Help desk
< April 25	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

April 26

Maysville, Maine

I'm trying to learn why my 12 July 2005 submission on "Maysville, Maine" has been deleted. All that remains is a link to "Presque Isle, Maine". I believe the individual who took this action is Peter200, but cannot figure out how to contact him. Please advise. Thank you. LarrySmith 00:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actaully, it was Nscheffey who redirected it to Presque Isle. For the reason of: "this would probably be better as a REDIRECT to Presque Isle, Maine, the current name of the town" See the edit. If you disagree with his actions, you can leave him a message on his talk page. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Presque Isle article, the town of Maysville was annexed by Presque Isle over 100 years ago. Since anyone searching for the town of Maysville would be searching for the same place as Presque Isle, that title serves best as a redirect to the modern name of the town. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 00:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copying templates to other wikis

For a wikia project, I would like to duplicate one or many Wikipedia templates. Specifically, to begin with, I would like to duplicate the electiontable template. By 'duplicate' I mean that I want my table in the wikia project (ie. outside of Wikipedia), to look like a Wikipedia table. How can I go about doing this? Cprhodesact 01:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the earlier discussion on this topic in Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 March 14#templates. --Teratornis 03:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tag for a page that needs a lot of work?

What tag should be put on a page the needs a lot of work? (My mind is fried right now and I can't remember.) Bubba73 (talk), 03:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{cleanup}} is pretty general purpose.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Too many edits today caused me to be unable to recall it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I thought of the one that slipped through your edit-induced mind cracks, but I was just thinking, you might be looking for {{cleanup-rewrite}}.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{wikify}} is handy too if the page is little more than plain text. See WP:WIKIFY and WP:WWF. --Teratornis 03:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A page that needs a lot of work shouldn't be tagged. It should be fixed... - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that merely tagging a problem should never be an excuse to not fix it, but not everybody can fix every problem they see. Ideally, pages shouldn't even need fixing, they should all be done right the first time. That doesn't happen often enough on Wikipedia, because apparently much (maybe most) of the content comes from people who do not have expert knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and procedures; instead, they happen to know a lot about some particular topic, so they write about it here, often without awareness of all the Wikipedia-isms they are overlooking or not complying with. In the real world, few things work the way they "should," so we need tools to cope with the imperfection all around us. Tagging articles (at least in theory) has the effect of calling attention to specific problems. There are probably more people who can recognize a particular problem than people who can fix it. For example, many people can recognize an unsourced claim, but how many people can find a source for that claim? People who only know how to recognize a problem can contribute by tagging problems they recognize. That can save someone who can also fix the problem the extra work of having to find it and recognize it, too. In any case, lots of people spent time creating all those tags, so it would seem at least those people think the tags are serving some useful purpose. If nothing else, they provide a way to count the numbers of articles currently tagged with various problems, which in theory would help Wikipedians direct their efforts to the areas of greatest need. --Teratornis 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Role

What role did Alfie Dolittle play in 'My Fair Lady'?

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search Google for the answer. Or read the My Fair Lady article, which says:

Complicating matters is Eliza's father, Alfred P. Doolittle (Stanley Holloway), a cheerfully amoral and drink-loving dustman, who shows up to extract money from Higgins for compromising Eliza's virtue. Higgins is impressed by the man's natural gift for language and his brazen lack of moral values ("Can't afford 'em!") and flippantly recommends Doolittle to an American millionaire who is seeking a lecturer on moral values. In the end, Doolittle gets a surprise bequest of four thousand pounds a year from the millionaire, raising him uncomfortably into middle-class respectability.

What are schools teaching kids these days, if they aren't even resourceful enough to cheat on their homework by looking up a Wikipedia article? Note that after you finish school, the game rules turn upside down, and it is actually a good thing to be able to answer questions by searching the Web. --Teratornis 18:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

messages

I've recieved messages about "vandalizing" articles, but I've never edited a wikipedia page and don't think I even have an account. I'm very confused. What's going on? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.29.115 (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Replying to user's talk. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have articles become too complex?

