Wikipedia:Help desk: Difference between revisions

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.
• 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.

Ask a question

January 7

Old vandalism or typo?

Someone asked on the talk page for the Nina Hartley article about a claim that she was charged with "felony lesbianism". That bit of text has been in the article since at least as far back as March 2009. I'm hesitant to check the source due to the nature of Hartley's occupation combined with the fact that I'm at work. So, would anyone mind checking the source to see what's up with this "felony lesbianism"? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 02:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be accurate, but the citation was to a glorified blog. I had to delete, under BLP, to await better sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

IP address posting / abuse.

Hi.

My old account 45g was unfairly blocked, and the resulting harassment from cross Wiki sites is currently being investigated as TOS violations at my request.

Public IP address posting isn't really allowed, nor do I appreciate being abused by morons from Encyclopedia Dramatica. I had to sue them for TOS violations and for breech of the privacy policy of the internet.

An IP address is not a sock puppet.

This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Grace_Saunders

However, there's a bunch of crap on the talk pages of these wrongfully titled "sock puppets" which I cannot delete. It also has my real IP address in the logs. Can you erase the talk page so only the blank page comes up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:45g

Check 45g's edit history to see the case where my IP was posted without my consent.

If you look here, you will also see where they tried to edit war with staff.

Grace Saunders. Check history editing. An IP address beginning with a 6 edited it the most, to spam.

Posted using 50.16.118.58 from public diner.

Thank you.50.16.118.58 (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Please delete once resolved.

A couple of points. Firstly, ED has no connection with us. Secondly, IP addresses can be sockpuppets, it means they are being used to get around a block. I'm not going to comment any further as I do not have the time to look into this further at the moment, someone else hopefully will. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 06:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have some vague memories of this case. 45g maintained a massive sockfarm, noted in the sockpuppet investigation noted above, and repeatedly disrupted the SPI in question. Claims of being "unfairly blocked" are ludicrous. Even if that is true, he still should not be editing and instead needs to raise these issues with WP:BASC instead of coming here. If a person has a blocked account, even if they think the block is unfair, they may not edit Wikipedia. Period. Either request an unblock via the blocked account's talk page, or email arbcom as described at WP:BASC. Not thinking the block was fair is not liscence to violate Wikipedia's policies by continuing to edit under IP addresses or other accounts. End of discussion. --Jayron32 06:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum. NOW I know why I remember this case. there is still the issue of this legal threat which is why the initial disruption block was extended to an indefinite. --Jayron32 06:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I will be taken legal action. Why? Because you STILL have not shown me how to request unblocking, nor have you removed the accounts and the page I wrote to HQ about. Plus that jackass Michael person STILL keeps tagging me and is harassing me on ED. So next week, I will be taken legal action for TOS abuse on both ED and Wikipedia, even if you are not related. Same shit, DIFFERENT website. So on Monday, I'll be looking to sue The Wikipedia Foundation and ED for not deleting the talk page. Understood?50.16.21.191 (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

But if you comply, I won't have to do anything. This would really just waste my time and your time. Also, I'm getting lots of good evidence. So don't reply with back chat or say this is an empty threat. Just go here if u think I'm lying.

http://encyclopediadramatica[dot]com/Grace_Saunders http://urbandictionary.com/peter+anderson

This is not an empty threat, nor am I making up stories. Both were deleted because I filed a violation of the privacy policy of the internet & for abuse. Since I was abused on Wikipedia, I'm eligible to sue for harassment and unjust treatment. Also, writing to the site is pointless because no one replies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.16.21.191 (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As has been stated, please follow the process under WP:BASC. Specifically, please send an e-mail to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org and they will attempt to help you with your issue as possible. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Train engine reverser key

I have a train engine reverser key and would like to a photo of the same to generate discussion as to its possible date, manafacturer, engines it was in use with etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.168.71 (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 10:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

MBA colleges in germany

Hi, This is lakshman from india i want to study MBA in germany, so i would like to have a complete information about the MBA colleges in germany along with the college details,

Regards, S.lakshman kumar RF Engineer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.234.128.194 (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Castle Cover intro is incorrect

The following needs updating on the 'Castle Cover' page - how do you do this? I've been able to edit the rest fo the page fine, but can't find an edit section to update this info.

Castle Cover is an over 50 insurance specialist based in Poole, Dorset in the United Kingdom. Founded in July 2006, Castle Cover was named as the fastest growing UK home insurer in 2007. The company is continuing to grow and develop, with over 200,000 policy holders and employing over 250 people. Castle Cover is expected to reach a turnover of £100m and sign up over 450,600 customers by 2011.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leepeterhill (talk • contribs) 09:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Castle Cover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The answer to your editing question is here. However, if you are the Lee Hill who is the online marketing executive at Castle Cover, you should not be editing the article directly, as you have a conflict of interest. Please read the FAQ page for organisations. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have undone your changes, as they removed references from the article and damaged the formatting. Feel free to suggest changes by posting on the article talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How Do I Put Footnotes At The End Of The Table Caption?

I understand the table on Cape Coral, Florida regarding historical populations uses 2 templates:

template:USCensusPop

but I am not sure if the second template is template:Historical populations.

How do I put the footnotes in the historical populations table on Cape_Coral,_Florida beside the table caption? Since this is a template, it doesn't seem to let me do this. I would assume either of the templates will require changing?199.126.224.245 (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but Template:Historical populations/doc says that there is a parameter called 'footnote'. --ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a table caption[I want to put a footnote here]

Header text	Header text	Header text
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example

Above is a table where I want to put the footnote. On Cape Coral, Florida there is a table regarding historical populations, but the table uses the template {{USCensusPop}}, and I am not sure if {{Historical populations}} has to be changed so that the footnote can be put next to the caption, since {{Historical populations}} seems to be used in {{USCensusPop}}. Is a change required to these templates or one of them so that I can put the footnote next to the caption?199.126.224.245 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this:

{| class="wikitable"
|+This is a table caption<ref group=nb>included reference</ref>
! Header text !! Header text !! Header text
|-
| Example || Example || Example
|-
| Example || Example || Example
|-
| Example || Example || Example
|}
{{reflist|group=nb}}

This is a table caption

Header text	Header text	Header text
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That works on NON-template tables. Cape Coral, Florida's table regarding historical populations uses {{USCensusPop}}. {{USCensusPop}} is a template. Also, {{USCensusPop}} might use {{Historical populations}}. {{Historical populations}} is a template. Can someone change these templates so that footnotes can be added to the table caption?199.126.224.245 (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing not visible

I have just tried to edit the 'Republicans Abroad' page. I inserted a hyperlink to the website of or chapter in Luxembourg. When I previewed my change it seemed to have been successfully applied, but when I saved the change and viewed the page it was unchanged... No link to our site. And there is no record of my edit in the page history. The edit page states that changes will be visible immediately. I'm just wondering if I've done something wrong or if there is in fact a delay before edits appear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.103.209.79 (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Republicans Abroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an ordinary unprotected page, and changes will be visible immediately. So it looks as if something went wrong. However, a hyperlink to the Luxembourg chapter's website does not seem an appropriate addition - see the Wikipedia guideline on external links. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Human Confirmation!

I have had several problems editing Wikipedia in the last couple days, when a box appears, saying "Complete one of these surveys to gain access this page. Otherwise you will not have access to this page." Then it lists the following:

• Play Streetfighter Now
• Track your local weather...instantly
• Get you custon facebook theme
• Ultimate Toolbar for hot sleb info
• Customize your facebook with a theme
• Looking to fix up your house?

I'm worried that this may be a virus, but it only appears on Wikipedia, not on anyother site. What could be the problem? Nascar1996 11:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Did this happen when you clicked a link within Wikipedia, or when you tried to jump into Wikipedia from somewhere else? If the former, you have a virus. If the latter, you may have mis-spelt the URL. A "survey" site has registered domains such as "en.wikiepdia.org" to catch anyone who mis-types the name. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have Wikipedia on my favorites list, which has been the same for months. Then when I go to my watchlist it starts up. It is not currently doing it, but it normally does when I first log on. Nascar1996 11:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rheinish church in Namibia not mentioned

dear sir / madam

please allow me to air my views concerning the above:

the Rhenish Church in Namibia also derived from the Rheinish Mission Society,where the church (former mission society) still exists today.

Their headoffice is located in Rehoboth, Namibia their numbers are: Synod, <tel# removed>.

Mother Church office: <tel# removed>, I am positive you will be able to find more information on the church and her history and also list on your site(s). Another source would be the website of the Rhenish Church in South Africa.

Regards Bourquin Windhoek, Namibia <tel# removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.31.226.26 (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Since we are a volunteer site, articles are added organically by people who are interested in writing an article on a topic doing so. You can make a request for an article to be created at Wikipedia:Requested articles but there's no guarantee that it will be acted on soon or ever. If you want to take the reins, you can write a draft article and submit it for review at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If you do, please be careful to write from a neutral standpoint and cite to reliable sources that verify the suggested content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

posting new article by myself or finding an editor?

I would like to see an article of a very notable topic in Wikipedia that is not yet present in Wikipedia. But the topic is about a project I was very involved with. Since I know the most about it and have all the reference material, photos, etc. it makes sense for me to write it...but that seems counter to Wiki suggestions of it being posted by an editor who is non-bias. Would it be OK to write the article myself and post it? Is it possible to collaborate with a Wikipedia editor? How would I find an interested collaborator? Suggestions on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated.Markalansmith (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You do have a COI, but the good thing is that you have recognised that and disclosed it. I would suggest that you create the article in your userspace first, at, say, User:Markalansmith/Sandbox. When you think it's ready, ask at Requests for feedback or here for someone to review it (or leave a message on my talk page). I have left a welcome message on your talk page with lots of useful links. In particular take a look at WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:YFA. – ukexpat (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Longest articles list

Is there a list of the longest articles on wikipedia. If I recall such a list is produced every so often. It is relevant at Talk:Clint Eastwood/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Special:LongPages CTJF83 chat 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

2007 USC Trojans football team was a Featured Article and is now about 150K, much longer than the Clint Eastwood one.Naraht (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It currently is an FA. I don't see length being a reason for quick fail GA. CTJF83 chat 18:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It is only 65 KB of readable prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on the GA talk page so that others considering this issue can consider your thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. CTJF83 chat 18:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a list based on readable prose length?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Save the world...

