Anthonzi (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See Requests for administrator attention. Please do not actually edit that page; it is only for directing you to the correct page. For sockpuppets, see WP:SPI. Intelligentsium 23:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Signature

    Hi i was wondering how do i change my signature as u can see my username is Brianwazere but my signature for signing comments is Brian Moore,how can i change it?? brian moore (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, if you read Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing_your_signature, that should help you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    December 12

    IE8 behaving strangely

    I have experimented with browsing certain articles using other browsers, and looking at the Bear article in IE8, there seems to be a lot of whitespace. However, looking again with Safari, the whitespace is gone. My concern is not that specific article, but overall. We have received this kind of complaint continually. Is there a way to "fix" Wikipedia to be compatible with all browsers? Intelligentsium 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, first, IE8 doesn't have the best track record for "working". Second, I just tried out your example of Bear in IE8, both in normal and Beta, and found nothing out of the ordinary. About making pages work cross-browser: I hear there are ways to do it, but with IE8 the way it is, not very many people are willing to do it. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 04:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Search suggestions. Please, please, please how to get rid of them!

    Please how do I disable the search suggestions? I am referring to the AJAX thing that tries to predict what you are searching for and displays a drop down list of the predicted search strings. This is very, very annoying. I promise I will donate good money to Wikipedia, which I have very little of, if Wikipedia provides a way to disable this. Even if there is already a way to disable this, like in Google, and I am made aware of it by a response to this message I am typing, I pledge to donate $50 to Wikipedia. That is probably like a third of my Christmas gift budget this year. That is how annoying it is. I am not the only one who wants this. I have been googling, trying to find out how to disable this and all I find is many other people who hate these auto-suggestions as much as I do and with no answer to how to stop them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.251.112 (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Registered editors can disable these from their "My Preferences" menu, under the "Search Options" tab. That said, I don't know how an unregistered visitor can disable these. -- saberwyn 04:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They cannot. Unregisterred users don't have any preferences. If they want preferences, they can register an account. Membership has its privileges. --Jayron32 05:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I figured out you can just disable Javascript. But I guess I will go ahead and donate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.251.112 (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you don't want to register an account, another option is to search Wikipedia with Google instead of using Wikipedia's search box. If you search Wikipedia often, bookmark the search and add it to your browser's bookmarks toolbar. --Teratornis (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While a donation is appreciated, his isn't American Expre$$. You don't have to pay to register. Heck, you don't even have to pay cash to serve as an administrator. Oh, but you will pay and pay and pay, in time, and frustration dealing with unhappy people, but that's true of a lot of public service jobs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, bug 13848. --rainman (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reference issue

    Hi, I have created and edited a page "Economic integration effects", but have no idea how to fix a reference problem. please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdalimov (talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding a references section and reflist list will correct this. I went ahead and set it up onto the page. Honestly, the citing is usually the more difficult portion to get down and you did quite well with that:) Kindly Calmer Waters 09:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    where to Recommendations to Template:itn

    where to Recommendations to Template:itn ?-58.152.253.54 (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Go to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 10:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I edit the scientific classification section on an article?

    I noticed an error in the scientific classification of Acer platanoides but I'm unable to find a method of editing this section. Is it possible to do so? Poshmoog (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Click the "edit this page" tab at top of Acer platanoides. The following code is currently there:
    {{taxobox
|image = Spitz-Ahorn(mbo).jpg.JPG
|image_caption = Norway Maple leaves
|regnum = [[Plantae]]
|unranked_divisio = [[Angiosperms]]
|unranked_classis = [[Eudicots]]
|unranked_ordo = [[Rosids]]
|ordo = [[Sapindales]]
|familia = [[Sapindaceae]]
|genus = ''[[Maple|Acer]]''
|species = '''''A. platanoides'''''
|binomial = ''Acer platanoides''
|binomial_authority = [[Carolus Linnaeus|L.]]
|range_map = Acer platanoides.png
|range_map_caption = Distribution
|}}
    You can change the things to the right of '=' but normally not to the left. See Template:Taxobox. What do you want to change? There are some rules, for example about following systems in Wikipedia and matching the name of Wikipedia articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the response. I just wanted to change the family name. It's Aceraceae not Sapindaceae. Once again, thanks for your help, it's very much appreciated! Poshmoog (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't appear to be that simple. It's not my subject but have you read Sapindaceae and Aceraceae? It's good if Wikipedia has consistency between articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Refrain from donating