I'm a fan of Wikipedia but I had a question for those of you who are more experienced than I... it seems that certain wikipedia articles have become so refined and so detailed that they are no longer accessible to the "common man," in this case myself. For example, I wanted to read the article on the magnetic field, and it is just way over my head - no basic explanations at all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

Now, this specific article could be fixed. However, it seems like it is a problem that will only increase as more people use Wikipedia. Granted, it's a rich man's problem, but it seems to be a problem nonetheless.

So my question is if anything is being done to address this. (edit: I mean on a systematic level, like maybe there should be a mandatory section in articles for a basic overview of the topic)

Edit 2: Sorry if this question is being posted in the wrong location. I'm not an experienced wikipedian.

140.247.40.22 07:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - it does look daunting for, say, GCSE students but they can ignore most of the mathematics and it will start to make sense. Considering the fact Wikipedia has to cater for all views and this includes experts, most articles will always be too complex for some people. I tend to ignore the mathematics when looking at scientific topics - it helps a bit. If the article does seem overly complicated, you can be bold and tag it with {{Confusing}}. x42bn6 Talk 15:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases there are attempts to address the issue. See General relativity and Introduction to general relativity. WilyD 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shortcuts

How do I get those shortcut things on my userpage? MajorZeldaFan 08:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain please? YechielMan 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean {{Shortcut}}, you shouldn't have one of those because there shouldn't be any redirects or shortcuts to your userpage. x42bn6 Talk 15:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I request translation?

I need a translation of Levente from Polish to English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zslevi (talk • contribs) 09:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I see you left a message on the article itself. Beyond that, you can ask individuals who know both Polish and English at level 4 or better (see Wikipedia:Babel). One of them is User:Belissarius. See Category:User pl-4 and Category:User pl-N, and check their English level also. YechielMan 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telepathic Internet article

I recently submitted an article entitled "Telepathic Internet", which has been filed in the "articles for deletion" category. I have now re-written the introductory paragraphs as promised, removing the magazine-article spam.

I recognise that the subject of this article is not what most people would describe as mainstream science. I acknowledge that it may be seen as rather esoteric or spiritual for most people.

My intention in writing this article is (metaphorically speaking) to plant a seed. I would appreciate it if a place could be found for the article other than the deletion file (articles for deletion). I reccognise that it may not get a lot of use immediately, but if left to germinate and be discovered by web-browsing spiritualists, it could grow into something wonderful in a few years time.

I can reassure all concerned that I currently have no plans to submit further articles. I look forward to seeing this article off the deletion list. I can be contacted at <email removed to prevent spam> for one-to-one discussion on this matter.

     Many Thanks,
 (\0/)  Arthur  (\0/)
  /_\ Phillipson /_\

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Phillipson (talk • contribs) 10:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The place to discuss the merits of keeping the article are on its articles for deletion page, not here. The tag in the article gives a link to the deletion discussion but for your convenience you can access it here. Please note that what you appear to be saying above—your rationale for why the article should be kept—appears to confirm what the editor who nominated the article for deletion is saying; that is, that it has no sources backing up its claims and is original research. I urge you to explore that last link as well as Wikipedia:notability and Wikipedia:verifiability. In short, this is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source of information, and thus is not a publisher of essays, opinion pieces, fiction, original research, etc., and all articles must be verifiable through reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

linking an image to a talk page

hiya, i'm trying to link an image (from the commons) using a internal link. but not in an article, but rather on a response on a talk page.I'll try and make my request a bit clearer, a user has linked a funny (ha, ha, not wierd) picture supposedly of themself, i wish to respond in kind, have found an image at the commons image:oscar wilde.jpeg, and i am try to link it to me response so that when they click on the blue bit it takes them to the chosen picture, i've tried finding my own way, copying their way and looking it up, but to no avail can someone help? Perry-mankster 10:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put a colon at the start of the link; for instance, [[:Image:Example.png]] produces Image:Example.png. You can pipe the link as normal if you want. --ais523 10:58, 26 April 2007 (U T C)

That annoying message indicator

How do I get rid of that annoying "new message" indicator? Some Wikipedian left me a message saying I ought to register, and ever since then I can't get rid of that orange bar. Even deleting the message didn't make it go away. Please don't tell me the only way to get rid of that bar is to register. Because if that's the only way, I'll just not come back here anymore. 87.210.41.124 10:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bug in the software. If you wait long enough, it should go away again. (It ought to have disappeared when you looked at the message; but there's something wrong with the software in this regard. The developers are looking into the issue at the moment.) --ais523 10:57, 26 April 2007 (U T C)

