Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 January 21

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.

January 21

Guidelines for referencing video sources

What are the guidelines for referencing video sources? Is it sufficient to simply reference the name of the source or does the video itself have to be accessible. If the latter, is it acceptable to reference Youtube and other online video sources even though their copywrite status may be questionable? I have added a statement to a page referencing the name of the source but an Admin has told me that I must provide a link to a written transcipt of the source...the source is directly available on Youtube but it is a copywrited TV documentary.71.168.36.54 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No. YouTube is not a reliable source or external link, especially if the video in question violates copyright laws. NF24^{(radio me!)} 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's a documentary that's regularly re-aired or sold, you can simply cite the documentary with enough information that it can be found by anyone interested in doing so. If it was a one-time thing, I'm not sure. Note that in general a documentary won't be as reliable as a book published by a reputable publisher; if you can find the information elsewhere, you'd do better to cite it there. --NE2 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:YOUTUBE: "There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights." --omtay38 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Custom skin

I would like to create my own custom skin, but I don't know how. I want to make a skin that has a black background with mostly white text, as this is easier on my eyes. I thought it would be as simple as finding my personal .css MySkin file and simply setting background to black and text to white, but I can't even locate the .css file. I'd appreciate some help. HoCkEy PUCK (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You may want to check here and here for help on what you are attempting. This "feature" has actually been brought up on wikipedia talk pages a number of times but as far as I know has never been fully implemented. However, you are free to do as you please with your own css files. Hope this helps! --omtay38 00:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See Prodego's advice below (wow, that's new!) --omtay38 01:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy this to here, save, and clear your cache. Prodego ^talk 00:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what, forget that. Go to Special:Preferences, select the Gadgets tab, and chose the black monobook option. Prodego ^talk 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Much kinder on the eyes, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Or it would be if it worked on article pages :( .DuncanHill (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am working on that now, with User:Topaz's help. Also working on contribs pages. :) Original skin by Brian0918. Prodego ^talk 01:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, cool! DuncanHill (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

CSS people, this needs some updating. See my monobook history for the best version so far, I will continue working on it tomorrow, with Topaz, but until then if anyone wants to work on it... I think there is also a mediawiki bug in the way. Prodego ^talk 02:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Credit for entries before creating username?

I just made a bunch of comments on the Cloverfield discussion and decided I should probably make a username. Is there any way to get credit for these or does it not matter anyway? Thanks! Sorry if this was asked or is in the FAQs. Ryan M. (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to wikipedia! If you want, you can link to the IP address these edits were made under. Chances are, it won't matter in the long run and you can always look them up again. Again, welcome and happy editing! --omtay38 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! Where exactly do I do that? Ryan M. (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

On your userpage you could include some links to the diffs of those edits if you'd wish. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi, I filled out info for a picture on Kafu the wrestler and it hasn't set up. Can you help me please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrestlefreak (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, first, while it is generally good practice elsewhere to start paragraphs with a space, on Wikipedia it does nasty things with the text so I've fixed it up for you. If you're talking about Image:Hurt Hurt Hurt!.jpg, then it appears to have uploaded just fine. To get it to appear in an article, you have to put a link in that article, e.g. [[Image:Hurt Hurt Hurt!.jpg|thumb]]. To learn the details of image syntax, check out Wikipedia:Image tutorial. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You uploaded Image:Hurt Hurt Hurt!.jpg. You can place it in the infobox at Kafu by replacing image = Replace this image male.svg with image = Hurt Hurt Hurt!.jpg. See Help:Images and other uploaded files for ways to display it outside the infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Return to an article after using a link

Grump33071.234.248.42 (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Why can't I return to an article I was using after using a link in it?

I don't know. Most browsers have a 'back' feature (generally involves clicking on a leftarrow icon or pressing backspace), but yours might not. Algebraist 04:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Granola lips

Why does this user have blocked and a blocked sockpuppet template on there user page, when there is no blocks listed in his/her block log? VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 04:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It was apparently vandalism and has been removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

question

how do u make a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjor08 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

question

how do you create a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggmammy101 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation of a topic

I was looking for an article for an Austrian hiphop group by the name of Texta. Currently entering Texta redirects automatically to a marker article. How can I get started on changing a redirect to a disambiguation? I would like to do as much of this on my own/ learn how to do it on my own. Thank you in advance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanape (talk • contribs)