    Sir,
    I am a 69 year old pensioner, if I refrain from donating will this limit my usage of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.59.135 (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Donating is voluntary and has no effect on your usage of Wikipedia. Most users don't donate. The site has no advertisements (except asking for donations!) and is run by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation which needs donations for some things like servers and a small staff. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    connecting copywright info to image

    I have uploaded a photo in the article, "Ferdinand A. Brader" I own both the original drawing and the photo which I took. How do I get it OK'd Also, I do I get it to be larger in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katmaan (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just so you can search more easily, it's spelled "copyright". Just because you bought the drawing does not mean you bought the right to copy it. It would depend on the chain of transactions from the artist to you. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to upload the image as a file. Try clicking the Upload file link in the toolbox on the left side of your screen. Once the file is uploaded, then go back to the article and add [[File:whateverfilenameyougaveit.ext|thumb|caption text here]]. Assuming the original image is either a photo of Mr. Brader or a photo of one of his works, it is almost certainly in the public domain due to age. When you upload it, you should give it a license tag indicating as much, probably {{pd-old}} if the creator died more than 100 years ago but possibly {{pd-us}} if it was published before 1923 or {{pd-art}} if it is a photo that is just of 2-dimensional public domain art, not including any frames or other items.
    By the way, I reverted your edits, they were causing layout problems on Ferdinand A. Brader. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I put an image you uploaded, File:Gindelsberger1.jpg into the article. I also added public-domain copyright tags but I'm not sure if those are the right ones. They are good enough to keep the image from being deleted as a copyright violation but they may be more restrictive than necessary. Do you know the exact year this photo was published and the exact year the artist died? If not, can you say for sure that it was published "no later than ___" and the at the artist died "no later than ___"? This can help put the right public-domain tag on it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a tutorial for the cite court template?

    I'm trying to use the template to appropriately cite this case: [2]. This is what I've got so far: {{cite court |litigants=Inouye v. Kemna |vol= |reporter= |opinion= |pinpoint=11889 |court=9th Cir. |date=7 September 2007 url=http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/09/07/0615474.pdf}}

    I'm not at all certain how to find the volume and reporter, and I'm not sure what the difference between the opinion and the pinpoint is. Also curious to know if there is a list of abbreviations for the different courts? -- Scarpy (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You might find helpful information at Case citation and in the examples listed here. LeadSongDog come howl 18:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Template:Cite court/doc, which (briefly) explains the template's parameters and includes a few usage notes. Xenon54 / talk / 18:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There may be editors knowing more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unable to log in OR create account

    Despite spending ages trying I then get message " Already Taken" Sign In When I do message says " Username or password incorrect !! What's going on ??

    H Reast <--email--@--blanked--> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.170.137 (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It sounds like somebody else has already taken the name you wanted. You'll have to choose another username which has not been taken. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Another possibility is that someone has a username very similar to yours and the software won't allow you to register it. You can check if a username is already registered by going to Special:ListUsers and searching for the name you want. If it's not taken, go to Wikipedia:Request an account. If it is taken, you will have to pick a new name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    December 13

    Adding New Page Request - Please make a new page!

    Most people are confusing about the once respected "American Conservatory of Music."

    I would like to suggest that Wikipedia should have a seperate headword about the topic. I don't know how to make a new page (or make them seperate by 2 direction words):

    1. American Conservatory of Music (in the State of Illinois: Accredited Period) Original Old school NOTE: Notable Almini should be listed here!