Thank you very much. 87.210.41.124 10:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Bug ID 9213 they don't really seem to know what's causing it, so I wouldn't hold up much hope of them solving this problem in the near future--VectorPotential^Talk 11:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BIG QUESTION

I was told I can't have two Wiki accounts. How do I get rid of the account? Thanks, Whenshal42 11:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abandon your alternate account, and just continue with your main account. (Accounts can't be deleted, in part for copyright reasons.) --ais523 11:30, 26 April 2007 (U T C)

(after edit conflict) It's a little more nuanced than what you were told. Having more than one account is discouraged by some but especially if the second account is used in an improper manner such as deceptively to add support to your other account in debates, pushing points of view and so on, and can result in an indefinite block. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. If you want to "fix it" you don't need the second account deleted, you can simply choose to use only one. We don't delete accounts but you can request that an account's talk page be deleted. On the other hand, some users who don't use a second account for problematic edits, contine to use them without problem and disclose on each account's userpage the existence of both accounts and what each is used for.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can place a link on the secondary account's userpage and talk page that links to the primary accounts userspace. Scottydude _talk 21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

add section but its been deleted

I just spent several hour adding a new section only to have it deleted - It not a commercial link or anything of the sort

Ref: Simon Phillips social documentary photographer - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trevor75swim (talk • contribs) 13:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You should leave a message for User:Alison, who deleted the link from the disambiguation page. Generally, Wikipedia does not include redlinks (i.e. links that don't point to articles) in disambiguation pages. If you actually created an article about him, it might have been deleted per WP:N and WP:BIO. YechielMan 14:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion log says User:Alison deleted Simon Phillips (photographer) with the reason "CSD A7: Bio / Vanity". Follow the link to see what it means. PrimeHunter 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

logged in but not logged in

I've just created an account using Scalp 'em as my user name. I'm told that my log in was accepted but when I go to the discussion page for an article I wish to edit, I'm told I'm not logged in. What do I do?

Thanks, Jim Morgan (Scalp 'em) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.18 (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Make sure that cookies are enabled in your browser; if they are, try using the 'Remember me' box. If neither of those works, then the alternative slower server has been known to solve login problems for people in the past, especially people who use a satellite ISP. Hope that helps! --ais523 14:11, 26 April 2007 (U T C)

Removal of account

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia, didn't understand how the process worked, was greeted by an extremely ignorant and rude moderator DarkSaber2k who didn't help just put the article we were trying to write down and I would like my account removed from Wikipedia please, I want no part of its services any longer. Thank-you. Heatherlynn 611 14:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, because of the terms of the licensing of the material you've released under the GFDL to Wikipedia, you account cannot be deleted. You do, however, have the right to vanish. WilyD 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That message is certainly not putting anything or anyone down. It is in a standard format for image license problems. The image was evidently uploaded without the required license release (see IUP), and if that was the case, then it had to be deleted. If it is properly licensed per GFDL then you can upload it again. DarkSaber's message is perfectly acceptable as well; if you removed an SD tag from your article, that goes against the instructions on the tag itself and is definitely bad form. Adrian M. H. 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well now if you had read what I was actually talking about you might understand...

"There is nothing to verify the notability of the group, the sources provided are not reliable, there is a conflict of interest and groups in games never deserve their own article, unless they somehow manged to make it onto the 6 o clock news. Just because Runescape is notable enough to have an article on wikipedia doesn't mean your group is. DarkSaber2k 13:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to read the very useful getting started links someone was kind enough to put on your page before you made this article, you wouldn't even be having this 'How dare they call my article non-notable' strop.DarkSaber2k 13:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)"

It was rude as far as I'm concerned... and it was only said to me, so my opinion is what counts.