I don't think a disambiguation page is necessary since the articles don't share a common name that needs disambiguating; at best a hatnote would be needed on the prospective article on the hiphop group (something like {{For|the felt tip pen|Marker pen}}). You can simply go the the redirect page and make it into the article on the hiphop group. However, before you write that article, please take a look at our notability standard for bands, and don't forget to cite sources. By the way, always sign your posts to discussion pages such as this (but not in articles) by typing for tildes (~~~~) after your post which automatically formats to your signature when you save. You can also place the tildes using the editing button which looks like this: . Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have started a page but I dont know why it isnt in the form

that is seen on other topics? need help

Found what I needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewts357 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) You created Presidential Youth Services Award. Which form are you referring to? It can take days or more before a new article is indexed by Wikipedia search. Please sign your edits here and on talk pages but not in articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been deleted. The name "Presidential Youth Services Award" has no Google hits but I guess it is the Kids award mentioned in President's Volunteer Service Award#The awards (although that article says 50 hours of volunteer work is enough while the deleted article claimed it was only awarded once a year). PrimeHunter (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I need help

with adding a new wiki entry can anyone help? Freemefromher (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freemefromher (talk • contribs) 07:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. --teb728 t c 08:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

saving edits

I am editing the "Santa Clara Vanguard Drum and Bugle Corps" page, and my edits are not always showing up. I'll change something in the edit page and then click "save changes" and the page will have all my edits like I want. But if I go on a different computer to view the page, or if I view the page the next day, all my edits are gone, BUT when I go to the edit page to fix those things again, my edits are STILL in the editing box, they are just not being displayed on the page. Why is this happening? Am I doing something wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuapeterson (talk • contribs) 07:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You may have to bypass the cache on the used computer. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with the page, because I've edited other pages with no problems from the same computer. Any other thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.106.47 (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you try bypassing your cache? I notice your first post was while logged in and the second was not. This can display different cached versions of a page. Also, some ISPs cache pages. You cannot override that by bypassing your own cache. If you click the "history" tab and then click on the date of the most recent listed version then you may be able to see the current version (doesn't work if the history page is cached but I don't think it will be). PrimeHunter (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I bypassed the cache and it still isn't showing up. The other edits that I just made to another page are still there, but the edits I'm making to this page are not staying. I noticed that when I logged out, and closed and reopened my internet browser to the page, it didn't show my edits, but once I signed in to wikipedia, my edits were there on the page. Is there something wrong with my account or the page, or anything else you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuapeterson (talk • contribs) 08:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think an old version is cached somewhere and others are seeing the current version. Did you try clicking the history [1] and the currently most recent date [2]? You can also try the normal url with something manually added to the url to possibly avoid a cached version, for example a '?' in [3]. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When viewing a page starting with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ the bottom of the window should say "This page was last modified ...". If you see a cached version then the time is probably older. The time depends on your time zone. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I clicked the history, and the most current version of the page is up, even though on other computers it's displaying a version of the page that hasn't been editing since Jan. 3rd. I think there are actually two different pages for this page, one called "Santa Clara Vanguard" and one called "Santa Clara Vanguard Drum and Bugle Corps" when I go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_Vanguard, the title on the page says "Santa Clara Vanguard Drum and Bugle Corps", and underneath it, it says (Redirected from Santa Clara Vanguard). But when I go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_Vanguard_Drum_and_Bugle_Corps, there is no redirect underneath the title, and when I view this page on different computers, my edits are there, they're just not on the "Santa Clara Vanguard" page. But I can't seem to edit them separately. There is only one edit box for both sites I think, but it's only showing up on one page. How can I fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.106.47 (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Santa Clara Vanguard is a Wikipedia:Redirect to Santa Clara Vanguard Drum and Bugle Corps. Clicking on either one will display content at Santa Clara Vanguard Drum and Bugle Corps (with a redirect message added at the top for the former). It's stored in the same place and cannot be edited separately. But it's not a URL redirection. Santa Clara Vanguard results in the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_Vanguard and not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_Vanguard_Drum_and_Bugle_Corps. They are distinct URL's to your browser and ISP and they may have been cached at different times, resulting in different content. If you want to access the redirecting page then you can click Santa Clara Vanguard and then click the link in the redirect message at the top, producing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santa_Clara_Vanguard&redirect=no. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

After clicking on a redirect like Santa Clara Vanguard, you can get the URL for the target page by clicking the "article" tab at the top. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why I'm seeing different content on the different sites? When I go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_Vanguard, I get my unedited page, but when I click on the "article" tab on the same page, I go to a page with all my edits. I have cleared the cache on my computer; this just isn't making sense to me. On the bottom of the "unedited" page, it says it was last modified on Jan 3rd, but then I click on the history tab and I see that the current version was edited last on Jan. 21st (the last time I made edits on the page) but it's not showing up. Are you seeing that too? Is there something I'm missing? I want my edited information on the original http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_Vanguard page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.106.47 (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

article about U.S. drug Czar John Waters

hello... I attempted to edit an article on John waters. I simply added some truth to the article. I got a message back twice...saying I was trying to vandalize the article.