Which policy/guidelines dictates that we can't try to effect real world outcomes through our writing. I found WP:Synth, WP:Soapbox, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:Encyclopedia to be somewhat on point, but feel there is an explicit mention somewhere that we are always backwards looking, always source-reflecting, and never write with a mission to advance, even if it were a good one. Note, this is in response to a deletion discussion about a Julian Assange fork which would highlight calls for his death made in the media so that they could be publicized so people would know he was being targeted and there'd perhaps be outrage which could basically save his life. So the implicit question, was, can we save someone's life if it's an WP:UNDUE violation, and I think the answer is obviously no, but I didn't have a clear policy to point to. Ocaasi (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. It's not the job of an encyclopedia to "try to effect real world outcomes" - Wikipedia is a tertiary source that writes about things that have been reported on in secondary sources. That's why advertising, proselytising, lobbying, campaigning, predicting the future and other such activities are not allowed here - they are simply beyond the scope of the project. There are plenty of other outlets for such things. – ukexpat (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There is the essay Wikipedia:Advocacy. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this was just right. There's also WP:ACTIVISM, which is currently being written. Ocaasi (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOBLECAUSE too. And more generally: WP:PEACOCK. But also see WP:IAR and The Constitution is not a suicide pact. --Teratornis (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And of course in the example you give above, publicizing death threats against a person might not have the effect you want. You might encourage some wingnut to carry out the threats. See WP:BEANS. --Teratornis (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

By "you" I mean whoever took the position that publicizing the death threats against Assange would make him less likely to be murdered. --Teratornis (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good links. Also, Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS#Righting_Great_Wrongs. As for 'The Constitution is not a suicide pact', see Rahm Emanuel. Ocaasi (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Use on Facebook

Is it possible to share wikipedia pages/articles on facebook? Toadtpullen (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but wholesale republishing of Wikipedia articles is subject to the terms of WP:REUSE which is why Facebook pages that mirror content from Wikipedia (such as this) contain a source statement and an appropriate license. – ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You can make a "Community page" on Facebook that contains some content from a Wikipedia article. You can also post links to Wikipedia articles on your Facebook wall. I'm not too impressed with Community pages (so far) because they are only a poor replication of some of the text content from a Wikipedia article. But Facebook is evolving fast so it may one day be almost as good as Wikipedia is now. --Teratornis (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Taipei Metro EMU C371

Having trouble finding info on Google. Help? Perseus, Son of Zeus 20:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You'd probably be better off asking at WikiProject Railways or WikiProject Transport. Incidentally, you can't use a Wikipedia article as a reference for another Wikipedia article. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

little help

Hi, I've noticed much of Lambda Sigma Upsilon comes from its website, could someone show me the relevant page on how to handle it...can't seem to find it, and can someone also show me where the rules on photo size on wikipedia is written-the same page has a massive photo in the page...Thanks, Passionless (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is a possible copyright violation. If you are able to do it yourself, and there is a sufficiently clean prior revision available, you can revert to that revision, with an explanation in the edit summary. If you are not able to do it yourself, or you are uncertain about the copyright status, you can use the template {{subst:copyvio}}, adding an entry on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 January 7 as indicated by that template. As to your second question, Wikipedia:Image_size is relevant: "Images beside the text should generally use a caption and the "thumb" (thumbnail) option . . . Where size forcing is appropriate, larger images should generally be a maximum of 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide". Intelligentsium 22:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Rights"

Why are statuses such as rollbacker and admin referred to as "rights" when it is clear that editing Wikipedia is a privelege and not a right? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 21:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's programming terminology meaning the access rights that an individul has. An admin has access rights to specific buttons - which are not physical buttons, but links - which other editors do not. Words mean different things in different contexts - for example, this page is called the help desk, but you don't see a flat surface for placing things on, do you? It's not a desk at all, really... -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 22:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo Used can not be verifieds

If a photo on a company's post is from an animal activist group, and can not be linked to that specific company, can it be removed? The photo in question is actually a activist photo of a type of housing, but not specifically the company (as far as I can tell). Xanderanj (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends! Was the photograph taken by the individual who uploaded it? Or is it taken from a copyrighted site? What licence has it been released under? If you told us the image, we could give more specific advice. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 22:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gestcrate01.jpg Xanderanj (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but the photo is illustrating the way the pigs are kept by the company - and the cited reference appears to back that up - and there is no indication that this is not one of their cages. I'd probably discuss this on the a article's talk page and get a consensus one way or another. If there are no replies within a week, be bold and remove the picture with a suitable edit summary -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 23:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

entry for Variadic_function goes into a redirect loop or something

I tried to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variadic_function using IE 8.0, and the browser looks like it gets caught in a continuous loop of redirection. Can someone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.16.35 (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Works OK for me in Firefox 3.6.13. – ukexpat (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As it does for me in Opera Mini 4.2 -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 23:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, it works for me in IE8 8.0.6001.18999 -- John of Reading (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

How does one practice editing an existing article using the sandbox?

I am learning Wikipedia editing. How do I practice editing an existing article using the sandbox? ````rgherman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgherman (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Go to the article, click on edit and then you can copy the markup. Then create a sandbox such as User:Rgherman/Sandbox by either clicking on that link, or typing it in the search box - then click on the 'create this page' link. Then just paste the copied text and edit/save it. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 23:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I created a personal sandbox for you at User:Rgherman/Sandbox by adding the {{User sandbox}} template. I also put a link to it on your user page at User:Rgherman. – ukexpat (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Got it. Many thanks. Rgherman (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a test. No reply needed

Resolved

 – Some people just have to reply! – ukexpat (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a test. No reply needed.Rgherman (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I won't reply -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 23:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nor will I although it is very tempting... – ukexpat (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that was very restrained of you - many people would have given in to the temptation and replied anyway! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 23:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I know! Must be crowd pyschology... – ukexpat (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

January 8

Need help including images in Wikipedia articles

Is there someone who could help me get an image into an article. I have the image (a film poster); I have the URL of where it comes from; I have the permission of the people who created it. They say there is no copyright—just use it! I have been down this road before. After days of emails and permissions granted, I still could not get through the legal thicket. That earlier image (a photo) was booted off of Wikimedia. I do not have a legal mind. If you would help me, reply on my user page and I will tell you more about it. Thanks for listening.--Foobarnix (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Which film is it? I'd be surprised if the poster is not copyrighted. As to the permission to use it, they really need to email the permission to Wikipedia (see here for how they can do that. As a rule, the copyright to a film poster is with the film company - I've never heard of a case where it isn't. Are they aware that giving the image to Wikipedia means that anyone can use the image for any purpose, including commercial use? If they just said that it can be used on Wikipedia only, that is not possible. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 05:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, we tend to reply on this page so that other people can see the answers given! I have left a talkback on your talk page -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 05:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• The movie is For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism, a 2009 documentary film. I am developing an article about this very interesting film. The poster from the movie can be found at Posters. The writer/director in email said, regarding the poster: "Use the poster. It's our design, no copyright issues. Use whatever from our website..." The website he is referring to is the same site as above. I am sure he does not care who reproduces it and would be willing to release all rights.

• My question is more general. I have tried several times in the past year to get permission to use pictures and have never gotten to the end of the long dark tunnel of legal declarations, permissions, and such things. The Wikipedia articles about all this overwhelm me with their complexity and endless definitions and special situations. Why does it have to be so hard? I know that I have to send some particular form to the owner, but what form? Thanks for responding, phantomsteve--Foobarnix (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What the producer told you sounds like he is giving permission for use only on Wikipedia, which is worthless here; the only permission of any value has to allow reuse by anyone for anything. Their poster page says, “© Copyright For The Love Of Movies 2009 All Rights Reserved.” And when you click on the poster thumb, it seems to require permission for each reuse. So I think permission is hopeless for this poster, and the way to go on this is non-free fair-use: one fair-use film poster is usually acceptable in the infobox of a film article to identify the subject of the article. Tag the poster with {{non-free poster}}, and in the non-free use rationale list the purpose as “to identify the subject of the article.” —teb728 t c 09:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for general information on requesting permission. Among other things It has a link to Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, which gives examples of what to send to owners.) —teb728 t c 11:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right; this whole area needs looking at and drastically simplifying. I once loaded some pictures I had taken myself. I clearly explained this and stated that I was happy for the pictures to be in the public domain. A while later I noticed they had been deleted by some anal individual because I had not ticked exactly the right combination of boxes, or included exactly the right combination of text templates, or something. There seem to be a group of people at Wikipedia whose mission is firstly to make it as difficult as possible to load pictures, and secondly to delete as many existing pictures as possible on the grounds of some minor procedural error that the deleter could just as easily fix themselves. 86.135.171.19 (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a complex and confusing process, and even things being entirely released by creator into the public domain do have a bit of red tape. We really, really don't want to frustrate people, but due to copyright-GFDL fine print we need to be incredibly careful. Yes, there are editors that dig deeply into new image submissions, but they all mean well and understand that it won't help the project in the long run to try to push away new contributors. Question for you-- was the image you submitted being used in an article or article draft in your userspace? There are various guidelines about deletion of unused images, as well, and a lot of new editors might fall into this trap.

My best advice would be to ask the editors/admins that you feel are working against you directly on their talk pages and ask why they did what they've done and how you can avoid it in the future. I was very serious when I said they mean well, I swear! Good luck... ♪ Tstorm(talk) 15:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's even simpler than that - copyright violation in this digital age is simple to effect, much more so than before, but the consequences are still very serious. A large copyvio lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation could be very, very expensive and possibly jeopardise the future of this, and the other, Wikimedia projects. That's why we have to be so careful about protecting copyrights. – ukexpat (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"This whole area" does "need looking at and drastically simplifying", but understand what "this whole area" is: copyright law. Copyright is a mess on Wikipedia because copyright is a mess everywhere. Wikipedia has no control over copyright law, so we cannot fix the problem. Instead it is up to voters to elect representatives who will write copyright laws that serve the public interest rather than corporate interests. Who do you think writes these ridiculous laws and spends millions of dollars to lobby politicians to enact them? In the old days, the public could ignore the problem because only corporations could afford to get seriously into publishing. Anyone who could afford to publish back then could also afford to hire attorneys to tell them how to do it. Today computers have enabled almost anyone to be a publisher, but attorneys have only gotten more expensive. So we have a situation where technically almost everyone violates copyright laws. This may be acceptable on a site like Facebook (for now, anyway), but Wikipedia has to be more careful because we specifically label some of our media files as being OK for re-use by anyone. --Teratornis (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, for a pretty good introduction to copyright law as it impacts Wikimedia Commons, read everything linked from Commons:COM:EIC#Copyright. For example, our hypervigilance comes from Commons:Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. --Teratornis (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

General comments on the issue of image permissions

It sounds like I hit a nerve with my comments about images and copyrights. Let me make a few points:

• People who think they have legal permission to allow use of media are often mistaken, as user teb728 points out in this particular case. That makes the whole permissions issue even more vexing.
• It is very important not to blame Wikipedia editors for yanking images (a point already make above). Think of them as protecting Wikipedia from serious lawsuits, not as mean old deletionists. The fault lies entirely with the complicated copyright laws.
• This whole discussion is so interesting, it makes me think there should be some kind of forum or a special page for discussing the perennial issue of getting through the copyright jungle.
• In addition, I would like to see a volunteer group of Wikipedians who love legal stuff, and whose only job is to help other editors write the correct letters needed to get permissions. I bet there would be a lot more nice images in Wikipedia if so many editors had not just given up like I did.
• Wikipedia does in fact have all the information one needs to learn how to handle copyrights. It is just that it is so spread around, so complicated, and so voluminous, that you cannot always find what you need. For example, phantomsteve pointed me to the very useful page WP:IOWN. I had never seen this page before, even though I have spent days wading through similar pages.