    NEW PAGE!!! 2. American Conservatory of Music (in the State of Indiana: Non-accredied Status) Present NOTE: Please make sure the school is not accredited by Federal & State level. It's not internationally accredited either. No accreditation. they just want money by awarding the highest degree, masters, doctors, etc.

    Some people are trying to deceive people by using the old image of this slippery conservatory. So don't let the public mix it up.

    Before relocating to the Indiana, Chicago Sun Times had reported their activity in Illinois very well. The following is the typical fraud sctivity report:

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4375260.html

    Conservatory con man back with new scheme Chicago Sun-Times; Mar 20, 1997; Raymond R. Coffey "Remember Richard Schulze, the amazingly elusive, big ticket, coast-to-coast con man who used to run the once-respectable American Conservatory of Music in downtown Chicago? Apparently he still runs it - but with a new address, yet another corporation (this one chartered in Las Vegas) and another pitch to shake money out of alumni, students and friends of the conservatory. This time around, Schulze is trying to raise $60,000 via a "private" shareholder offering in a "limited liability" company named Conservatory Partners LLC. To anyone familiar with his past and the current status of the conservatory, the brochure and letter promoting the pitch reads like classic con-artist poetry. In ..."

    Most people try to defend it by using religious status in connection with the ecclesiastical charter of the Orthodox Church in Belize. But the Schulze family is coast-to-coast con-artists. This is just a loophole of the state laws.

    So, I strongly suggest to make a new page for non-accredited ACM in Indiana. I don't know how to make a new page. Please help the public with correct image.

    This sham school is still insisting the founder of NASM (federal accreditation organization = NASM: National Association of Schools of Music). Regarding NASM status, please check NASM handbook:

    http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/site/docs/Handbook/NASM_HANDBOOK_2009-10_DEC2009.pdf

    Here's the quotation from the official handbook:

    The National Association of Schools of Music was founded in 1924 for the purpose of securing a better understanding among institutions of higher education engaged in work in music; of establishing a more uniform method of granting credit; and of setting minimum standards for granting of degrees and other credentials. It is incorporated in the State of Ohio as a non-profit organization. The work of the Association during its early years was financed largely by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. In November of 1975, representatives of member institutions ratified proposals creating a category of membership for non-degree-granting institution.

    They never mention the relation with American Conservatory of Music. The original ACM was one of the member in the beginning period.

    Make a new page for the present non-accredited ACM. And wait and see. You will know who's trying to deceive.

    This is for better the education in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelly099 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both incarnations of this school can be covered in the existing article American Conservatory of Music, on whose talk page discussion can continue.
    I have blocked User:Shelly099 for sockpuppetry. --Orlady (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ? problem with map & coord rendering

    Does anyone know if there is a problem currently with the way wikipedia is placing red dot coordinates on maps? I have been updating articles in West Somerset and noticed that the red dot displayed on the maps for Brompton Regis, Exton, Somerset etc fall outside the county boundary on the map. I have checked the coords given on streetmap and they are correct so I wondered if it is a wider systemic problem related to wikipedia's software?— Rod talk 10:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Which browser and version are you using, and which Wikipedia skin are you currently using ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm using Firefox (3.5.5) & default skin (whatever that is called).— Rod talk 12:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The red dot is in the right place when using IE8 & not logged in & in Firefox when not logged in - so it is something about the settings once logged in.— Rod talk 13:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to have been a problem with importScript('User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js') in monobook js - help being received thro IRC.— Rod talk 15:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock puppets

    How do I deal with a sock? Should I tag the sock and sockmaster, or is that for admins? If I should, then where do I find the tag templates? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 11:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Proving someone is a sock requires experience. It is probably a good idea to bring it to the attention of administrators. Also, if you were to tag them on your own, they're likely to accuse you of bad faith. - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This case is cut and dried. I have a lot of anti-vandal experience using huggle. A user kept posting spam links, and I kept reverting. Then an IP address popped up and put the same spam links on the same page. I put a template on the IP address' page, see here. What warning should be placed on the sockmaster's page? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 11:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I would go to Wikipedia:Sock puppet investigations and let them check it out. If it is verified, the notice will be put on the user's pages when they are blocked. The case is only definitively cut-and-dried when a checkuser has confirmed that they are indeed sock/sockmaster. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point; then it's cut and drying :o) I'll post an ARV now. Thanks. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 17:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Uploading pictures