It was not my intent. My intent was to simply add some truth to the page.

I wont do it again... apparently you people cant handle the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.19.64.5 (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You added your negative opinion about a living person without a reliable source. Thanks for not doing it again. It is forbidden by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Also see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability which apply to all articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the place to express your own opinions. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Biography of "Sam Small"

Hi My name is Sam Small. It's a popular name and there's a posting under that name of a deceased English footballer. Is there a way that I can add info about myself in the same listing or create a different posting with the same name Sam Small? Thanks --70.210.186.207 (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If we have articles about two people of the same name then they are placed on different pages with different names. See Wikipedia:Hatnote and Wikipedia:Disambiguation for different ways to handle it. Without knowing which Sam Small you are, we cannot say whether you might satisfy WP:BIO and how a disambiguation should be best handled. (I will not post for at least 6 hours from now) PrimeHunter (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking

Can you stop blocked administrators from being able to unblock themselves? 124.180.63.58 (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is impossible, short of desysoping the admin in question. Algebraist 12:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

An administrator can always unblock themselves. If they must be prohibited from editing, a Wikipedia bureaucrat must de-sysop them (take away their admin privileges), at least temporarily. If this were not the way it worked then a rogue admin would have the power to block all the other admins in the night and bring chaos to Wikipedia (probably)... • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 15:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Slight amendment, only stewards can desysop and admin on the english wikipedia. Woody (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Page deleted

Hi all,

I created a page "Business Value Game" and somebody deleted it, so I thought I did something wrong. I created it again, tried to give all references etc. It was deleted again. I am not so keen in using wikipedia, but I found out that the reason was, that the guy who deleted it said it is advertising.

My questions. 1. If somebody invents something new which helps in a specific field. Why I can not insert this in wikipedia. Of course there will be a link to the website and of course there is not no much more about it to find at the beginning... So how I can do it right???
2. I found a page about planning_poker and I tried to prepare my text like this one, because I am not so firm, as I said before. This one is allowed and mine not. Why? 3.Caneverybody delete everything? Why the one who deleted it didnt ask whats the Business Game is about and helped me in correcting it instead of deleting it. I dont think, that he even know what this game is for and what I was talking about.

and last but nor least. 4. What can I do. How can I insert my page in a proper way?

Thanks a lot Marion Teckmx5 (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In answer to the questions:

1. The most important thing when writing an article is to make sure that you're using "neutral" language which doesn't make it look like an advertisement or promotion. This can be tricky sometimes, particularly if you're writing about something you really believe in or enjoy, but it's a very important thing to do. The second thing is to have independent sources which support the idea that this game (it's a game, right? The article seems to say it is) is notable. Have newspapers or specialist websites written about it or reviewed it? That kind of thing is what I'm talking about. 2. A lot of the time, an article on a similar subject to your own will be here because there were independent sources supporting its notability (as I mentioned in the first answer) or something like that. Looking at the article you're talking about, I'm not sure there are any of those offhand, so it might just be that nobody's discovered it as spam/advertising yet. 3. Only administrators can delete things, although other users can flag pages as possibly needing to be deleted. Normally, if someone flags a page that way, they should let you know so that you can change the page around a bit to try to prevent it from being deleted. 4. See above :P BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your article is visible in Google's cache. It is, IMO, written in fairly neutral language. The big problem is that there is no evidence that the game is noteworthy - important enough to merit an article in Wikipedia.

Two of Wikipedia's most important policies are notability and verifiability. A subject must be sufficiently notable to be worth including in the encyclopedia and that notability must be able to be verified through references to reliable sources.

To oversimplify, if there are newspaper articles with enough information to write about a subject, then that subject is notable and those articles can verify the information in the Wikipedia article.

If you cannot find newspaper web sites that provide information for an article, then the subject is not notable or verifiable and almost certainly will be deleted. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing a page title

Hi - i recently created a page called Browne jacobson - which I wanted to do, but hadn't noticed the lower case "j" in jacobson - I couldnt see how to change the title of the page so created another page called Browne Jacobson - should i delete the first one i created? I'm guessing this was not the best way to do this - where did I go wrong!?