I want to particularly thank editor teb728 for his suggestions. Using his ideas, I am going to plunge into the thicket and try one more time.--Foobarnix (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, we would like all the pages that are on Wikimedia Commons and about copyright to be listed under Commons:COM:EIC#Copyright. The analogous heading in the Editor's index to Wikipedia is WP:EIW#Copy. We have a page: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions which functions like you suggest in your fourth point. There is lots of help available, but no easy way to magically make every user aware of the bits they need, when they need them. That will probably have to wait until computers can pass the Turing test. Until then, there is little doubt that we fail to get all the contributions we could get, since we can't expect every user to become something of an amateur legal expert before they can upload their first photo. There are too many special cases for the upload form to handle nicely. Sites that achieve truly massive participation (such as Flickr) just let users do pretty much whatever they want, until copyright holders complain about specific images, and as a result they have millions of copyright violations at all times. --Teratornis (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

maggots

please remove the search word maggots. its very disgusting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.139.202.107 (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's just a word, and a maggot is just a living creature, so no can do, sorry - Wikipedia is not censored! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 05:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

TV Series

You create a page for WIKI, how do you add "TV Series" at the end of it?

Keycoke (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The way you should have done it is to move it, which your account would have been able to do in about 4 hours! I will make the old page a redirect to the new one that you created -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 06:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

HTML

how t create web site using hyper text markup language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.98.109 (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for clarification... is it that you're trying to use HTML in the editing box here at the site? If so, we don't use it directly, but there is a similar scheme of "wiki markup". However, nothing other than plain text (with few exceptions) should be in articles. If you're looking to create a page outside of Wikipedia, you won't find any "how-to" things here, but there are plenty of resources on the internet as a whole.

One more thing to say... If you do post a new article about a television series, you'd want to use the categorization system we have built in to make sure it finds its place. There are a few different ways to edit to do this, so I'd recommend reading WP:CAT for something of a tutorial. Good luck! ♪ Tstorm(talk) 14:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

An additional point if you are wanting to create your own website (rather than an article on Wikipedia), I recently began learning some html and css, and I found this resource provided a good introduction: w3schools, and the good people on the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk were very helpful and had quite a bit of patience with me and my noob questions. If you are talking about how to create a wikipedia page, I am just about to drop a welcome template with some useful links on your talk page - I'd suggest you try reading some of that material, and ask any further questions here. Good Luck, Darigan (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Using anchors

I am trying to use Template:Anchor to link to images in a wikipedia article but somehow I don't manage to make it work properly. The article in question is Glossary of Japanese swords. The link "see image" at the end of the "shinogi" entry of the glossary is supposed to link to the second image of the article. However when clicking on "see image" I end up at the first image (instead of the second). How can I fix this? bamse (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Both images have an anchor. Simply link to the correct one (change). — Edokter • Talk — 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The boshi appears in the first image (anchor "parts") not in the second image (anchor "tsukurikomi") so I undid your edit. Still the same problem as before, I cannot jump to the second anchor ("tsukurikomi") for some reason. See for instance the "see image" links of "hira-zukuri" or "shinogi-zukuri" which should link to the second image but currently link to the first image. bamse (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy Russell

In 1959 he appeared in a Mexican movie Viste Christina 68.62.146.228 (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Cine Nostalgia

I imagine you are telling us this because you want that fact added to his biography. The problem is that searching Google books, news and web does not find any sources that verify the information. In fact, I have not even been able to confirm that there ever was a movie by the name Viste Christina. Well, found it after some sleuthing. The movie is Vístete Cristina (not Viste Christina), and the particular Andy Russell is Andy Russell (singer). If you want to add this, go ahead, but please cite to a reliable source, e.g., possibly something from here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Expand template dead yet?

What's the status of the {Expand} template? It was up for deletion, but I don't know if there was consensus or if bots had started removing them, and I don't want to add more if that's already been decided. Also, if it's gone, what's the alternative (expand section, maybe?), aside from just writing it, obviously. Ocaasi (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this was answered on IRC. Wikipedia_talk:TFD#Review_instructions_for_Expand reveals it's still up in the air, and might be fixed by [Removing the template from any article with a {-stub} template; Replacing {expand|section} with {expand section} (or {empty section} if the section is empty); Replacing it with {incomplete} when multiple sections are empty; or Removing it completely when the talk page does not exist / contains only Wikiproject templates and it was placed with a generic Twinkle™-edit summary or no edit summary, etc.]. So I guess it's user discretion for now, with the understanding that it might get retagged once the WP:TFD discussion resolves. Ocaasi (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Visibility on Wikipedia

I am wondering if there are ways to increase a company's visibility on Wikipedia. Can you help? 76.99.202.242 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)--76.99.202.242 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Promotional articles are specifically forbidden - see WP:PROMOTION. For guidlines on how to write a neutral article about a notable company see WP:COMPANY. Roger (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd add slightly to that, with caution. First read our policy on WP:SPAM and WP:COI (conflict of interest), so you know what not to do. Then go find the best and most reliable sources you can find in which the company is mentioned using WP:RS as your guide and WP:NPOV as your goal. Before you get started, draft an article in your WP:USERSPACE or make proposals for changes on the article's WP:TALK page. Solicit opinions from other editors to make sure the article additions are neutral. We can increase visibility, so to speak, so long as it is already supported by sources (rather than forced on a topic where it is not warranted)--and the 'view' is whatever the sources present, neither positively nor negatively slanted. Ocaasi (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Note that visibility on Wikipedia is not always favorable to the subject. --Teratornis (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Size of fonts

Could you please explain why, although a tad smaller, sub-section headings (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc), appear to be be bolded and therefore clearer than section headings? (At least they do on my screen). Thanks in advance.

RASAM (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The heading tags h1 through h6 are defined in the CSS stylesheets for Vector or Monobook. The style for h1 and h2 is normal, while h3 through h6 are bold.

If you really want to bold h1 and h2, add this to Special:MyPage/skin.css:

/* Bold h1 and h2 */
h1, h2 { font-weight: bold; }
.editsection { font-weight: normal; }

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Linking to the sandbox from the sandbox

Why is it not possible to link to Wikipedia:Sandbox from within the sandbox? 81.131.1.105 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A self link (when the target of a link is the same as the page on which it appears) does not display the link, and the text appears in bold. This is true on any page on Wikipedia. --Mysdaao ^talk 19:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

For instance, the following link will be in bold and not "linked": Wikipedia:Help desk Dismas|^(talk) 20:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

New Articles

Since the Alexbot is currently not running, are there other ways to find new articles? Could you find them by the cat scan? For more information, I want to find articles recently created since December 26, 2010 that are related to NASCAR so I can complete the projects newsletter. Thanks. Nascar1996 16:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Special:NewPages lists new pages that have been created. By default, it shows only the article namespace, and it goes back up to one month. --Mysdaao ^talk 19:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No understanding !!

Ronnie Nyogetsu Reishin Seldin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have no idea how to make the necessary changes on my Wikipedia page. I am OK with the so-so photographs, but the content is woefully inaccurate. I wish to list the following but have no idea how to do it. Could you guys PLEASE do it for me ?:

Ronnie Nyogetsu Reishin Seldin studied Shakuhachi in Kyoto, Japan with Kurahashi Yodo Sensei, who was a disciple of Jin Nyodo. There in 1975, he received the name Nyogetsu and a teaching certificate at the level of Jun Shihan in the Kinko school of shakuhachi. He was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1947.

After his return to New York, Nyogetsu was awarded the rank of Shi-han (Master) in 1978, as a result of his efforts to spread the teaching of this instrument in America.

In 1980, he received his Dai-Shihan, or Grand Master's license. In April 2001, Nyogetsu received a Koku-An Dai-Shihan (Grand Master's license at the level of Kyu-Dan, or 9th level) from Japan's Living National Treasure in shakuhachi, Aoki Reibo. He was also given the name Reishin (Heart/Mind of the Bell) to go along with it. Nyogetsu is the first non-Japanese to receive this high award.

Nyogetsu has performed in numerous concerts, lectures and demonstrations in the metropolitan area and around the United States as well as Canada, Mexico, Scotland, and Argentina. Not only has he toured Japan many times, he has also been interviewed on radio and television both here and in Japan, and has performed on the soundtracks of several documentary films including the Academy Award nominated documentary "A Family Gathering" (1989) for which he also co-composed the sound track. Nyogetsu's playing also appears on the GRAMMY-nominated "The Planet Sleeps" (SONY).

Ronnie Nyogetsu has released several recordings of shakuhachi music including cassettes, LPs and CDs. Mr. Seldin is the founder of Ki-sui-an shakuhachi dojo with branches in Manhattan, Rochester/Syracuse, Philadelphia, and Baltimore/Wash.D.C. In addition to teaching privately, Mr. Seldin is also part of the Japanese Music Program at the graduate Center of the City University of New York where he gives lectures on and demonstrations of the shakuhachi. He is also on faculty at New York University (NYU). His shakuhachi school - KiSuiAn Shakuhachi Dojo - has been the largest and most active in the World outside of Japan for the past three decades.

Ronnie Nyogetsu Reishin Seldin was Artist in Residence for Fall 2002 at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. Nyogetsu was the University Artist in Residence at New York University (Spring 2004). In 2004, he also produced the Fourth International World Shakuhachi Festival at New York University. It proved to be the largest gathering of non-Japanese Shakuhachi players in History. ------ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyogetsu (talk • contribs) 16:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the changes you made to the article about you. First, it messsed up the article. Second, you have a conflict of interest because the article is about you. If you want to make changes to the article, the best way is to suggest them on the Talk page of the article because of your conflict. Bear in mind that every asssertion in a Wikipedia article has to be supported by a third-party reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to specify a bit. The best thing is to post suggestions on changes or additions (at best small parts at a time with a good reason stated; and with a reference (just type the website/bookname/newspaper article if you're unfamiliar with formatting; others will undoubtedly do that)) on Talk:Ronnie Nyogetsu Reishin Seldin. That is generally a good procedure for large changes, but as you have a conflict of interest it makes sure a "second set of eyes" looks at it neutrally. Don't worry about messing up tables; those things are easy to fix... My suggestion would be to first make clear which info is inaccurate, and provide sources for that so the errors can be fixed; that seems to be the most urgent discussion point... Have fun! L.tak (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to notable alumni

Hello,

I noticed that the list of notable alumni was underrepresented on the university that I go to's page (Thunderbird School of Global Management). When I added factual references that are verifiable without having to go into the school's contact list (which is available to every student and would not be considered private information), all of them were deleted by the editor. I was wondering if this was so because I did not provide references in the correct format or what? If there is a certain page that we have to put the link to the page where we got the information, I would be happy to do it, but I don't want to go through the process again only to have the work deleted due to a failure in following any specific procedures. I am not extremely tech savvy, but all of the names and grad dates followed the format of names before them and the hyperlinks to the companies pages were correct most had the companies' CEO name listed directly on them.