If Wikipedia were a business, and you were a paying customer, your opinion would count, because in business, supposedly, the customer is always right. However, Wikipedia does not exactly work that way. Wikipedia is not a democracy, for example. Wikipedia is a free site supported by financial contributions from generous people who like the way it works. Freeloaders like me have to know our place. Wikipedia does not charge us any money to put our articles on the Web, but few things in life are truly free. There's usually a price of some sort to pay, somewhere. On Wikipedia, the price is that we have to read the friendly manuals; for example, all the stuff linked from Help:Contents. That is a lot of material, and a surprising number of computer users make a point of not reading manuals. If we do what most people tend to do in unfamiliar situations, just barge right in to Wikipedia and assume we know what's going on, we will probably run into problems with people who do read the manuals. That's because Wikipedia is very different than anything most people have experienced before, so most people who are new to Wikipedia will start out with any number of incorrect assumptions about how it works. I certainly had my share.

Wikipedia is run almost entirely by volunteers. But the site still functions according to rules. Wikipedia is similar to a barn raising. In a real barn raising, there is a strict hierarchy of job assignments. Everyone is a volunteer, but no one is free to stroll in and just start nailing up boards any which way. The boards have to go up according to the plan, or else the barn won't be structurally sound or usable. Everybody who is pounding nails grew up watching barn raisings as a child, first just watching, then fetching things as they got older, and eventually participating with the adults. On Wikipedia, we don't have a real-world culture to teach people what to do; instead, we rely on RTFM and intervention.

Real barn raisings have the advantage of being simpler and smaller than Wikipedia, so if a stranger shows up and starts nailing the wrong way, other volunteers will intervene before the mistake gets very far. On Wikipedia, in contrast, there isn't such tight supervision. Anyone can set up an account and pour hours of work into writing articles that violate any number of policies and guidelines, only to have them deleted days or weeks later. In my opinion, this is an ergonomic defect of Wikipedia. An ergonomically superior Wikipedia would detect when a new user first violates a guideline; within seconds some sort of real-time chat channel would open up, and an experienced user (or sufficiently intelligent software agent, e.g., a lot smarter than the infamous Clippy) would address the problem before the user goes on to make additional mistakes. Such a mechanism might also cut down on the snippiness of replies, which can happen when an administrator sees, after the fact, that a user violated a whole series of guidelines, and has to address what looks by then to have grown into a big problem. On Wikipedia, just as with medicine, and protecting the Earth from asteroids, early detection can reduce the cost and improve the success rate of a cure.

Wikipedia is a form of online interaction, and all forms of online interaction are notorious for flaming and rude behavior. Anyone who is seriously bothered by a bit of rudeness should not be communicating online; it just goes with the territory. (If we were good at schmoozing, we'd probably be out schmoozing, rather than sitting at computers trying to build an encyclopedia, after all.) However, Wikipedia is probably the most gracious online community of its size and diversity I have yet seen, as online communities go. Check out Usenet some time if you want to see some serious online rudeness. Many Wikipedians are probably veterans of other online communities where disagreements get really rough, so their idea of "polite" might equate to refraining from making death threats.

Well, I must apologize for boring everyone to tears once again with yet another long-winded essay. If the Help desk were an article, no doubt this essay would get deleted speedily. But here I have found a loophole for my hypergraphia, and I make this ugly habit of exploiting it. Hopefully, you won't give up on Wikipedia too quickly just because it seems impossibly weird and officious. Maybe you too will find your niche. Just keep trying, and RTFM. It also helps to edit on other wikis which typically have very different rules. --Teratornis 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, awesome essay, Teratornis. Save this somewhere. Either in your User space, or in the [[Wikipedia:]] hierarchy. Corvus cornix 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be possible for the Wikipedia administrators to create a mandatory pre-approval for new accounts, to include text similar to Teratornis' essay above, but in an automated questionaire to be completed within 2-3 screens, prior to clicking on an "agree" button? The WP:About aka "Overview" on the main page is too easy to bypass. Alternatively or in addition to this, might it be possible to have the "edit" functions appear only upon logging in as a registered user? Marycontrary 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Edge

HI

It seem the a page regarding the company/product i represent is change by anonymous people with worng and false insofrmation. we have a hard time mataining correct information.