Cheers,

Rich —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjsmorley (talk • contribs) 12:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You can move the article to the correct title by clicking the 'move' tab at the top of the screen (next to edit, history etc.). See WP:MOVE for more information. Algebraist 12:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, (s)he can't. You can't move a page to an already existing title. Try WP:SPLICE to put their histories together (unless the first one's history is totally redundant to the second) and then have the bad title deleted using {{db-author}} (actually, this may end up not being necessary, I don't totally understand how history merging works, so it may get deleted it as a side effect). --Thinboy00 @260, i.e. 05:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Help/my account won't sign me on? (moved from WP:ANI)

Hello there, I can't log on to my account,

• I click the button "e-mail my password" and it sends the temporary password up on my email
• but when I log on it accepts my password
• then asks me "change" it.
• But when I change it says "invalid" password.

Why does it email me a password and when I type it in it accepts then asks me to type in a new one then declines?

78.148.107.145 (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a cookie problem. (1) Clear your browser cache. (2) When you log in with the temporary password, uncheck the "remember me" button. (3) When you change your password, uncheck the "remember me" button. (4) If you get prompted again to login, use your new password and you should be fine. --B (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bug in HTML tag: div dir="rtl"

I just read the article Mesha Stele, and there is a problem in the way it displays. The article uses HTML "div dir="rtl" tag for a section of hebrew transcription of the text, here is a copy of part of the article code:

== Text ==
The text, in [[Moabite language|Moabite]], transcribed into modern [[Hebrew alphabet|Hebrew letters]]:

<div dir="rtl">
<pre>
1. אנכ. משע. בנ. כמש.. . מלכ. מאב. הד
2. יבני | אבי. מלכ. על. מאב. שלשנ. שת. ואנכ. מלכ

... MORE LINES OF HEBREW HERE ...

33. ---------[ויש]בה. כמש. בימי. ועל[...]. משמ. עש
34. -------------- שת. שדק | וא
</pre>
</div>

== Translation ==

''I am Mesha, son of Kemosh[-yatti], the king of Moab, the Dibonite. My father was king over Moab''
...

Notice that only the hebrew text is inside the div tag, the problem is that the "Translation" header of the following section is displayed in my browser justified to the right, as if inside the div tag. The next line after the header is displayed correctly on the left.

I'm using English Windows XP Professional, Interent Explorer 7. I have hebrew support installed. Itaj Sherman (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would bring this up at the tech section of the Village Pump.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 17:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here in my sandbox I made a copy of the problematic part of the article, you can see the bug occures. I tried in another sandbox, you can see that adding a line of text "ADDED LINE OF TEXT", just before the "Translation" header, makes the bug silent. Itaj Sherman (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I put it there Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Itaj Sherman (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Irregular reversion of article to earlier version

Hi.

Ref: article "Remo Four"

I have spent some time refining and adding to this article, including addition of images. Most times I go back to it (but not every time) it has reverted to an earlier version, losing all edits since (and including) 21:06, 20 January 2008 86.142.243.54

Checking history, all the edits are still there but don't show on the article itself.

Undoing 04:41, 21 January 2008 PixelBot and manually making the correction to (robot Modifying: simple:Remo Four) cures the problem but only until I next open Wikipedia when (usually) the edits and images have gone again.

Anyone able to advise, please?

Weydonian (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked the history of the article, and nobody appears to be reverting your edits or anything. I purged the page, in case that would help, but it sounds possibly like a small cache issue in your web browser. If it gets stuck at an old revision again, try clearing your web browser's cache of the page, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. (Generally this is simply a case of pressing Ctrl + F5, but varies across browsers.) That should help, but if it doesn't work or there are still problems, feel free to ask again. In any case, your edits are saved there in the article, so even if there was a cache problem on some of Wikipedia's servers, it should flush through and fix itself after a while. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing odd going on here. Another editor is simply working on the article as well. You have also overstated the problem as the article has not "reverted to an earlier version", rather, some of your changes were modified. This is the way Wikipedia works (and, yes, it can be a little irritating at first if you are used to other forms of writing where the author gets to own the article). The changes from 8 Jan to 20 Jan included additions by the other editor but also "re-factored" the way you had setup the track listing which seems to be a reasonable improvement. (I don't see in the edit history where the image disappeared, however, there appears to be a "fair use" dispute with at least one of the images in that article.) The best thing to do, if you have specific disagreements about edits would be to start a new section on the article's discussion page. —Noah 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Anakin101 and Noah for your advice. I don't think the latter suggestion is the cause (all contributions in the history shown AFTER Zephyrad's tidying of the track list (except the Pixelbot amendment) are by me, albeit I was not signed in for some of them). I've cleared the cache and things seem OK at present so I'll monitor the situation. Regards, Weydonian (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anakin101 I would like to take you up on your offer of further advice. The situation still seems to be irregular despite following your earlier advice. I've used both IE6 and Firefox both with irregular results and, today, I went to the article on a computer (using IE7) which has never been to Wikipedia before, let alone the Remo Four article and, you've guessed it, the version as saved at 01:32, 8 January 2008 by Zephyrad appeared! Any help welcomed - thanks. Best regards, 86.142.243.54 (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Contributions under GFDL license