Thanks, Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.53.254 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If the person you are adding doesn't have an article about him/her on Wikipedia, then the person is probably not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Please understand that "notable" on Wikipedia is not going to be the same definition as "notable" at your university. -- kainaw™ 19:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

copying articles from Wikipedia

Dear Help desk, For the last few days, to be exact, since the beginning of the year I have had problems to copy formatted articles from Wikipedia.I don´t know what the reason for this "calamity" is. Can you help me? Greetings, Duftrosengarten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duftrosengarten (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "formatted article"? A PDF file? If so, see Help:Books/Frequently Asked Questions. --Teratornis (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

January 9

Graphic sizes change quite a bit if viewing in Windows (it is a smaller size) vs. a Mac (where it is much larger)

Hi, I just discovered this problem a few days ago. It is on the Jerome Myers page which I put together as best I could a few months ago. Actually it turned out to be much more than I had hoped for. My only problem at the moment - I'm still close to a novice - is trying to have the graphic for three montage pictures on the page appears as large on Windows computers as it does on the Mac. Both systems I am assuming are using the same code for display, but the resulting graphics sizes are quite different. Since they are collages of a group of pictures they really need the extra size that the Mac displays. Is there anything I can do to fix the problem?

I suspect I'm not the first person to run into the issue. By the way, I did try this with two different computers running Mac using two versions of its system, one being system 9.2 the other being system 10.4. For my Windows viewing I tried it both using XP as well on the newer System 7. The problem showed up on all the tests. Thank you for any help you might be able to give me.

BEDownes (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

BEDownes

See WP:Galleries for general guidelines. If you want to display a lot of images, a better option may be to create a gallery page on Wikimedia Commons to complement the Wikipedia article (you can link from the article to the gallery page with {{Commons}}). See Commons:Commons:Galleries. --Teratornis (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is viewed by people on many different browsers, on different operating systems, on differently-sized monitors, and they may then resize their windows with abandon. Cascading Style Sheets, which is what Wikipedia uses, lets you do quite a lot to control the layout, but in detail it is simply not possible to make a web page appear the same for every reader. --ColinFine (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

how to replace an erroneous range map?

The breeding range map for Red-bellied Woodpecker is wrong. How does one get it replaced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.67.21 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Create a new one, with sources, and upload it over the current one. The image currently has a horrible source anyway. CTJF83 chat 00:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a couple of pictures to offer...

I have a number of pictures to offer of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancocas_Stable. I'm not really interested in editing 10 articles to become an autoconfirmed user, or to learn how to insert images and so on. But I am willing to provide the images if someone would like to put them up... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjbruzek (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You could provide them to Wikimedia Commons, if the licences are OK. Kayau Voting IS evil HI AGAIN 02:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright licence

I added a computer graphics image in August and said that it was all my own work. Despite that, it has been tagged for CSD. Could someone add the correct licence for me? It's File:Pinched torus.jpg. Like I said: it's all my own work, created on my computer. I want to release it into the public domain, no rights reserved. Thanks. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the CSD and added {{PD-self}} for you. Please consider moving it to Wikimedia Commons. Kayau Voting IS evil HI AGAIN 02:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For more about moving it Commons, see WP:MITC, WP:SUL, and Special:MergeAccount. --Teratornis (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved it to Commons. Had to do it manually - is the tool not working properly? – ukexpat (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

two out of three times I used the tool on zh.wikibooks it does not work. :) Kayau Voting IS evil 09:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never had a problem moving something with that tool, though I'll note it can take a long time for it to finish, sometimes up to five minutes. I've also deleted the local copy, and cleaned up the upload at Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for that guys. I'll remember to use {{PD-self}} in future. — Fly by Night (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

I've got a bio article under discussion for deletion, and I notice it's listed in a limited subject area and list of deletion discussions. How do I expand this to include other subject areas, such as bio and music, that would bring in a wider variety of opinions? Pkeets (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting is the starting point to expand the discussion to associated wikiprojects. (for: "Note: This debate has been included in") Jarkeld (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm the author. If I think the template lists the AfD subject area incorrectly, can I change it or add to it? Pkeets (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing titles of redirect Fan pages on FB from Wikipedia

Is there a way to contact the creator of a FB page that redirects from an actual person to "LIKE" from the factual entries on Wikipedia?

I ran across a "LIKE" author Michael Crichton page on FB with a typo transposition in his first name: Micheal -- on FB

I have found no way to send a request to the creator or edit the error -- can you help?

--Julia Parker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliadbp (talk • contribs) 04:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have some page links? I'm a little confused on your question? CTJF83 chat 04:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

They probably mean this. There's no way to fix that, at least not from our side. Diego Grez (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, ya, that is a Facebook creator issue. Thanks Diego. CTJF83 chat 04:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Which article does this article refer to?

Apart from misspelling 'millennia', there is one very special about This The Standard column: it says that Vittachi looked up Wikipedia. Which article do you think he is referring to and would that qualify for {{online source}}? Kayau Voting IS evil 09:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly badly garbled misreadings from Wiktionary:restaurant “from restorative soup served in the first establishments” (but as it says in Wiktionary, English borrowed the word and its meaning from French) and from Wiktionary:soup “from Late Latin suppa 'sopped bread', from Proto-Germanic *saupan, *saupaz” (but again as it says in Wiktionary, English borrowed the word from French soupe, which means soup). —teb728 t c 10:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

But that's wikt, not WP... Since a Frenchman told him that, he may have seen something related on WP. The WP article says the first restaurant was opened in the same year Kayau Voting IS evil 14:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Etymology is dictionary content rather than encyclopedic. And since his "facts" are so garbled, I suspect he doesn't know the difference between Wiktionary and Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 09:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. That could be possible I guess. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations in editing box

I have the "enhanced editing toolbar" turned on, and it used to have a button for "Citations", which produced a pull-down menu that allowed me to use a pop-up box to easily add references. The pop-up had fields for "author", "title", etc., which, after filled in, would automatically generate the proper template and insert it into the article. But I just noticed today that the button is no longer there. Does anyone know what might have changed? Is there some preference that I can set to get the button back?Qwyrxian (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes; go to your preferences. There should be a RefTools under Gadgets. Alternatively, you can put this script in your skin.js. Please see this proposal. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Special:Preferences → Gadgets → then either

• refTools, adds a "cite" button to the editing toolbar for quick and easy addition of commonly used citation templates.

or

• ProveIt, a powerful GUI tool for viewing, editing, adding, and inserting references

ProveIt is new, refTools has been around a while. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

refTools is turned on, and it's still not appearing. I tried turning it off (unchecking), saving, then re-checking, and saving, and it's still not appearing. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

When I go to edit mode on this page here, I see (in order top to bottom) the page header, the yellow warning and blue and welcome boxes, the box stating the page length in kilobytes, and then the refTools bar. "Cite" is a clickable option on that bar, at the extreme right. If you're using Vector, when you do the same, what do you see? Are you getting the refTools bar minus the cite option? Are you seeing the bar at all? Karenjc 10:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Purge? Kayau Voting IS evil 10:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

@Karenjc: I have the refTolls bar; reading left to right, I have 6 clickable icons (Bold, Italics, Link, Embedded File, Reference, Signature & timestamp), followed by 3 clickable options that read Advanced, Special Characters, and Help. The three clickable options properly pulls up the second line, just as Cite used to. The Cite button no longer appears.

@Kayau: I tried several of the purge options, and none brought the Cite option back. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did you purge? Did you try shift+refresh or control+refresh in the editing window? Kayau Voting IS evil 13:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried the first 3 suggestions on WP:PURGE, and just now tried what you suggest; same result--no Cite button on the refTools editing window. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Which version of which browser do you use? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are using Vector, then remove refToolbar from User:Qwyrxian/vector.js and purge. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Having done the above, you could try adding it back manually, by adding

importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar 2.0.js');

to your vector.js page, per Wikipedia:RefToolbar_2.0#Installation. Karenjc 16:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Folks, this has apparently been fixed. Always a good idea to check WP:VPT for issues like this. – ukexpat (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact it has...I totally forgot to look at this again, as I didn't need the cite button all day, but it's back and fine now. Thanks for all the help. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

About GNU Free Documentation License

Franciscohiginocl.jpg is under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License and the file contains the painting by Edouardo Malta, A Portuguese Painter. If there is a painting that is also of the same painter, does that also fall under the GNU Free Documentation License? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daffy123 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt it. Some art are in museums, and I think taking photographs are illegal in some museums.199.126.224.245 (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Depends on a lot of things. If it's a painting OF the painter, then who is it painted by? If it is a painting BY the painter, then yes, there are circumstances in which a photo of a painting would be in the public domain. Chiefly, if the painting is old enough to be out of copyright. You could take a photograph yourself, or in some instances you could use an image on the web, if that were freely licensed. We'd need more information really, to be sure. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, Forgot To Put A Section Title

Is there a way so that text in different places can be linked in a fashion such that footnotes are linked. For example:

I have the following text: "In Figure 1, the flow rate is increased between the two slabs of iron.". I want to make a "link" between "Figure 1" and the text: "Figure 1" of the corresponding picture caption.

Is there anyway to do this? Templates are the answer?199.126.224.245 (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

template:anchor might help. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

forward a page ?

may i forward an epiphony page to an email contact=and how to? <email removed>Puddlyduck (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by an "epiphony page"; a Wikipedia article that you had an epiphany over? If so, the easiest thing to do is to simply open up an email and send the url of the page to the person (navigate to the article and then copy the address from your browser's address bar (highlight it then you can probably hit ctrl+c) and paste it into the email (probably you can hit ctrl+v). There are a few other ways you could send an article but I'm not sure this is what you're here about. If it's something else, please expand your question.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Lost Article

I submitted an article last year and it seemed to be approved. I went to improve it and suddenly I cannot find it anywhere. The article was on "Bellevue Plantation, St. Mary's, Georgia". I have found over Bellevue Plantations but none had anything to do with the article I wrote. I find it disturbing that after putting in the work for the article that I was not at least notified if it was being deleted. Is this common practice to delete articles without notifying the author of said article? Thank you very much for your assistance.