    So, I expanded an existing article about the author Patrick French as an unregistered user. that was last week. I would now like to upload a picture of the author on to his page but I can't figure out how. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandakinigahlot1984 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you want to add an existing image to an article, add [[Image:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information.
    • If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must find out what the proper license of the image is. If you know the image is licensed under a free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure what license the image takes, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy. I hope this helps. --Mysdaao talk 14:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Shrinking Display

    Either my eyes have suddenly failed or every thing has shrunk to the edge of legibility. I use Foxfire, no other sites I use have reduced their font size (so it's not my setting). Have you shifted font, changed size, and announced it somewhere I didn't notice.

    Dan Eaves 114.77.126.19 (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that I'm aware of, you may like to check that you haven't accidentally adjusted the zoom level on your browser. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Try holding down Ctrl and then pressing + a couple of times. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 14:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The common reason for this is pressing control and rotating the mouse wheel. It took me ages to work out what happened the first few times! Isonomia (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    how to get authorised

    Every time I try to do a minor edit, I find I can't because the page is semi-protected and I don't yet have a ten-edit history. So how to achieve those ten edits? What proportion of pages is semi-protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpinehermit (talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This page displays all semi-protected pages on the en Wikipedia. You can request to become "confirmed" here which will enable you to edit those pages. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Ironically, this was your tenth edit, and you're now autoconfirmed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    + ::Their user rights log says differently? [3] Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My bad. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you help me with a word? "Feeder school"

    Hello :) I am from Germany and contributing to a atricle about a school in my country the Gymnasium (Germany). People from other countries sometimes wrongly assume that the Gymnasium is a school for the gifted and/or that it is the only way to college in Germany. Both assumptions however are wrong. There are 50 ways to college and Gymnasien are only one of those, what distinguishes them from other schools are college is that

    • 1)nearly everybody attending a Gymnasium is college bound, while of the students attending other schools some are collegebound and some are not and
    • 2)that a person graduating from a Gymnasium will by accepted by any college, while students graduating from other schools may not be accepted by some colleges

    Is there a school in the english-speaking world this could be compared to? Would "prep school" be a good word? Also would it be possible to call a school like this "feeder school". The english article about feeder schools states "some college preparatory high schools and community colleges are designed to feed local universities". Gymnasien are not designed to feed local universities, but all of them. Thank you :) --Greatgreenwhale (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think "academically selective" might be a useful phrase; I assume that Gymnasien are at least somewhat selective in admissions? Some sort of entrance test? Feeder schools are usually aligned with a particular school or set of schools; if a person who graduates from a Gymnasium might go to any university in the country, then that's probably not a helpful phrase. Offhand, I can't think of another current system that has a tier of schools like this, only examples of high-performing schools. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your answers. So, i won't call it feeder school. Actually admission procedures vary very much by Bundesland and Gymnasium (Gymnasium_(Germany)#Admittance_into_a_Gymnasium), but few Gymnasien do have real entrance exams. Many have interviews, but that's not really a test.
    So, I am not sure if "academically selective" is the right word. They pick their students, but some say they don't pick on merit.
    So, do you think "prep school" also would be the wrong word? Or may be "grammar school"?
    --Greatgreenwhale (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks as if 'prep school' might be the right phrase for North American readers, but it is strongly misleading for British readers: in the UK a prep school is a private junior school (up to age 13 or so), whose pupils generally proceed to a public school (i.e. a private school). Grammar school would probably be better for UK readers, though it doesn't correspond exactly. --ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the voting secret to the general public?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/80

    Wikipedia can be confusing or there can be little known features that an ordinary editor doesn't know about. Is the casting of a vote secret? I mean, besides Jimbo Wales, IT people, checkusers, ArbCom, oversighters, whom I presume have the technical means to peek and see how people vote, not that they necessarily would.

    Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I know, a record of who voted is publicly accessible. You can go to Special:SecurePoll, hit List, and find out that I voted today. However, whether or not a record of how everyone voted is available to someone is unclear. In a perfect world, the results would be tallied by the software and no person besides the voter would ever see how they voted. The extension's page on the main MediaWiki wiki is incredibly unhelpful in this regard, so this would be an interesting village pump question for the developers. Xenon54 / talk / 20:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "Edit page" header...

    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How can you make a page have a "header" before the editing box (like the "This page is only for questions about using Wikipedia" here)? I did it before and now I can't remember how... Mononomic (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Editnotice has everything you want to know, and perhaps a bit more. You'll need an admin to do this on any page except a user or user talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much. Mononomic (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it possible to edit and article when there is no "Edit this Page" tab?

    I've found a mistake in an article which didn't have an "Edit this Page" tab. Is it possible to make a correction? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyjohnsonkurts (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you haven't given us an article name, we can only give you generic advice. You are a new user (your first edit is to this page), so the most likely reason of a missing "edit this page" tab is that the page is protected. Semiprotected pages can be edited by any autoconfirmed user (any user whose account is 4 days old and has at least 10 edits), while fully protected pages can only be edited by an administrator. Xenon54 / talk / 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can, however, go to its 'Talk' page and add a comment there explaining the change you would make (and giving a source if appropriate). --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    December 14

    Page ordering snafu

    Resolved

    100 yard dash has something odd going on. The references appear above a table of runners of said dash; but the underlying code has the refs at the bottom of the page. What's going on? How to solve? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The wikitable on that page was not closed, which historically leads to "funny stuff" happening on pages. I have closed it with the standard "|}". Intelligentsium 00:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well spotted - thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Earth images

    Is it allowable to use Google Earth screenshots on Wikipedia? I'm trying to get my hands on images for a lot of streams that don't have images on Wikipedia, and there's very few places where I can find them, so is it allowed to just rip something off GE and upload it? Should it be under a fair use license? Thanks, Shannontalk contribs 01:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Earth images are copyrighted, and as such generally can't be used. I also don't think that it'd work as fair use, at least in my opinion, as it wouldn't usually be impossible to obtain a free image (like a photograph of a stream or whatever). AlexiusHoratius 01:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However, Google states that Google Earth images are licensed for non-commercial use, and Wikipedia isn't a commercial endeavor; it is for non profit, so would that license apply to Wikipedia? Shannontalk contribs 02:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While Wikipedia is not commercial, when we're talking free images, it means that people should be able to reuse them outside of Wikipedia too. - 131.211.211.171 (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur - Wikipedia's licence means that anyone can use any content for any purpose including commercial use - so although Wikipedia isn't commercial, end-users of Wikipedia's content could be, so we can't use the images. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, no. See File:BD-propagande-2 (en).jpg and Commons:COM:L#Acceptable licenses. What specifically are you trying to find images of? Did you try searching with {{Flickr free}}? Did you read the links under WP:EIW#Maps? --Teratornis (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Earth images do not come under a free license, so we can't use them here. However, there's a somewhat similar software, NASA World Wind, that we can use. Images created with this software are normally in the public domain and can be uploaded either here or at commons with {{PD-WorldWind}}. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see NASA's Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth. Examples: Commons:Category:Astronaut photography of Earth. --Teratornis (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Policy about CAM/Alternative Medicine