Isn't there a way to do something against the GFDL license? I mean, isn't that rather frustrating if contributions are existing forever? It's totaly unconfortable for me. D@rk ^talk 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia? Simple, don't edit on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Copyrights might give you more insight. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the best known, international website where there are the most informations. I also heard that other users feel harassed about their saved contributions. D@rk ^talk 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to release material under a free license, don't edit the free encyclopedia. This is not going to change any time soon. Algebraist 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My aim is to edit Wikipedia but my only critism on this website is the GFDL license. D@rk ^talk 17:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia tries to protect your anonymity: Revealing your real name or identity is never required. By staying logged in, your IP address is protected. And by using the secure Wikipedia, all traffic between your browser and the web site is encrypted. Also, with 195,237,303 edits so far, it seems unlikely in decades to come that anyone will be reviewing casual edits made in 2008. But if you really don't want to submit stuff and have it stored on Wikimedia's servers potentially forever, and reproduced and redistributed on mirror sites, then the best thing to do I'm afraid, is don't. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, understood. I was afraid if someone would create an account with my personal infos. I mean a person, who knows me personally and doesn't like me. Well, thanks, Anakin. May the force be with you. D@rk ^talk 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is ever personal info about you or anyone else placed on Wikipedia, you can request it be moved to a hidden part of the database where not even most Administrators can see it. Take a look at Wikipedia:Oversight. Oversight requests are handled very quickly, and only a small number of trusted users (specifically, these people) and Wikimedia developers could then access it. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope the admins are trusted users too. But I think so. D@rk ^talk 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins are trusted to do some things, for example delete pages and see normally deleted pages, but they cannot see oversighted edits. The GFDL means that if something is kept visible then there should also be a record of the account or IP address that wrote it. But the GFDL doesn't prevent things from being deleted. Many pages are deleted every day. For practical reasons (not a GFDL requirement), deleted pages are still stored and accessible to admins but not to ordinary users. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Listusers/developer

I was wondering, why is the above user group always empty? Was it ever used? Why did they stop using it? • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, since developers are above all wikis they prefer to reside at Meta... so in this case Meta:Special:Listusers/developer is populated, although I wonder myself why Kate is the only one since there are more developers... generally though, the developer group is deprecated. -- Mentifisto 18:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the main reason they stopped is that the powers they once wielded are now held by stewards and bureaucrats, so they no longer have an active role on the 'pedia. Algebraist 18:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the actual "developers" have no special access on Wikipedia (though quite a few are also admins). The ones that do have it through the configuration files and the database. I believe all the developer group could do was lock the database but that's not done through the old interface anymore. Mr.Z-man 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Prophet Paul OkikiJesu

The stub that I published regarding Prophet Paul OkikiJesu is showing up on different names whenever I search for it on the web. What should I do?Esther Akanbi (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you created the page on Mr. OkikiJesu in Template:Christian-clergy-stub instead of its proper location, Paul OkikiJesu. Create the article in the latter and everything should be back to normal. NF24^{(radio me!)} 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

government-owned utility company looking to post article

Hi,

I work for a government-owned utility company, with one stakeholder, looking to post an article on Wikipedia. I understand that companies posting must use outside sources for referencing and was wondering if that applies to government owned utilities as well?

Also, will I be notified automatically if someone edit's my page, or do I need to check daily to see if any changes are made?