Goparkit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goparkit (talk • contribs) 14:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you submit the article through Articles for Creation? --Danger (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If you submitted the article through AFC, there will be a record in the project's archives. If you created the article this way and remember roughly when you submitted it, it can be found fairly easily. --Danger (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As I noted below, the user has zero deleted edits, (and only two edits total) so if there was an AfC, it was not submitted through this account.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) What account did you use to create the article? I ask because your current account has never created an article like this (you have zero deleted edits). You did about a year ago add this short blurb to the article Antebellum era about this plantation. Is that what you mean? If so, as you can see from that article's page history it was merged into History of the United States (1789–1849) and is now a redirect to there. The content you added did not remain through the merge (and rightly so, though that's another topic, but in short it was undue weight in the article as well as being unverified). I have also searched the deletion log using the name you provided and no article by the name you provided has ever been deleted from Wikipedia, though note that the log requires the article title one enters to be exact in all ways, including capitalization.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We can all understand the frustration of finding your contributions deleted or overwritten, but do bear in mind that this is a collaborative project and no special privileges are afforded to the person who happens to start an article (in other words, nobody is the "author"). When new articles with just one major contributor get nominated for deletion (under the speedy deletion criteria for example, standard practice is indeed to notify that contributor. But it's not feasible to notify people whenever their contributions get altered, even if it's a major alteration. Some pages have hundreds of contributors. The best way of monitoring articles that interest you is to add them to your watchlist. Any changes to them, including deletion nominations, will show up there. Karenjc 16:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

delta and star connections

'i want basic details about delta and star connection in electric circuit'Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digvijaysv (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a please would help? In any event, this sounds like a homework question and we don't do your homework for you. If it isn't, please try the Reference Desk. – ukexpat (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Star and delta configuration discussions come up a lot in the context of electricity production from windmills, it is possible that you can google with that in mind to find what you are looking for, in any case, this isn't the right page. un☯mi 14:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You might find what you are looking for in the article about Y-Δ transform. If you cannot find the answer there, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps.Template:Z39--Danger (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Fast help

I am looking for the page that deals with link colours - specifically the rule that we should not use odd colours for wikilinks..I know this is out there have seen it many times but just cant find it -anyone here know were it is?Moxy (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this what your looking for.--Monterey Bay (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No i found that - what i mean is there is a page talking about Y not to make links in infoboxs/navboxs weird colours (stating that links should be of a standers colour to help facilitate internet users of all levels of experience.)Moxy (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Uploading image

I would like to upload this image [1] from Geograph.org.uk to use in the article Whitehawk Camp. The website creators seem positively to wish to have their images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, with the proper acknowledgement. I've looked through their instructions though and am none the wiser. Also, I don't have an account on Commons. Would someone be able to do it for me? Many thanks if you can. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. BTW you can have a Commons account wihout having to specifically create one - see WP:SUL. – ukexpat (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll look at how to set up a Commons account. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, it's already there at File:Whitehawk Camp, Brighton (with the Grandstand behind) - geograph.org.uk - 52046.jpg - the Geograph upload bot took care of it in January 2010. – ukexpat (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Spam?

My RPGplane page has been signed as spam. ok. now what about this??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Birds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dungeonsitalia (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How does the existance of another page mean that the page you created should be exempt from Wikipedia rules? --Jayron32 19:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

By analogy, see the deletion argument defense fallacy set forth at What about article x?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a message concerning this on your talk page. This lousy t-shirt (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Gray lines on articles

I am noticing a gray-colored line at the top of a lot of articles I have done today. What does that tell me? Chris (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but I've noticed it during the past few days as well. To be specific, I use the Monobook skin and the gray bar (sometimes) appears between the tabs and the title not only of articles but of my watchlist, WP-space pages, etc. Shutting down my browser and restarting it seems to make the bar go away everywhere for a while. Hopefully, someone who understands about such things will be along to answer the question. Deor (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia donations header

Hi, this pisses me off to no end. My browser sends "Accept-Language: en-us;q=1, en;q=0.5" in its headers, I am using an English OS, I am using an English browser, I am reading the English wikipedia.. All things completely known to you.

And yet what do you pick to choose the language of the header ad? My IP? Seriously? Geolocation is the worst possible form of determining an user's language preference. Why would I want to have an Italian header if ALL the preferences I can change are set to English and the rest of the page is in English?!

Please do something about this, you have no idea how much it bothers me. 93.33.200.246 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia help desk. The people you are addressing here are, in general people who edit Wikipedia, not those who make it work. Having people instruct me to fix something that I have nothing to do with "pisses me off no end". Try WP:VP/T, or perhaps somewhere on mediawiki. --ColinFine (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Problems with photo upload for USS Vitesse (SP-1192)

Today I uploaded a public domain photo of the U.S. Navy patrol boat USS Vitesse (SP-1192) taken in 1918. Unfortunately, I misspelled the ship's name in the image title - I uploaded File:USS Viteese (SP-1192).jpg instead of File:USS Vitesse (SP-1192).jpg, so I blanked the description with a db-author request and a note that I would re-upload the image with a corrected title. But now I find that Wikipedia will not accept the photo under any title, and appears to delete it again hen I ignore warnings. How do I upload the photo with its correct title? Mdnavman (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)mdnavman

January 10

translate (or tell me how to, please) a French wiki article to make an English version here

For Painted turtle, I linked to Tanner did the whole fancy linking to French wiki (within an article) thing with the double colons :fr: and all. But would really like to just get this guy duplicated and over here. He's kind of an icon in herpetology (admittedly a minor field of zoology), but he would get a lot of links for species he named and the like. had 130 papers, most of them very long, and did incredible expeditions and the like to collect strange animals. Anyhow, I want an English version article. You know most people won't do the double colon link thing I did. Plus most readers would prefer native language version.TCO (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you read WP:TRANSLATE? That explains how to find someone who can translate an article. Incidentally, do you have any English-language sources of information that could be used as references? Although English references aren't essential, they are preferable on the English Wikipedia! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 01:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I read the interlanguage wiki stuff. Therew was no existing en page (even close in meaning, since it's a person). It is not worthwhile of development in the article and getting refs to him would be like a ref to a ref as his name is already a detail in a bigger point (iow, yeah...I knew of course that English is preferred). I will go hassle the translators and get that page set up. Then change the link. The dude is American so we should have an Anglo page on him, for various reasons. If it were a French region or person or something of the like that would be better maintained there and never grow here, I would not bother with a translate. But this one is just screaming out for us to translate him. He named a lot of animals, could get all kinds of en links after we make the page.  ;) TCO (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll translate it (starting now). Could you please find references for the article? [CharlieEchoTango] 02:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Username Retrieval

I can't seem to remember my username. Is there any way to retrieve it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.180.77 (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember any articles you've edited? You could look in an article's history to find the user name under which the edit(s) were made. Deor (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And no, beyond the advice above, there is no facility to retrieve a forgotten username (see Wikipedia:Contact us/login problems). Nanonic (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have an idea what it starts with then you can try Special:ListUsers. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

crossbow

according to the atf. and federal law is a crossbow considered a firearm?and is it legal for a felon to possess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.235.142 (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You might find what you are looking for in the article crossbow. If you cannot find the answer there, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps. Algebraist 02:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing distances: by air or by road?

An editor has asked at an article talk page if distances between places should be cited in road miles, as opposed to as the crow flies. I was unable to answer him and I want to find policy for this, or to find the proper place to begin a debate on it. It was discussed before without satisfactory resolution of the question. — O'Dea 04:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd imagine that if you are describing the distance between two things that distance would be the shortest distance between those two points. No other number is unique. Prodego ^talk 04:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your answer and I tend to agree it is the least ambiguous approach, but I would like to be able to cite policy or guidelines, or to find a place to establish such policy or guidelines by discussion, then to have an agreed position enshrined in the manual of style or some such place, to give credibility to the thing. I'd like to resolve this question in a definitive way, avoiding a mere replay of the previous discussion without a defined conclusion. You began by saying "I imagine" and, indeed, I imagine, too, but my original question intended to reach beyond speculation. — O'Dea 04:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we ask Google Maps to stop incorporating non-earth coordinates?

The special coordinates template in the article Dorsa Cato clearly indicates that the coordinates refer to the moon, and the resulting hyperlink in fact does point to the moon. Nevertheless, Google maps contains a link to Dorsa Cato at the corresponding Earth coordinates.

The same thing happened with Gomul Catena, a feature of Jupiter's moon Callisto. Here it is in the Pacific Ocean: [2]

I feel like Google could fix this in a half-hour if they were notified of the problem. Is there any way to do so? AGradman / how the subject page

at 05:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a place to put in such a request, but you'd need to find a contact point for Google Maps - probably via a Google search. However, as Wikipedia is not directly connected to them, there's nothing we can do ourselves -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 05:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Google Maps support is here -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 05:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Phantomsteve. The "report a problem" page was hard to use, but I posted it at Google Map Forums [3]. I suppose that one of the forum "gurus" will stumble across it and bring it to the attention of a Google employee. Cool. AGradman / how the subject page

at 07:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A solution could be to include a "switch" paramater somewhere that tells Google Maps to ignore this set of coordinates because it's not on Earth. Roger (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have just tried both the articles mentioned above, and they do show the sites on the moon, so either the problem has been resolved, or perhaps there are other issues in some circumstances. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Lynbarn, that wasn't the problem -- Wikipedia's articles & templates work fine, but Google fails to acknowledge that the templates refer to extraterrestrial coordinates, and thus overlays them onto Google Maps. 75.4.194.121 (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Wikipedia in Bengali language

Dear sir, We would like to read Wikipedia in Bengali language. People from Bangladesh and India will be grateful to you in this regard. Thank you. Mezbahuddin Tipu from Bangladesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.42 (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think bn.wikipedia.org is what you're looking for.--AndrewHowse (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Little help with relisting

So there is an ongoing discussion on renaming State of Palestine-->Palestine, but the discussion is only in the State of Palestine talk page and one member claims it must be on both pages at once, so I was wondering how I do that, and if he is right in that it must be in both places. P.S. There is a non-template message about the discussion on the Palestine(region) page. Thanks, Passionless (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reporting unreliable websites and mirrors

Where does one go to report specific instances of mirror sites and other generally unreliable websites so that they are avoided as references in articles in the future and removed from current ones, whilst not being blacklisted on all pages for use in discussion? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spam blacklist, has the appropriate links and info. Passionless (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think I failed...someone else plese answer, I'm only smart enough to ask not answer. Passionless (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is WP:MIRROR. Dismas|^(talk) 06:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a bot to remove instances of such references, much as how COIBot removes spam? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know but you could ask at WP:BOTREQ. Dismas|^(talk) 10:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

incorrect person details (bad Language )

KINDLY NOTE THAT THE BIRTH PLACE OF THIS PERSON IS NOT THAT WHAT IS WRITTEN

"" kachre ka dhair main "" MEANS "" In The Garbage ""

He is a well known person of Pakistan Politics So Kindly amend it as soon as possible

Many Thanks

Ref Link  : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisar_Ali_Khan or search with " Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan " or " Nisar Ali Khan " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.165.159.88 (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed -- John of Reading (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nisar Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Without knowing the language I can't unravel the history of this article, so I've asked WikiProject Pakistan to help. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair use logo template

There is a problem with two uploads using the fair use logo template. I don't understand the how to diagnose the cause nor can I guess how to go about resolving it.

Please see "purpose of use" sections

• File:BC Coast Steamships logo.jpg
• File:NHK television program logo .jpg

Both have {{{1}}}.