    Is it Wiki policy that all articles about CAM/Alternative Medicine should include reference to Fringe Theories and Pseudoscience? Or is there some distinction about when these reference are to be included? ThanksQuantummech (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what CAM is but the general term "alternative medicine" includes some very serious non-Western or non-MD-type forms of medicine and healing, including but not limited to chiropractic medicine and acupuncture. The term also includes things which are so far off the wall the fringe theorists think they are nuts. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cam (disambiguation) lists Complementary and Alternative Medicine; is that what you mean by "CAM"? You can ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine to get opinions from people who edit these articles, and read the archived talk pages there for prior discussion. Also see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. --Teratornis (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And see WP:FRINGE. --Teratornis (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia and the News

    Apologies in advance if I'm not in the right section, but is there like a tool or bot or something of that nature that can be used to determine if an article here is being linked to from a major news network page or newspaper site? I recall seeing templates about articles that have been the subject of news stories, but I am not sure if those templates are added manual or by some sort of script/bot/tool. I ask because the recent UAV that went public a few days ago has a caused an article within milhist's scope to garner over 150,000 hits in less than 7 days, which seems to imply that our article's been linked to somewhere, but I am unsure of where and would like to know if the capacity exists here to find out before rolling up my arms and net surfing to find the answer. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also not aware of such a facility, but The Wikipedia Signpost regularly features an "In The News" section - and suggestions for the next issue can be left here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    .ws domain

    Google page under .ws (Domains) is out of date 10 years with Wikipedia.

    Website .ws was originally owned by the Samoan Government and was known as .ws (Western Samoa). Global Domains International (USA Company) purchased the name in 1999 and now are a Global company operating under .ws (websites)

    The association of .ws with Samoa is totally incorrect and needs adjustment to provide accurate up to date information. 

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.175.75 (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Signing Issues

    Resolved
     – Mysdaao talk 13:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if this is the right place to put it, but here goes... whenever I sign by typing the four tidles, it appears as it should with my name as I want it (Douglas) and the date and time, however it's not a link to my Userpage like a lot of other peoples are. Is this because I'm logged in as me and hence I don't need to click my name, or is it because I am doing something wrong? Thanks muchly for any help! (and if this is the wrong spot, feel free to move it to the correct one) Douglas 12:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcarriso (talk • contribs)

    It sounds like you have a custom signature that isn't working right. Click my preferences on the top right of the screen, and look under "Signature". Either edit the signature in the box, or uncheck "Sign my name exactly as shown". --Mysdaao talk 13:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Sign my name exactly as shown" box was unchecked, but I checked it and put the Wikicode in manually so now it should appear correctly (it does in the Sandbox at any rate) Thanks for your help :) Douglas 13:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome! --Mysdaao talk 13:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    INR option is not available.

    Hi , I would like to donate wikipedia but i couldnt find INR Indian Rupees Option on the page. Regards, Anshul Sethiya <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.125.67 (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There are other ways to give listed at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give/en, such as by check. --Mysdaao talk 12:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was actually on 4th December, but the only suggestion was as above. It was also mentioned in November 2007 (here) which mentions sending a che(ck|que), but there are charges involved with that. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Formal Request for a high level Review of Climate Articles to find out whether lobby groups are editing

    I have for some time thought that some editors on climate articles are just too prolific and to coordinated to just be coincidental. It's like the old pick-pocket trick - one takes your purse, and though you know who took it, there's no proof, because they work as a team.

    Having read the climategate emails, I wasn't aware that some of the key scientists themselves actively engaged on websites (e.g. Michael Mann seems to run RealClimate.com) and so this has put a whole new perspective on e.g. this article. If I had the opportunity, what I would like to do is to check the emails, IP posting sites of all the editors on the climate articles e.g. Global Warming, global warming controversy, and climategate (whatever it's been called) to see whether there was any pattern which would suggest certain editors or groups of editors are effectively commenting on their own "work".

    I am also very suspicious of the insistence of some editors that all material should be "peer reviewed" - because as we see in the climategate emails, the peer review process in climate science has been manipulated by the climategate people to exclude those who might "make trouble" as another email puts it. This seems to be another strand of the orchestrated campaign that I've seen going on for many years.