Thanks very much! Ten Lee (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, once you create your article, it is not yours as anyone can edit it. Article ownership is frowned upon and considered disruptive. As for the reference question, references are required for every Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources for information on that. You will also want to check out Wikipedia:Notability (companies) for inclusion guidelines. Finally, if you watchlist the page, any edits that are made to it are listed on Special:Watchlist. NF24^{(radio me!)} 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also see the Business' FAQ; it contains a few good pointers. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Untrue statement from WIKI

The following text can be found on Wiki´s main page:

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

This is untrue, as some aticles are closed and Wiki doesn´t allow all articles to be written either. As a cognitive psychologist, I wrote together with a sociologist an article on Idiocracy as a social system. This article was deleted by Wiki faster than we could blink. At first we thought we did something wrong, but then on the secong posting, we got banned for a week. Due to this we have now issued warnings to universities in four countries not to use wiki, due to its management, which seems to be not scientifically open.

We are sorry for this, but we cannot let our students or population be misinformed by an incorrect dictionary. We will continue our recommendation to universities throughout Europe and propose a law against the use of Wiki in schools and universities in the EU region.

George Reek (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

We don't allow original research. If you want your article included in wikipedia, it must be published by an outside source beforehand. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We are sorry that you had a negative first impression of Wikipedia. Since we strive to be a comprehensive and reputable encyclopaedia, we have strict inclusion guidelines. If you give us the name of the article, we can tell you exactly why it was deleted and how to avoid deletion in the future. NF24^{(radio me!)} 18:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS free... some articles are protected because otherwise they're overridden with all kinds of rubbish (vandalism etc.), and the article loses its quality. And your article was probably deleted because it didn't meet our criteria for inclusion... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. That is also the reason why only certain articles could be included here.

Wikipedia is also as scientific as any other encyclopedia, but science isn't the main factor. An encyclopedia doesn't conduct experiments, it documents them (using primary sources too).

So please find out what Wikipedia truly is before doing anything against the use of such freedom of knowledge. -- Mentifisto 18:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi from another editor. I'm glad you're not taking everything you read on Wikipedia at face value, but I must disagree that the statement on the front page is untrue; actually everyone can edit it. Even with semi or fully protected articles, the talk pages of those articles are never protected. Anonymous editors, not even logged in, can post requests on the talk page of an article for it to be edited, possibly using the {{Editprotected}} template for a fast response, or make requests elsewhere (like this Help Desk) requesting the edit. As for allowing "all articles to be written", you're absolutely right, Wikipedia doesn't. See the list of What Wikipedia is NOT. Wikipedia is not for original research, as stated above, and is not for originally published theories. If we allowed everyone to post stuff they made up, then Wikipedia would be useless as an encyclopedia, and would have no reliability at all. There are many other ways to publish original information; but Wikipedia isn't one of them. (Notice that we focus on the edit, and not the editor; anyone can edit, but the specific content they try to add is not always suitable for the encyclopedia.) • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To save others the trouble of checking, this user has one contribution (to this page), and no deleted contributions. Bovlb (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition I want to point out a few non sequiturs in the original message. Quote: We are sorry for this, but we cannot let our students or population be misinformed by an incorrect dictionary. How is this conclusion drawn? (even if we assume that the prospective editors were treated by Wikipedia as described). To not be allowed to write an article about Idiocracy is one thing. What does that have to do with the rest of Wikipedia being incorrect? This kind of generalisation is not scientific. I would advise the editors to do some research on logic prior to drawing spurious conclusions. In addition Europe is not a monolith. I'm sure the fact that two editors did not get to write an article on the worthy subject of Idiocracy will not create an avalanche of wiki-phobia. Dr.K. (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to the questioner, the slogan: "...that anyone can edit" is an obvious case of overselling. The slogan is not strictly true, because Wikipedia could not function if anyone could edit it. Wikipedia relies on a battallion-sized group of administrators to prevent some people from editing Wikipedia. While only a relative handful actually do get banned, the threat of bans and blocks is a vital component of Wikipedia's enforcement machinery. The "anyone can edit" claim is similar to calling the United States the "land of the free" even while the U.S. prison population is the world's largest. In the United States, as in any nation, citizens enjoy certain types of freedom, and it's not too hard to follow the rules and stay out of prison, but nobody enjoys complete freedom. Not even a dictator like Saddam Hussein enjoyed complete freedom, because there were limits to how much he could provoke George W. Bush. President Bush, in turn, had to stand for re-election, and has his freedom limited by the separation of powers of the U.S. government. Everyone who lives in society has to trade a little freedom for a little security (despite Ben Franklin's hyperbole that doing so is always a bad thing - we didn't see Ben giving up his comfortable upperclass society for an isolated cabin on the frontier). And furthermore, the questioner is yet another victim of one of Wikipedia's user-interface deficiencies: the fact that we do not make it perfectly clear to new users who create new articles that their new articles are at high risk of deletion. Wikipedia is sort of like a ski resort that lets anybody walk in and with no training or experience go straight down the double black diamond run. --Teratornis (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing to remember about "anyone can edit" is that it's implicit in that statement that "anyone ELSE can edit". If you type something in and someone else deletes it, that isn't a negation of the priciple: it's the principle in action. AndyJones (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The way I understand it, if I held a party and said "everyone's invited", that doesn't mean "everyone can come into my house, smash my furniture, re-paint my walls, and steal my music collection". If someone did that, I would feel within my rights to throw them out and/or call the police. Similarly, anyone can edit Wikipedia, but if they're not working towards improving the encyclopedia then they shouldn't be surprised if they get blocked. In this case, the poster probably thought that they were improving the encyclopedia, but failed to understand what an encyclopedia, and in particular Wikipedia, is not. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is Wikiversity, where one can upload original research. Johnny Au (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandilizing

When I was exploring Wikipedia, I noticed a padlock in the corner of the page. Interested, I clicked it. It talked about pages that were secured, and I was wondering which pages were blocked by the golden padlock, just out of curiosity. There were some pages saying Template:Test1, Template:Test2 and so on. I wanted to know what it was, so I clicked the link, and at the top a message said I had vandilized the page, and I was banned from editing temporarily. I didn't vandilize, so I decided to click back, and clicked a different Template:Test(#) page. At the top it said it was my last warning. I want to know if it was a glitch, and I'm not really banned, or if something happened and I was blamed. I did not vandilize the pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.100.95 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Those templates are templates that are placed on user talk pages to warn them not to vandalise - it has nothing to do with you vandalising. The padlock indicates protected pages to prevent them from vandalism somewhat. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you had actually received a vandalism warning, you would have seen an orange box saying "You have new messages", and when you clicked it, the message would have been posted there on your talk page. So you weren't being warned - all you did was find the pages where the warning message templates are kept. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 20:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's like when you go to the hardware store and see all the signs on display. Some of the signs say "No Trespassing," but that does not mean you are trespassing in the hardware store, while the store is open for business. Because of our social upbringing, we generally know how to recognize the difference between a sign which is for sale, and a sign that is directed at us. On Wikipedia, we have a whole new set of conventions, which nobody learned in real life. Instead you have to learn the new conventions here by reading the friendly manuals. Wikipedia is unlike anything which existed before; just ten years ago, for example, almost nobody would have believed the Wikipedia of today could exist and function as well as it does. Even the people who started Wikipedia had no idea whether it would work. So to make something which is really different than anything which came before, the Wikipedia user community had to evolve a whole new set of principles and procedures, and these are still evolving. Which means you can expect a lot of things to seem confusing here at first. The familiar rules of real life could not have built Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Foreclosure process

What is the foreclosure process and timeline in California? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.98.122 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refer non-Wikipedia related questions to the reference desk. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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 is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 20:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Convert

I am having problem with the dual conversion feature of Template:Convert at Lucien Lagrange.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to make Template:Convert/acre sqm. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 21:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.... _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 21:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

user contributions lists nothing after 30 nov 2007 - yet user left comment on my talk page today?

subject should be self-explanatory. i don't get it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=jkaharper&namespace=&year=&month=-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastrophe. (talk • contribs) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

They did it while not logged in: [4]. --barneca (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that even allowed? How would one tell the difference between a logged out user and an IP forging their signature? • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 21:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

By looking at the history, of course. Unfortunately, it is possible to do, although for obvious reasons it's highly discouraged. About the only other way, I think, is if SineBot is set up to check the page in question, since I *believe* that it will look for a link to the userpage of the person who added the text, and obviously in the case of a forged signature they won't match. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the replies. i should have looked more carefully at the history. duh. Anastrophe (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving an archive?

I was about to archive a WP Talk Page for 2007 when I noticed that the 2006 Archive was "Archive1" I would like to move it to "Archive 1" so it would work with {{archive-nav}}. Do I need a consensus? It's not a very active WP so no one would probably respond. Should I ask first or just move that page and fix the links (the only link there is from the original talk page). Thanks! Deflagro ^C/_T 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would probably just leave a message to tell them what you have done on the discussion page, just so that you can ensure it wasn't formatted like that for a reason! Therefore, if there is a problem, you can say that you left a message on the discussion page. I wouldn't be entirely sure though, so you might want to wait for another helper to answer your query as well. I hope this helps! The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 21:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Time Zone Differences

In Nubio I found this article:

121: When is the Main Page updated? Why do you have the wrong date in Selected anniversaries? Why is the Main Page not updating? As an international community, Wikipedia is organized along Coordinated Universal Time, which roughly corresponds to Western European Time.