What are our solution to regulate the information on thet page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_Edge

The versions that you've been reverting to look very much like adverts to me; some of the other versions seemed strongly negative, and one even appeared sarcastic. That article is in trouble; it's never contained any sourced information, and I don't think it's ever been neutral either, but instead a collection of advertisement and marketing terms on the one hand and users complaining about it on the other. I see that someone has nominated the article for deletion, in part because of this. Read the page about conflicts of interest; people associated with a company often have a hard time remaining neutral about their products. Finding reliable sources unconnected with the company to verify the information given may be a good start on improving the article; you can comment on Talk:Solid Edge to discuss the article itself. --ais523 15:41, 26 April 2007 (U T C)

unsummarized edits

Recently someone showed me a link that summarized my edit count along with some other interesting details. The link displayed a histogram contrasting the number of edits with an edit summary to those without. Although the vast majority of my edits were depicted with summaries, some were not. This was puzzling to me until I realized that it was probably counting edits to my own user space, and edits to the reference desk. These are situations where edit summaries seem particularly unhelpful (although I can put some there, also, if that's what people want).

Is there a page that shows contribution stats where the "edit summary breakdown" is more specific? TIA for any info. dr.ef.tymac 16:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As no-one else has responded yet, I'll chip in and say that I have not yet found one. I wish it was available; it's a good idea. Adrian M. H. 20:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this page as well, though I don't recall where it was linked to. It was probably on this desk but I can't be sure. Maybe try the archives? Dismas|^(talk) 20:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would presumably be straightforward to include that separation (as you have with edit counts). I don't know who to ask about creating one, though. Adrian M. H. 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the tool is here: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=calliopejen1&site=en.wikipedia.org (that's the link for my edits, obviously.) Calliopejen1 14:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that just an edit counter? The questioner was looking for an edit summary counter with a breakdown similar to that tool. I'd write one, but I wouldn't know where to start. Adrian M. H. 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

previewing embedded references

When I do a section edit, I cannot see the associated references in the preview. At times, this creates problems, because a stray character can break the reference list pretty badly. Is there a workaround for this so that the reference list is viewable in a preview? Sfmammamia 16:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could stick {{reflist}} at the end of the section, just to preview, then delete... I agree, unfortunate design. Notinasnaid 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a fix for this put in place yet? It is very annoying.Pirhounix 00:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Where can I buy an afforable Bible?

New King James Bibel. I would like to find out where I could buy the NKJV for mission work at a very good price. Can you help? Thank you. Regards, Rolf Georg

Hi Rolf Georg, generally this is not the correct place to ask this kind of question, but you might try biblegateway or ebay. More importantly, if you are near a Christian church or know someone who is, there is a very good chance you can get one free of charge if you ask around.

Next time, if you have a general question like this, try asking here -> follow this link. Hope that helps. dr.ef.tymac 20:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pianta merge discussion

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but was there ever a consensus discussion for merging Pianta with Super Mario Sunshine and if so, where is it because I can't find one anywhere. Henchman 2000 18:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no discussion regarding it on either talk page, then it was done without consensus, but that's not generally an issue unless the merge was likely to be controversial. See WP:MERGE. Check the diffs for Merge tags and see how long, if at all, they were kept before merging. If they were there for a week or so, that's reasonable time for any objection to be raised. If no tags were used, then that could be considered to be too arbitrary. If it was discussed, it must have been on users' talk pages, which is not really the right thing to do because most editors won't see it. Adrian M. H. 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merge was suggested, eith no apparent discussion, and 13 minutes later, Pianta was merged. What should we do? Henchman 2000 07:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's common for articles on small characters to be merged in larger articles. See WP:FICT. What I am concerned about is that information turned missing in the process. Not all of the info from the redirected article was included. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, there used to be a section on Pianta, but it was removed without reason. Henchman 2000 08:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!

What do I do if I am being invaded by waffles who keep saying All Your Base are belong to Belgium?

Thorazine ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack them with maple syrup and a spoon? :P --saxsux 19:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask your dealer to stop selling you adulterated goods. dr.ef.tymac 20:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything I can do about the REPETATIVE vandalism to my userspace?