How else could I have tried to figure this out without asking for assistance in this forum? --Tenmei (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A careful read of the documentation for the {{Logo fur}} template says that the "Use" parameter must be one of six special values. I think it's got confused by your "Use" parameters. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Template:Logo fur shows that Use and Purpose are connected. Use must be one of Infobox / Org / Brand / Product / Public facility / Other, where Other means literally that string. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How can I create a personalised welcome template

Hi, I try to welcome new users when doing requests for feedback, and would like to use my own welcome template that's a bit more personal. At the moment I end up typing my own message a lot, but it's quite timeconsuming. I can't figure out how to do this, could you point me in the right direction?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You can create a welcome message as a subpage in your userspace, such as User:Physics is all gnomes/Welcome. Then you can substitute it onto the page of the person using {{subst:User:Physics is all gnomes/Welcome}} ~~~~ ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a couple that you are welcome to copy and modify for use from your userspace: User:Ukexpat/welcome1 and User:Ukexpat/welcome2. – ukexpat (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Be sure to add it to Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates so that others can see what a good or bad job you did. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I'll give it a go. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests for permissions

What do you do if you want to be rechecked, but are still on the page? Breawycker (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you append another paragraph to your entry at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, as if it were a talk page, and an admin will surely see it and comment. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Gauging importance = predicting the future?

Resolved

Someone may have already done an essay on this, and I'd love to find a place where someone has considered this further. Omega Alpha Alpha (Fictional) Fraternity has had two events occur in the last month.

1. The chapter at University of Georgia has had its charter revoked after the school found out that they were forcing their pledges to dress up as My Little Pony characters. This has made top of front page news in the school newspaper, bottom of front page news in the Athens Georgia Newspaper and a minor mention in the Atlanta newspaper.
2. Omega Alpha Alpha fraternity chartered its first chapter in Canada at University of Toronto and this is mentioned on page 7 of the U of Toronto school newspaper (considerably less coverage).

However, (personal opinion), it is entirely likely that 5 years from now, that the expansion to Canada is more suitable than the hazing incident for the Omega Alpha Alpha wikipedia page. What should be do *now*? It is fairly consistently argued on the Wikiproject page that hazing incidents at individual schools are not suitable for Wikipedia since they are news about individual chapters and individual chapters are not notable. First chapter in Canada, OTOH, is an event about the entire Fraternity and thus suitable.Naraht (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You want to read WP:RECENTISM. Roger (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And WP:NOTEVERYTHING. – ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, WP:RECENTISM is probably closer to what I was wondering, but WP:NOTEVERYTHING is also useful.

Maslow's chart in public domain?

I was wondering if the chart of Maslow's hierarch of needs is in the public domain. I would like to use it in a publication. Thank you. The link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledgekay (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You can use it as long as you credit the author of the work. Every file page has a 'licensing' section which states if something is in the public domain or not. In this case it is not. Cheers - [CharlieEchoTango] 18:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is not in the public domain. The author has released the image under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. In summary, you are free to use the image for any purpose as long as you attribute the work to the author (who goes by the username Factoryjoe on Wikimedia Commons, and if you alter or modify the image in any way, you must distribute it under the same license. All the license information can be viewed on this page. If you have further questions, I suggest you ask them on the Wikimedia Commons Help desk. --Mysdaao ^talk 18:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook/Twitter Pages

Are we able to post 'official' Facebook and Twitter pages to their pages here? For example, All Saints Catholic School (Omaha, Nebraska) has an official Facebook page. Would it be possible to list this under External Links? Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes this is OK; see the guideline at WP:ELOFFICIAL. In the specific case you give, though, you should not add the Facebook link, obeying the part of the guideline headed "Minimize the number of links". The Wikipedia page already has a link to the school web page, and from there it is easy to jump to the Facebook page. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, in general it is best to link to the primary official website/portal for an entity. This is usually the main webpage for the entity; for the case of the school it would be the www.SCHOOLNAME.edu or whatever equivalent page exists. The "official" pages at facebook/myspace/twitter/youtube, etc. are almost invariably linked from the website somewhere anyways. Insofar as an entity MAY use, for example, "myspace" as its only or as its primary official webpage you could use that; but in general don't link to EVERY official page; link to one page, the intended primary one, and let users navigate on their own from there. --Jayron32 20:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That is a big help!! Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was going to ask the same thing. I have added links to the following person's Facebook profiles: Roberto Córdova, Jorge Vargas González, and Julio Ibarra. Is that OK? Diego Grez (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If and only if there is no other primary official website for the people, then it maybe OK. If the people have another primary official website, you should link that instead. --Jayron32 21:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah, excellent. Diego Grez (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(←) The proliferation of social Web sites has created a problem of people having disconnected or redundant Social graphs. That is, there is currently no one standard unified point of entry into any person's social graph. Ideally on Wikipedia we would not link to every entry node in a person's social graph, but just to the main point of entry, if one exists. Otherwise in another five or ten years we might have people maintaining dozens of online presences on various sites, for example on whatever comes after the current crop of Facebook, Twitter, etc., and Wikipedia could turn into a social network spamhole if we try to mirror every notable person's social graph. --Teratornis (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Attempting To Edit Bio

I'm trying to revise the biographical information for the rock group, "The Dartells". It won't let me do that. All I can edit on their Wikipedia page is the bands personnel. Please advise me how I can edit the bio info.

Thanx Dan Pollock (I started the band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sf1943 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, could you provide the link for the page you are trying to edit? The page The Dartells has not been edited since December of 2010. The page is not protected either, so you should be able to edit it. By the way, you have conflict of interest here, and we strongly recommend you use the talk page of the article to make recommendations for verifiable content instead of editing the article yourself (unless it's minor corrections). Cheers - [CharlieEchoTango] 20:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are having trouble editing the first section of this article, or any article, your problem might be solved here. But I agree with CharlieEchoTango that you should not be editing this article directly. You may find it instructive to look at the recent history of the article. Various editors have correctly removed information that was added without a reliable source and/or was not written from a neutral point of view. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Response To Dartells

The Dartells Wikipedia URL is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dartells — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sf1943 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. Do you have any questions we can answer for you? --Jayron32 20:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Your question and its answers is one section up from here. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Translating articles..

I'd like to translate articles from English to Finnish. Should i start a whole new page with the same name, or can i just somehow start another language from the existing page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rattlehead 87 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia you are working on now (en.wikipedia.org). You would write any translated article at the Finnish Wikipedia, which is located at http://fi.wikipedia.org . Just be sure that when you translate an article, you note in the edit summary the source Wikipedia article you translated it from, and include an Interlanguage link on both the English and Finnish versions of the article. --Jayron32 20:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How become the sole administrator of my Wikipedia page?

How do you do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidanMW (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You cannot. Everything you enter into Wikipedia can be edited by any other person in the world. That is how it works here. See WP:OWN. --Jayron32 21:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) If you are having issues with unconstructive edits (NB: edits you disagree with are not unconstructive), then we might be able to help if you tell us the page to which you are referring. To echo Jayron, under no circumstances can a page be locked to a preferred text, nor does one own a page, even if he is the subject. Xenon54 (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You cannot become sole administrator of a page on Wikipedia, but you can fork the page content to other wikis which do allow sole ownership of pages. You can also set up your own wiki site if you like. On Wikipedia, the closest thing to page ownership is on user pages, which by convention are usually only edited by their corresponding users. But we have User page guidelines that limit what you can keep on your user page. --Teratornis (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For information on Dan Weekes-Hannah to be changed, reliable, independent sources are needed. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

And if you are claiming that you are the subject of the article, far from giving you the right to control its content, that would mean that you should not be editing the article at all, for you would have a conflict of interest which would prevent you from editing the article neutrally. —teb728 t c 22:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE return to the old layout!

I find Wikipedia's new layout to be hard to read, and even harder to use.

The text on my machine (Mac OSX, running Firefox) is rendered on a 17" monitor, giving me an incomprehensible wall of words I really can't cope with. I have ADHD and some symbol processing disorders that make can make this sort of thing very challenging. I'm sure I'm not your only reader whose disabilities effect their ability to process text -- and SEVENTEEN INCHES is just too much!

It's also annoying to have to search so hard for the search function, as well as for the other features that used to be in the left hand column.

I love wikipedia, but in all honesty, I will be unable to use use if these changes aren't made.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.141.251 (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you create an account, you can change the layout back to the old one. :) - [CharlieEchoTango] 22:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you create an account, you will be able to use a variety of different skins to read Wikipedia, including the old ones. I'm not sure if there's a way to do so without creating an account. You might try using a smaller browser window for reading Wikipedia. If you need help doing that, I'd be happy to explain. If none of the answers you get on this board are satisfactory, you might try contacting one of the users listed here for help accessing Wikipedia.--Danger (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don’t use your operating system or your browser, but can’t you change the width of your browser window or the size of your text in your browser? Either would enable you control the number of words per line independent of Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 23:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In many browsers you can hold Ctrl and press the + key to increase the text size. On Macs I think you use Option and + or Apple and + or something similar... I ought to know by now, it comes up all the time at this help desk. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir. Worst bit of malfeasance I've seen in all my time at Wikipedia, foisted on us. But we can't do anything about it. As those above advised, make an account, go to your preferences, to appearance, and change your skin back to Monobook.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

January 11

DYK

I'd like to find out if Desert tortoise was a 'Did you know' article. Portal:Amphibians_and_Reptiles/Did_you_know/June_2008 implies it was, while, Category:Wikipedia_Did_you_know_articles doesn't list it. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would assume it was. Usually, like at Talk:Blackhawk Hotel it has a DYK template, which I'm guessing adds it to the above mentioned category. CTJF83 chat 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Retract that, Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/June would be more accurate than the portal, and it isn't listed. CTJF83 chat 02:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed. If it had been on DYK, it would be included at Wikipedia:Recent additions and it's not (the easiest way to search is to click "what links here" from the article, selecting "Wikipedia" as the namespace to check for links). Bencherlite^Talk 02:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. :) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) OH!! Here's the thing...it appeared on the Portals DYK, not the main page DYK. Portal:Amphibians and Reptiles CTJF83 chat 02:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Details of RevDel

I couldn't remember how various elements of RevDel worked, so I created and deleted User:Nyttend/directory/test three times, then proceeded to RevDel some of its elements: the username of one creation, the edit summary for another deletion, and the deletion log for one of the two RevDels. I had multiple surprises: (1) Until I un-RevDeled the deletion log entry, I couldn't view it — why was I able to restore it but not to view it in the mean time? (2) Although I performed two RevDels, there is only one entry in the log — does removing an edit summary not generally produce a log entry? Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm no admin...but I see one of the user name/ip removed and one of the edit summary removed. [4] CTJF83 chat 02:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not what I was asking about — that's the deletion log alone. See the entire log: there's only one entry other than the deletions themselves, not two. Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So, to clarify for someone else reading this that may have an answer...what is missing from the above link. CTJF83 chat 03:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being confusing. There's only one RevDel entry in the log, but I performed two separate RevDel actions. Why does the action of removing the username get its own log entry, but the action of removing the deletion summary doesn't? Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Entries merged together like on my talk? If that isn't the answer, then I give up on responding, lol and will let someone who knows what they are talking about answer. CTJF83 chat 03:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

my user name was being used as a "sock puppet" i would like to use it and i see the user that had it was faking me as both links refer to me?