If the Main Page is out of date for you, most probably your web browser has cached an older version of the page and is not checking to see if there is an update. Try purging the cache to force your browser to get an update. If that doesn't seem to work, find out more about browser caching.

My Question is: Whilst I understand the statement "organised along Coordinated Universal Time", the following statement about clearing the cache doesn't apply if you live in a Time Zone that is in advance of GMT. I can't get todays (22nd January) main page and it's 8:26 am here (East Coast Australia). And Wikipedia is still at 21st Jan. Is there settings that can be changed so the current page for that day can be displayed allowing for your local time zone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.70.131 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page cache statement relates to the templates, if they have just been changed and it isn't showing, say at midnight (UTC). I am afraid there is no way of having time zone specific updates except for Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. DYK is the exception though as that is updated manually. Sorry I can't help more. Woody (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you live in a particularly strange time zone or are thinking of doing any time travelling, there's also Wikipedia:Main Page/In two days. The news box, unfortunately, does not carry news of the future. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 21:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The /Tomorrow bit was new to me (and the /In 2 days), are these documented or linked somewhere for the average Joe to find?.. as such it is an adequate fix to my problem, so i'll bookmark it!...Thanks for the info! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.70.131 (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a list at Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives but that's not easy to find unless you know where to look. There's one on that list I wasn't aware of that may prove useful: Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (tomorrow+today). • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 13:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Template

Is there a template or tool, which explains what the userpage & subpages is best viewed in i can't seem to find references. →Dust Rider→ 21:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about what you are asking when you say "viewed in". For information on userpages, see Wikipedia:Userpage. For subpages, see Wikipedia:Subpages. To find a particular user's subpages, go to the Special:Prefixindex and search under a user's name. I'm not sure I'm helping at all. If not, can you clarify your question?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When i was browsing wikipedia, and went onto some of the user's userpage & subpages it had a message at the top saying "this userpage was created in Mozilla Browser and may not display correctly in other Browsers" as well in IE 7, but i don't know if it was an actual template or a user made template. →Dust Rider→ 21:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a usermade template. See userboxes. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 21:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've copied one of the templates and modified it on my userpage & subpages, since is not on the list i think you're correct. →Dust Rider→ 22:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Users do different things. This search finds many who have inserted the text "best viewed in Mozilla Firefox" without using a template, or by transcluding one of their own user subpages. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing Article

There is a short article on "Lean Accounting" in Wikipedia. This evening I spent several hours expanding this article. I have tried to bring up the article and it is no where to be found. The old short one has returned - but my work seems to be lost. How can I retrieve it? Thanks BMaskell (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Brian Maskell

If you mean Lean accounting, unfortunately Ronz deleted quite a bit of it. See this diff for more info. In the future, you can check edits on one page with the history tab at the top of the page. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 22:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You haven't made any edits to Lean accounting per your contributions. However, Ideasintoaction (talk · contribs) has made a lot of edits that have been reverted. You can see the page history (ie those people who have edited a page) by clicking on history at the top of the relevant page. Lean accounting history. See Help:Page history. Are you sure that you correctly saved your edits, or are you the other user? Woody (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgot password, changed email address so I can't get the new password

I was trying to login to edit my Wikipedia entry (. It's been a while since I logged in and I was trying to login. I apparently don't remember the password I set up for this account. I have a number of email addresses and when I click on the 'forgot' password link, it tells me that the password change info was mailed. However, I think the email account used is long dead. I have a number of email addresses but no email from Wikipedia has been sent to them. I did have a hotmail account but that account is deactivated.

So, how can I log back into my account? Thanks.

Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do. You can create a new account and place text on your userpage to the effect of "I used to be [username]". NF24^{(radio me!)} 22:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating a page

how do you make a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bopol (talk • contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Sinebot, you are logged in. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 22:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. NF24^{(radio me!)} 22:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ball parks in Yuma

Ball Parks in Yuma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.61.240 (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a mind reader, could you please elaborate? Also, if your question isn't about Wikipedia, please ask it at the reference desk. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We have a Yuma, Arizona article, but it mentions nothing about ball parks. Ball parks are typically easy to spot in Google Earth, since they are large and distinctive in aerial photos, if you are looking for a ball park in a particular area. You could also check the Yuma Parks and Recreation Department page. --Teratornis (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)