    So:

    1. The evidential basis has been skewed at its root by the climategate people
    2. Wikipedia articles have been prevented from using anything but this skewed "peer reviewed" material
    3. I believe that many editors are either climategate "scientists" or people who work for these "scientists" - and many others are workers for the many green activist groups - again groups who aren't backward in using orchestrated campaigns of political action to achieve their goals.

    So I think it is time that Wikipedia had a formal review of the editors on climate articles to see if Wikipedia is being manipulated by these groups (and let's not be coy it is possible that some skeptics are orchestrated - after all who am I?). The formal review should ask itself: is there evidence of collusion and if so, the worst culprits should be removed and clearly if collusion is proven, I think it is also right that those who have been banned trying to stop this POV push should receive an open amnesty. Let's have a clean slate, and really I can see why people like "scibaby" have had to go to such lengths - normally you can't condone sock puppets, but in light of the apparent misuse of Wikipedia I think there should be a general amnesty even though in the case of Scibaby it's likely (s)he will probably get themselves banned very quickly again, but at least it will this time be for breaking the rules, not for opposing the climategate editors. Isonomia (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And of course I'm going to be asked to produce evidence of POV. The clearest most simple evidence is that the climate hasn't warmed significantly since the turn of the century. It has definitely cooled since 1998, it has cooled since the IPCC report at the beginning of the century, and there is 0.03C/decade warming if your century starts in 2000 - "paused" is a NPOV view of the climate "real current warming" which is the impression you get on climate article is bogus POV. There are two possible explanations for the pause/cooling:
    1. there is underlying warming which is being masked by larger natural cooling (which suggests it is temporary).
    2. the theory of manmade global warming has been tested against real data and found wanting.
    A neutral article would explore these possible explanations because both these are interesting subjects in themselves. But if you read all the climate articles, you get no sense at all that there is any debate about the current "pause" in the climate. But if you read the climategate emails, you find this a common theme of discussion. public "it's warming", private "we can't explain the decline". This is pure and simple POV ... pure and simple propaganda.
    There is also much more, such as questions about the adjustment made to temperature data, the factual existence of the 1970s scare on cooling (I watched the BBC documentary - I know it was real!) - the point being that sincere scientists jumped to a conclusion and if it happened once why not again? I could also mention the way the reduction in atmosphere pollution is know to have raised the temperature of the climate, but you wouldn't pick up on this in the climate articles, (but again it is mentioned in the emails as being as large a contributor or larger than CO2). Isonomia (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no process to review editors like you describe. There is a place for voluntary reviews at Wikipedia:Editor review, but each user has to put himself or herself up for review there. And the Wikimedia Foundation is certainly not going to release the information you want (e-mails, IP addresses) of editors because that's a breach of their privacy policy (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy) which says that such information can only be released in very specific circumstances, and this wouldn't apply.
    Besides, it doesn't matter if the editors involved are members of activist groups. All Wikipedia editors are treated the same and must abide by the same rules. The reason they are asking for peer-reviewed material is because it is part of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources says "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." and "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available." Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable sources says "In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."
    In response to your other comments, the Help Desk is not the place to have long discussions on problems you see in specific articles. The first place to bring up these issues is the articles' talk pages, but I see you've already been doing that. If you don't feel that's enough, I suggest bringing up these issues at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to ask the community if the articles are compliant with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. --Mysdaao talk 15:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rollbacking

    Whats the difference between [rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)]?Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 14:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    These are features of Twinkle. The description of each link is on Twinkle's documentation page at Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Difference between revisions. --Mysdaao talk 14:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism standards