Unresolved

 – WP:USURP issue John of Reading (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

my name is Mark Ryder aka MarkRuffRyder

i am a very well known underground music producer and i own many underground record labels with 20+ years releasing massive anthems for the uk underground dance scene.

i reciently came across an article i wanted to add clarifiction to but soon found my name was blocked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Markruffryder

the links seem to sugest what ever this guy was doing with my name was mainly to impersonate me as there are not too many of me around and my history in the uk underground is known maybe there is an 'about me' on wiki i will have to search anyway i can prove who i am and have years of very clear knowledge regarding the uk underground music industry as this is all i have ever done "make and move the uk undergound music scene" and its all i am still doing

my contributions would be positive and give real in site but i can not register a name that represents me and this one is blocked so is there a way to release it to me.

check out my new releases on my youtube

http://www.youtube.com/markryder

also google me or myspace/twitter/facebook

would love to clarify some big mis understandings in the uk underground dance scene which seem to be written by music buyers rather than the movers of it..

any help would be appreciated

regards Mark Ruff Ryder

Strictly underground bizznezz

true to the scene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.105.163 (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about username usurpation to comment on your request. But I must mention that you will run into problems in editing here, whatever name you register as, if you try to add your personal knowledge to Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia articles must only report what has already been published in reliable sources such as books and news media; Wikipedia does not publish original thought. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong info presented in article

What do you do if editors presents the wrong facts? They admit it is not right, but refuse to correct or change it, simply because the article has receive top honors on the the site. There have been numerous people complaining about these articles for the very same reason. What can be done? Please review the Talk on "Kentucky's Confederate Government" and Louisville, Kentucky". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypreston2010 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Confederate government of Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Louisville, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you be more specific about what is "wrong" needs to be changed? I took a look at the first talk page, and see a discussion regarding use of Shadow versus Provisional government, but that seems to be a question of due weight. Also, please sign your edits using ~~~~, it helps keep things in order. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Mathematic results

i want to edit some mathematic results seargch exemple 1)intégrale par fonction de parcellage 2)intégrale par changement de fonction 3) intégrale par des suites convergentes 4)forme exponenciel de la fonction afine 5)ensembles de mandel brot ammeliorée 6)fonction simulant la tangent,sinus,cos 7)suite a parametrage infini (compression,stokage, codage) de donnés 8) email —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.97.156.228 (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

These look like article titles for the French Wikipedia. For help using the French-language Wikipedia I suggest you ask there. (I have removed your email address to protect your privacy) -- John of Reading (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing system is extremely poorly thought-out

Some serious thinking needs to be done about the current editing approval system, in particular with regards to reverts on the grounds of insufficient reference requirements. Currently every single change that is made to improve a page requires completely unnecessarily rigorous referencing before that change is allowed, regardless of whether or not the page is already full of unreferenced material. The system we have now frequently involves non-expert editors telling expert assistants that their changes are not allowed because they aren't referenced properly: however it would be clear to any expert that the material is perfectly sufficiently referenced. Surely a better system would be to encourage non-expert editors to allow the experts to make their changes, but to politely request that they remember to add a correct citation after the event. Of course, should another expert editor have issue with the new contents, then it can be challenged, discussed, and a citation requested. But the system we have at the moment is completely counter-productive, and in direct contravention of the "assume good faith" policy. Editors should be instructed to leave the experts to make changes and improve the site as they see fit, and only to reject an edit if they are 100% sure it is vandalism. Py0alb (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedians cannot be considered "experts", because there is no way to prove their expertise; nor is any wikipedian considered "better" or more "more expert" than any other. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to collect and present information which has already been published in reliable sources, thus our information must be verifiable in reliable sources. If you are an expert in the field and that makes it easier for you to contribute to articles in that field, then your help is very welcome; but any information you add must be verifiable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As a side-note, the editing system is extremely thoroughly thought-out, and agreed upon with broad consensus by the community. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We do assume good faith but poorly referenced 'expert' edits may be original research, which we do not allow. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course there are experts. Who do you think writes most of wikipedia? They are the ones who discuss the changes on the talk page. They are the ones who say "This edit is incorrect BECAUSE..." rather than just "I don't understand this subject so I'm going to assume that any edit is automatically vandalism"

It is also a salient point that it more often than not requires a degree of expertise in the subject to understand whether or not it is sufficiently referenced. For example, if I looked through a maths derivation and was unable to determine how the author moved from one line to the next, does that mean that the page in insufficiently referenced and should be removed?

Surely any new material should be held up to the same standards as the currently existing material? I don't see any move to remove every page that contains unreferenced material (this would lead to the deletion of about 90% of wikipedia).

Saying "the editing system is extremely thoroughly thought-out" is meaningless. Clearly there are still several issues with it that need addressing, otherwise I wouldn't be here proposing improvements. It's virtually impossible to make a change to a page without having to explain in mindnumbing detail to about 30 separate editors who know nothing about the topic and automatically assume that you are a vandal why and how the referencing is already sufficient. Frequently they won't even discuss the issue, they simply revert your change and issue vandalism warnings. Are you honestly telling me that you think this is a good policy? If you don't believe me I have numerous examples, although at this stage I would prefer not to call any editors out in public.

Py0alb (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(written before seeing your last edit) I for one wish the community made more of an effort to welcome experts and to show that we valued their expertise, while still holding them to the same standards of verifiability and no original research as anyone else. But if you're wondering why the community as a whole is quite skeptical of claims of expertise, see Essjay controversy. You might also be interested in Citizendium, a project similar to Wikipedia that grants editorial oversight to contributors with verified expertise. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No-one should be issuing vandalism warnings for edits made in good faith... Did they explicitly call your edits vandalism, or were they just trying to explain Wikipedia policies? I have seen cases where a new contributor has waded straight into a highly controversial article, made good-faith and constructive changes, and been immediately reverted by long-serving editors who have dealt with hundreds of vandals, spammers, pov-pushers, cranks, and other problematic editors in the past, and whose experiences have left them a little too quick on the revert button. But it's impossible to comment on your case when we can't see your editing history (you've made no other edits under this account). Have you looked into dispute resolution? Or thought to drop a note with a relevant Wikiproject, which might be listed at the top of an article's talkpage? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please assume the assumption of good faith, py0alb. We are not saying unreferenced expert edits are vandalism, only that they are unreferenced, and people (especially immediatists) tend to remove controversal information that is uncited, or that look like original research. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe py0alb is saying that they were explicitly given vandalism warnings for a good-faith edit; but since such edits were not on that account, it's just speculation on my part whether the warnings were for vandalism or lack of sourcing, and whether or not such warnings were justified. Py0alb, have you edited with another account which we should be aware of? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just on my home computer's IP address before I opened this account a few days ago. But I don't wish to complain specifically about one case, I'm complaining because the general attitude of almost every editor I've come across leads me to believe that this arrogant attitude is a systemic failure that needs addressing by policy makers. For the purposes of clarity, I will outline the particular case that brought this to my attention. I have been trying to tidy up a substandard page over the last few months, and first attempted to rearrange one section in a slightly more coherent manner without introducing more information. After having it reverted several times by people who did not have the expertise to understand that I wasn't introducing new material at all, I eventually got it accepted. Then recently I noticed that I had made a small mistake in my original edit and had muddled up two terms - I move three words round to correct this mistake, and now three completely different editors who all admit to knowing nothing about the subject matter have blocked me from altering my own paragraph. So its sitting there with an obvious error but I'm not allowed to change it. I contacted all the editors individually, explained the situation and tried to be as friendly and patient as possible but they would not respond or undo their reverts. In fact, I encountered seven different editors, not one who even claimed to understand the subject in question, not one willing to even discuss the matter, and not one acting on assumption of good faith. I highly doubt that these were seven "rogue editors" I encountered; I think this is a wikipedia wide attitude problem that needs addressing as a matter of some urgency.

By "expert" I'm not necessarily talking about someone who makes gradiose claims about their subject knowledge, but simply distinguishing between those who know enough about the subject in question to be able to ask pertinent questions, and those editors or reviewers who freely admit to know nothing at all about the subject but still feel perfectly justified in reverting people's edits. I would never attempt to revert someone's minor changes on a page I know nothing about, it would feel like the height of arrogance of me to assume that I know enough to be able to tell whether it was sufficiently referenced or not. I simply feel that a reminder sent out to all editors to remind them that perhaps they don't know as much as they think they know, and should perhaps show a little humility when deciding whether or not to revert someone's changes. Py0alb (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If you ever find yourself claiming that the community has an attitude problem, that's usually the sign that you're the problem, not everyone else. If an edit is controversial and unreferenced or poorly referenced, reverting it and requesting discussion is exactly the right thing for any editor to do. If seven editors have all disagreed with you, it's time to drop the stick, and stop editwarring rather than claiming you're the only one who understands the subject. Note that block evasion is not allowed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an extremely poor and unhelpful reply, not to mention a complete logical fallacy. You haven't addressed my points at all, but just automatically assumed that I'm in the wrong without knowing the first thing about the case in question. My edits were neither controversial nor poorly referenced. It was me that continually requested a discussion, it was the other editors who engaged in a silent edit war. Frankly you should be thoroughly ashamed of jumping to conclusions and making ignorant and disparaging remarks based solely on your own prejudices. A disgraceful comment Py0alb (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

<edit conflicts x2> Have you tried citing multiple independent reliable sources first? Usually more than one is required to achieve a neutral point of view. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be beneficial to help discusss this if you told us what article you are talking about. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And now you're accusing me of sock puppetry because I disagreed with you Giftiger? What is this, the gestapo? Seriously, you should be banned from wikipedia for such flagrant and unnecessary personal attacks. Py0alb (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Giftiger is warning you against socking, not accusing you of it. Does your case involve the biography of a living person? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kayau and GB fan - I am not concerned about the particular case, which is why I'm not saying what page it was. I am simply trying to open up a discussion as to striking a better balance between antivandalism /"anti-unreferenced material" measures on the one hand, and the "assumption of good faith" / "assumption that the editor might know more about the subject in question than I do" on the other hand. At present, I feel that editors are too draconian/arrogant, and the balance needs to be shifted to a more open system based on discussing changes in a friendly manner on the subject discussion page rather than automatic warnings and reverts. I think an editor should have a chance to defend his changes on the discussion page before it is reverted. More democracy, less totalitarisnism. Surely we can all agree on this?

and yes, he has accused me of sock puppetry, presumably because he didn't like his post being described as disgraceful. My home page now has a warning on it saying that my name has been linked to a sock puppetry case and that there is mounting "evidence" against me. Py0alb (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There may have been a simple mis-understanding here. Py0alb wrote above, ""three completely different editors... have blocked me from altering my own paragraph". I interpreted that to mean that three editors had independently reverted Py0alb's changes, such that Py0alb was unable to make lasting edits on the paragraph. Giftiger wunsch seems to have interpreted the word "blocked" to mean Py0alb was blocked in the way that Wikipedia uses that term – technically restricted from editing from his/her IP address or account. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I can agree that in certain situations changes should be discussed before being reverted but in other cases changes should be reverted before being discussed. So without specific examples it is hard to say what I would do in a specific case. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You say that you favour democracy. You told us that seven editors believed that your edits were not adequately referenced. Who is out of step?