Look here and here. I'm getting vandalised a lot, is there anyway I can stop this? ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPP. Though if you'd rather not bother with that process, just leave a note here and I'll semi-protect your userpage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, can you semi-protect them both? User and User_talk? Thanks again. ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 20:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but note that the protection off your talkpage expires in 24 hours. If talkpage vandalism persists after expiration, you might need to look into other alternatives. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 20:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how do you add a new word

(Question added by Psu923 (talk · contribs), reformatted by Sancho 19:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Neologism might be of use to you. Dismas|^(talk) 19:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and if your new word is really cool, and you think Wikipedia simply must include it, then you can submit it here-> follow this link. dr.ef.tymac 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing an image

Hi,

I'm in the process of editing the entry for our amateur football team and i need to replace the image that shows as our logo with a newer one.

How do I get rid of the old one and replace it with the new one?

Coachkev 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload the new one and then just change the article. The old one should then be marked as an orphan if it is not to be used anymore. Dismas|^(talk) 21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For which you will need some of the links under Help:Contents/Images and media to find out how to upload and what license you need to use. Adrian M. H. 21:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come your amateur football team has an article? I wonder if it meets notability criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the issue on its talk page. Adrian M. H. 18:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving disputes

I'm a little confused over the whole dispute resolution situation. WP:DR says both "Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the main avenue for general disputes" and "Wikipedia:Third opinion, for disputes involving only two editors". So which do I go with first? User:Valrith and User:Purplehayes2006 have been reverting one another for weeks and I'm kind of getting tired of seeing the Jenna Haze article at the top of my watchlist for the same things by the same two editors. Dismas|^(talk) 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For 3O to apply, it might need the request to come from one of those editors; although I would not ignore a request from a third party, I would be a bit reticent to get involved when it is quite possible that neither party wants someone stepping in. An RFC would be better, I think. That said, if either of them have gone past 3RR, leave a note at AN3. Adrian M. H. 21:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I went with WP:3O. Dismas|^(talk) 09:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions About AR Article

There's a site called AtheistResource.co.uk that I'm wondering if it's OK to make an article about.

AR is a website that provides links that are relevant to Atheism & Skepticism. It's educational, & not only is it general & non-specific, but its primary purpose is not to provide content, but to provide links, which I'd think would make it an even more appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article.

As well, there're a few places where the site could be linked. It could be linked at the bottom of the articles, "Atheism" "Skepticism" & "Scientific Skepticism" & the article could be linked in the "See also" sections of the above articles.

So, I'm basically asking if it's OK to make an article about the site, & what the parameters are for linking both the article & the site. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by King Boogey (talk • contribs) 20:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is it notable? Can you find reliable sources? Adrian M. H. 21:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if the article is made, because of its controversial nature, it will probably be vandalized.

Secondly, since the site is not famous, (kind of like how Stadium High School is not famous but there's an article about that), there're no independent sources to base the facts on, though in the notability section, it said that if you can find another way to verify the facts, then that problem can be resolved, & I can just ask the people who run the site to verify it.

I'm also aware of the conflict of interests, & I'm a contributor to that website, but I can assure you that I & others who work on the site are capable of making an objective article. If you don't believe me, you can just look at the article to make sure we don't turn it into a promo.

Probably the best thing to do, though, is to just go to the site & tell me if an article on it is acceptable. Thanks. ¬¬¬¬

Please read WP:NOTE, WP:RS, and WP:WEB. Looking at a site itself does not tell us whether an article on it is acceptable. For example, Wikipedia has an article on Microsoft even though the Microsoft site is blatantly commercial. What matters most on Wikipedia is whether every statement in an article can be reliably sourced. Large companies such as Microsoft, Wal-Mart, General Motors, etc., can be written about encyclopedically because many reputable publications have written about them. The idea on Wikipedia is that we only write about what has been written about elsewhere. If you write from your firsthand knowledge of the site you are personally involved with, you run the risk of a conflict of interest, or of writing something that could be called original research. However, if you restrict your writing to merely rephrasing claims about the site which have appeared in reliable sources, the scope for a conflict of interest is reduced (although one could still occur due to undue weight, for example). Therefore, the main question to ask about your site is, who has written about it? Were these reputable publications, known to check their facts? Did they say anything that would be good to add to an encyclopedia? See WP:WEB for more details. On Wikipedia, the trick to contributing productively is not merely to know things, but to know who wrote and verified what we know. If you cannot find any reputable publications about your site, then you might try to enlist some journalists to write about it. --Teratornis 20:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there're no sources that have been written about the site I'm referring to. It's easy to verify facts, though-all I have to do is ask the founder of the site. I know I run the risk of conflict of interest even if I try to be objective, but part of Wikipedia is that everybody keeps an eye on everything so that something like that doesn't get out of hand.