    I've recently been using Twinkle to do some recent changes patrolling (mainly for vandalism), and I'm just wondering how far AGF goes. I identified this edit, where someone has added jumbled letters to the middle of a word, as vandalism and reverted it. I could imagine, however, that someone may have done this as a test edit, and that a new user might be put off by having a test edit labeled as vandalism. Could a more experienced recent changes patroller give me some guidance here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lear's Fool (talk • contribs) 14:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well even if it is a test edit its still vandalism, and the user needs to know that.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 14:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But please remember, they may have intended to "revert it" and did not know how. Assume good faith - tell them that it is vandalism, but please be gentle because I remember being jumped on by editors when I started and it was a horrific experience! Isonomia (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a test edit is not vandalism. Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism". If you aren't certain that the edit is deliberate vandalism, then assume good faith but still revert it. For the case given, since that was the very first edit made by the IP address, I would say there's no way to know for sure it's a bad faith edit, so it's better to assume it's not. --Mysdaao talk 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Linking IP adresses to Username

    I edited some pages before and after creating an username from 2 different IP Addresses.. How can I link those changes from the IP Addresses to my Username?

    --Coquidragon (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It used to be possible, but hasn't been since 2005. Your IP edits cannot be assigned to your user name, I'm afraid. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But as the page says, you can list your contributions made with the IP addresses on your user page. --Mysdaao talk 15:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Template double direct problems

    Help! I moved the original template

    to

    . I intend to create similar templates for all the provinces of Canada. Anyway, I then created categories for the Protected Areas template, and then edited Aigle-à-Tête-Blanche Ecological Reserve to show the Protected areas template directly. Now the article also shows up in the categories and . Why is the article also being placed in those categories, when I did not specify those categories in the article itself? I don't know enough code to understand how this is happening. Is it due to the infobox at the top? How should I fix this? Thanks for any help. Jllm06 (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    When you added the category with this edit, you put the new category, along with the original category and the interlanguage link, outside the <noinclude></noinclude> tag. Any text within the noinclude tag is prevented from being transcluded onto the pages using the template. Because the category is not within the tag, it is added to the pages using it, like Aigle-à-Tête-Blanche Ecological Reserve. If you move the two categories and the interlanguage link between <noinclude> and </noinclude>, they won't be added to pages using the template. --Mysdaao talk 16:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    The template had two categories and an interwiki at the bottom:

    I moved them to a documentation subpage so that the articles will not show in them. The template still includes Category: Parks in Quebec, so articles will show in that category. if this is not desireable, the it should be discussed on the template talk. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, my question is regarding the copyright status of the image I want to upload. Actually, I wish to upload an image of a notable person whose article is on wikipedia but his image is available on a state government website where no copyight information is to be found (anywhere in the website). So, what do I do? *Truth* (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You can either assume it is under copyright and treat it as a WP:FAIRUSE image, which generally doesn't allow for images of living people. Or, you can find another image that you know is under a free license or in the public domain. If the person is or every has been a government employee or official, there may be a free image on a federal web site or in book printed by the feds. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with DavidWR: just to clarify, creative works (including images) are automatically copyrighted, unless the creator actively specifies that they are not. So if you can't find licensing information pertaining to an image it's unlikely to be available for free use. (See WP:COPY for more.) Gonzonoir (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I just ask if the person in question is still alive? As a general rule, if the person is alive, then pictures found on websites which are under copyright (the basic rule of thumb here is if the site does not specifically state that the content is not under copyright, the contents will be copyrighted) cannot be used under the "fair use" provisions, as it would be possible for someone to take a picture of the individual in question. If you are referring to Shesh Paul Vaid, then it could be argued that with the level of protection around him, it is unlikely that you would be able to approach him and take a photo! My advice would be to contact the website with the photo, and (using the guidelines at WP:IOWN and the consent form at WP:CONSENT) get permission to use the specific picture. If you need help or advice on this, feel free to ask on my talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    redirect title

    I created a new page at User:Manderson.utsystem/Intercultural Communicative Competence in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning and then after it was edited by our team, moved the page to Intercultural Communicative Competence in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. A search for "Intercultural Communicative Competence in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning" brings up the correct page and URL but with the title User:Manderson.utsystem/Intercultural Communicative Competence in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. I'd rather the "User:Manderson.utsystem/" not be shown as it implies I was solely responsible for the content. Should I go through the "move A to C, delete A, move C to A" process?

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=331640751"