As for the sock-puppetry, you said "three completely different editors ... have blocked me from altering my own paragraph". Are you currently blocked, or are you subject to a topic-ban? If you are blocked and you are editing here, then you are indeed guilty of sock-puppetry. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not blocked you idiot, read the post above you. I am voluntarily abiding by the three revert rule. How about you go read up on "assumption of good faith"?

Democracy is NOT weight of numbers. Democracy means government by discussion. If editors revert other people's changes without being willing to discuss them then that is NOT democracy. The seven editors, none of whom even took the time to read through the article in enough detail to notice that the terms they were complaining about were already both used and fully referenced in other paragraphs, were entirely in the wrong. Eventually after one of them responded to my multiple requests for a discussion, they admitted I was right all along and my changes were allowed through.

Honestly, I'm simply attempting to have a reasonable debate about the things that should be considered when editing, and everyone is assuming I'm either a sock puppet or a troll or something. I'm genuinely trying to help. Py0alb (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling people idiots does not help the situation. You had said earlier in this discussion that 3 people had blocked you, so other editors took that to mean that you were blocked on a different account. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Owing to the new way the software handles edit conflicts, David probably had no way of seeing my post before making his own. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Py0alb, you write above, "I am not concerned about the particular case, which is why I'm not saying what page it was." But your contention that there is a systemic problem on Wikipedia seems to be based on that particular case. I can think of a few reasons why you might have received the (lack of) responses you did, some of them not in any way your fault. But there's no way I can help or even understand the problem without knowing the case; nor will anyone take your call for change seriously if you can't substantiate it with concrete examples. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is more than one form of democracy. If you use the term "democracy" and intend it to mean "consensus democracy", you cannot call someone an idiot for assuming you are referring to another form of democracy. It is apparent that you are intelligent enough to understand this. So, continuing to be abrasive and hardheaded indicates that you are not posting at the "help desk" for help. You are only posting to vent because you didn't get your way. -- kainaw™ 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Since there's a lot of talk of democracy here, let me point out that wikipedia is not a democracy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaving that aside, Py0alb, I agree with Adrian Hunter. This is a help desk, we can discuss specific cases but it's not an appropriate venue for discussing major changes in Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh apologies if this was the wrong forum to raise this discussion. Can you tell me where the best place would be to raise my concerns? It's not a major concern, I just feel that based on my experience of dealing with a variety of unresponsive editors, the guidelines for reviewing edits should be tweaked. Thanks. Py0alb (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

An RFC at WT:RS or WT:V may be more appropriate, since it appears to pertain to the reliable sources / verifiability policies. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you giftiger, I will look into that. I still await my apology though. Py0alb (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I just looked through those pages and you have missed my point. I have no issues with my or anyone else's understanding of what is or isn't an appropriate source. My issue is with editors who hit revert without reading through (and understanding) the article in enough detail to be able to make an informed decision about what is new information and what is simply a rearranging of already correctly referenced material.

My proposal is that editors should err more on the side of caution before reverting changes than they currently typically do. As a guideline: if a reviewer suspects that an edit is not sufficiently referenced, they should accept it but then give the author a chance (say 24 hours) to defend it on the talk page before reverting it, rather than the current system of reverting the change and then refusing to discuss the reasoning behind this. Can we have a discussion about this general concept, rather than jumping to conclusions about any particular case? Does anyone disagree with this proposal in principle? If so, why? Py0alb (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree, because this proposal conflicts with WP:BRD. No need to give unsourced assertions the benefit of the doubt, even for 24 hours. Also, I don't see a "system of reverting the change and then refusing to discuss the reasoning behind this" - in my experience, almost all editors are willing to discuss problem edits and justify their reversions at great length. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. However, what I am talking about does not conflict with BRD. The idea of BRD is that you make a bold change, then someone who is interested in the subject reverts it, and then the two of you discuss the matter and come to a compromise. That's a great idea, and works well if you have a page with several interested parties. Unfortunately, this isn't what happens in practice on the smaller pages which attracts little general interest. What happens instead is that you make a small change, someone with no interest whatsoever in the subject reverts it without even bothering to read through the whole article, and then refuses to discuss the matter. For the sake of argument, assume I'm not making this up for a laugh (assumption of good faith): do you agree with this system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Py0alb (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "system". It may be the way that some editors behave, but they are in the minority in my experience. As I said, almost all editors that I have come across are very happy to explain and discuss their edits. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unlucky in having encountered several unhelpful and unresponsive editors in a row, although I doubt it. But I think a gentle reminder to all editors with reviewer priviledges that it is good practice to a) read through an article very carefully before deciding to make a revert, and b) if in doubt discuss the changes with the editor on the talk page before reverting. Again these are not cases of obvious vandalism or completely new unsourced material I am thinking of, but rather editors erroneously categorising genuinely good and well cited changes as either unreferenced material simply because they did not have either the expertise or patience to make an informed judgement. Py0alb (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is practical to remind all of the editors with reviewer privs in this manner. What is practical and usual is for someone who has encountered a problem to post diffs showing the problem. Why not do that? It would be much easier to work with real situations than debate the abstract. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary to be an expert in the subject before reading an article. Unless you are prepared to change your tune and show us the example, if there were seven editors who felt that your edits were inadequately referenced it isn't unreasonable for us to assume good faith on their part and therefore to wonder whether in fact you didn't provide sources as clearly as you should have done, and it seems strange that you continued to try to include such an unreferenced edit up to the stage where you feared sanction under WP:3RR. If it isn't obvious to the average reader, then it needs to be referenced. WP:V says "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." By the time it had been challenged once, it wasn't clever of you to keep trying to add the material without a WP:RS - David Biddulph (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I am declining to do that is because I don't wish to embarrass, accuse or otherwise aggravate the reviewers in question (a couple of whom alredy received rebukes over the matter) because I believe the fault lies with the lack of correct guidance over WP policy, not with the people themselves. Py0alb (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to enter into this specific debate/dispute/whatever but I would like to say something for everyone to consider. One of the major weaknesses of "expert editors" is that quite a lot of "facts and figures" are "common knowlege" within their field of expertise so they can sometimes fail to appreciate the need for citation. Allow me to illustrate: Expert editor: "But everyone and his dog knows that a zigmoglobulator is always made of 24 carat unobtainium, demanding a citation is ridiculous!" Nonexpert editor: "Sorry Mr Expert, everybody and his dog does not know that - only everybodies and their dogs who work in the zigmoglob industry know that." Wikipedia is written for nonexpert readers; I vaguely remember reading advice somewhere that articles should be written at a level that's accessible to an average high school graduate. Roger (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again :-) In response to David's comment: " By the time it had been challenged once, it wasn't clever of you to keep trying to add the material without a WP:RS" After the first rejection, I made a comment on the talk page explaining that every term I was using was already used and correctly referenced lower down in the text. I then re-edited the material, with the request that before deciding whether to reject it or not, would the reviewer please read the notes in the talk page and respond to show they had seen them. But alas, to no regard, the change was simply rejected with no reason given. Surely reading the edit summary and talk page is the absolute minimum due diligence before rejecting another editor's change? As I said before, eventually a more diligent editor intervened on my behalf and reproached the original reviewers for their lack of attention and promised me the situation would not happen again. However, exactly the same thing DID happen again, and will no doubt continue to happen to all new editors on a regular basis until better reviewing guidance is put in place. You may all decide to bury your head in the sand and say that this is only a minority of editors who make kneejerk rejections as a kind of default setting or that I'm making this up as some kind of unfunny joke, but that kind of attitude will only damage wikipedia in the long run. Py0alb (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly this is getting to the stage where it's diffs or it didn't happen. The majority of editors will discuss disputes like the one you're describing, and we have procedures to enforce discussion in such situations. 7 editors failing to discuss without good cause seems very unlikely, and if you won't identify the incident to which you're referring, I'm inclined to think you're either exaggerating or your edits weren't as good-faith as you lead us to believe, especially since you've said you were also warned for vandalism. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm here trying to have a friendly discussion, and most people are obliging, but you seem insistent on resorting to ad hominems and thinly veiled accusations of dishonesty. This ON TOP of a completely fabricated and unfounded sock puppet accusation. Seriously, what did I do to offend you so badly Giftiger? Py0alb (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

how to use wikipedia the first time as a source of information on a subject

When I have googled a question and selected wikipedia as a source of the answer, I have always been pleased. Can I ask wikipedia directly for information or definitions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.193.54 (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You can indeed. Wikipedia has its own search function - it's at Special:Search, or in the top righthand corner of every page at en.wikipedia.org (if you are using our default skin, Vector). You can read all about it at WP:SEARCH. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If your search on Wikipedia does not deliver the information you want, you can also post a question at one of the Reference desks, which work in a similar way to this Help desk but deal with questions of information. The Reference desks are subdivided into broad topics such as Humanities, Science, Entertainment, etc. Roger (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively you can search Wikipedia with a custom Google search, which will just search Wikipedia.
This often works better than Wikipedia's own internal search function
http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Google+Search&domains=wikipedia.org&sitesearch=wikipedia.org
Arjayay (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your browser may have a search feature where you can select Wikipedia at the browser's search box. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

License questions

Am trying to wade through the backlog at Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale. Finding a lot of images which are not licensed correctly. Best policy is which-tag the file for wrong license or change the license to the one that fits the file? Also have some with more than one license; is best policy to remove the license that doesn't apply? Thanks, We hope (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Use your judgement. If it is obvious what the correct tag should be, then fix the tag. If it is confusing what the correct tag should be, then notify the uploader and ask them to fix it. --Jayron32 19:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much! We hope (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Who do I contact to possibly Edit Factual Information

During a recent discussion, we had a wager going on about something insignificant, however the wager got very large. Kevin Federline, Brittney Spears ex hubby, is from Fresno, and graduated Tenaya Middle School and also 9th grade at Bullard. For some reason, WIKIpedia had him listed as a famous alumni of Clovis West. H.S.

How do i go about contacting someone to change this? It is a factual based ERROR that somehow was put on WIKPEDIA.

Brian [email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.28.0.14 (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source here and someone will change it. Or go to the articles talk page and use Template:Edit semi-protected and request the change. CTJF83 chat 19:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

email address removed to protect your privacy [CharlieEchoTango] 19:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Searching (why do so many people post here without saying which article they are posting about?) shows that the information is in Clovis West High School#Notable alumni which is not protected. It is sourced to http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1489219/20040702/spears_britney.jhtml which says he was a 15-year old student but not whether he graduated (it appears he didn't). As alumnus says, it can both mean a graduate and a former student. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Special:CentralAuth

What is this? --Perseus, Son of Zeus 20:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it's just a local tracker of your account's status on different language Wikipedias. TNXMan 20:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

– And other Wikimedia wikis. As Special:CentralAuth says: "This interface can be used for administration of global accounts." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

On meta it is used by stewards to control your global account. Elsewhere (or on meta if you aren't a steward) it shows the global account status for a certain username. Prodego ^talk 22:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Draft of article on my user page has disappeared

Yesterday I spent a couple of hours creating a new article and placed it on my user page for further editing today. I both saved and previewed it. Today there is no evidence of it on my user page. Where did it go? What happened? Johnso1943 (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)