If I have to though, I'll try to get someone who works for a news site to write an article about it. The thing is, a conventional news site probably wouldn't write the article, only an Atheist news site would be likely willing to do so, so would that be a conflict of interest, too?

considering your admission above, then it's pretty clear the site would not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy 20:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image problem

I uplaoded a new, cropped version of GaryHarrison.jpg, but it uploaded wrong. Why is this? --98E 21:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image looks fine to me. Your browser may not have cleared the old image out of your cache yet - try doing that and see what happens. In Firefox or Safari, press Ctrl-Shift-R, in Internet Explorer, press Shift-F5, and in Opera, just press F5. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 22:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating A New Page

In the Help portion of this website there is no direct comment on creating a new page from scratch - a new page that is stand alone because there is no previous mention of the topic or object.

As there is no mention of the company I plan on writing about on any of the pages currently in wikipedia, I cannot edit a link or create a link. I therefore need to know how to create a page from scratch. Please let me know how to go about doing this.

Thank you for all your help in this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roobans (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See: Help:Starting a new page. Scottydude _talk 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Yes there is; it's under Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia and it's called Help:Starting a new page. I would strongly advise that you read other help pages and guidelines first, though. I'll leave a message for you. Adrian M. H. 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new page

how do i creat a page22:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bootha (talk • contribs).

Help:Starting a new page and Wikipedia:Your first article are helpful. x42bn6 Talk 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I delete my account?

I just created a Wikipedia account a few days ago and recently realised that I have no real use for it after all, so I want to delete it. I have made no contributions to Wikipedia apart from one blank page, which was deleted straight after because I went to create it then realised I changed my mind. Can I delete my account as I have made no contributions but one empty page with no significence? 172.188.213.160 23:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't delete your account. However, you do have a right to vanish. Sean William 23:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spa Article

Hi I was wondering if there is a verification period/process when submitting an article. I wanted to write an article on Coast Spas a hot tub manufacturing company. I read an article on Wikipedia about Jacuzzi and Bullfrog both hot tub manufactures and wanted to write one about Coast Spas as I am a proud owner of one.

Here are my questions:

1. Is there a verification period?

  If so, how long would it take for the article to be on the World Wide Web for people to view?

Please send any additional information that would help my situation.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donalli (talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There is no verifaction period. However you should read WP:Notable before creating the article. If you need any more help then feel free to ask me on my talk page. -Mschel 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest strength and the greatest weakness of Wikipedia is that there is no verification process. Any change you make will be visible to the whole world the instant you click Save page. However, you seem to have a conflict of interest with this article, so it might be best not to create it yourself. If it's notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone not connected to it will create it. Pyro spirit ^Shiny! 01:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, it seems that for some people the word jacuzzi has become the synonym for hot tub, so it makes sense to have an article about that one. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your company though. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the original poster said 'I'm the proud owner of one', I took that to mean that s/he owns a spa, not a spa company. I might be wrong tho. Anchoress 07:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the watchlist broken?

Hello, I click my watchlist link but no recent changes are listed (at all) even though the articles have been changing. What's up? Tkjazzer 23:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, they sometimes lag. Apparently, it's a bug they're working on fixing. Just check manually or wait a little. Pyro spirit ^Shiny! 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, this bug is taking a while Tkjazzer 18:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cycle of an Article

Question. I noticed that on "articles created today" there are articles that are "declined" and articles that are accepted with a "thank you for contributing to wikipedia", what happens to the others where there are no editor comments. Are they automatically declined? Belkwriter

They sit there, possibly forever, awaiting action. But since nothing happens, they don't get an article either. Experienced editors are welcome to help out with the backlog. Here are some from six months ago, for instance Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-12-26. Notinasnaid 06:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]