Help desk
< November 30	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 2 >

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.

December 1

Deletion

How do I delete a file on Wikipedia if I created it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breckinridge2970 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not appear to have uploaded any files yet. Perhaps you mean a page in general ? If you are not an administrator, you can never delete anything yourself. You can only request deletion. All our reasons and policies for deletion requests can be found here: WP:DELETE. But if you tell us which page you want deleted exactly, and for what reason, then perhaps we can be of better assistance. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have recently created a couple of small articles. Articles are not called files. You can place {{db-author}} on an article if you are the author of the only substantial content. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

How do I semi-protect a page?GoPeter452 (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only admins can protect; you must request at Wikipedia:Request_Protection. fetchcomms☛ 00:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you add a new word to Wikipedia

If I want to add a new word to Wikipedia with a definition. What are the steps I need to take?

Don't. Unless your neologism has received enough coverage by reliable, third-party sources, it probably is not notable enough to be appropriate for our encyclopaedia. If, however, you can reference reliable sources, please provide them and we will start therein. Intelligentsium 02:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so words and definitions don't really belong here. Wiktionary is a dictionary, so words and defitions should be submitted there, not here. --Jayron32 04:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maths formulae - Cyrillic?

Is it possible to somehow add Cyrillic text in a mathematical formula? The simplest example would be:

$CyrillicWord={\frac {AnotherCyrillicWord}{StillAnotherCyrillicWord}}$

--62.204.152.181 (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Math#Alphabets_and_typefaces says only Latin and Greek alphabets are supported when rendering formulae because of a limitation of texvc. Sorry. Xenon54 / talk / 02:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I'm being insolent and forgive my limited knowledge of computing, but is there a way to expand this limitation or to demand its being expanded, appealing to someone either inside or outside the Wikimedia Foundation? I know Cyrillic letters are not used to denote anything in mathematics, physics, etc, but if the Cyrillic alphabet starts being supported as well, this will do harm to no one here and could be used by editors of Wikipedias in Cyrillic-alphabet languages. --62.204.152.181 (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess it's a real limitation for mathematicians working on ru:; they can't write things like

\left\{{\frac {p^{2}}{p!}}\;:\;p{\text{ prime }}\right\}

in Russian. On the other hand mathematical formulas are so limited in general, and are such a horrible kludge anyway, that it may be better to wait for a real solution (like the one used by PlanetMath) than to fix such minor problems. Hans Adler 17:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that basically, there is no good way to write Math in webpages in a way that is supported by all browsers. At least, not without an enormous amount of fallback routines trough javascript, css, images etc. Part of this is caused by the lack of font support in Operating Systems for the math symbols. It's all one big kludge and large parts of it are outside the power of Wikipedia. If someone writes a good PNG renderer for latex math, then we can possible switch out texvc for that new solution. But that is a lot of work, and who will do that ? I'm afraid it's waiting for someone in the math world to take up this cause. To truly fix it (with MathML browsersupport and math fonts on all the OSes), will likely still take 5-10 years. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

way sending article for this site ..

i wright some article or document i want to send them for you and oder journal.and you publish them can you guide me ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.254.13 (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an article publication service. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Practical differences between a stub and a normal article

I have a query regarding stubs. Apart from the fact that a stub is a short article with only rudimentary information, how does it differ in practice from a normal article? For example, can anyone edit it in the same way they would a normal article or do they need permission from someone? Can a stub be edited only when it is no longer classified as a stub? Is it more secure than a normal article?Gmgeorgiou (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference in security settings. A stub is just a way of noting an article is particularly, and likely detrimentally short and unlikely to contain more than the most basic of information. For editors who like to work primarily with expanding stubs to a longer length to bring it up to start class or above, it makes them easier to find. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few articles that require permission to edit. These articles will not have an edit tab at the top of the article. If you want to edit one of these articles you must come to an agreement about the edit on the article's talk page. Go forth and edit stubs or whatever you want to see improved on wikipedia. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Stub if you haven't already. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Mobile application

Does Wikipedia have a mobile application for the blackberry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.68.99 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried it but a text search of blackberry at Wikipedia:Mobile access finds two mentions. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

percentage of all pages that are talk pages

Hi. Could anyone direct me to a resource that would let me see what percentage of all Wikipedia pages are talk pages? Ideally I'd also like to see whether the percentage of talk pages has been growing or shrinking over time? Is this sort of information possible to find out?

Thanks very much Lucidwave (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Page count by namespace has that information. It has a page history from about a year ago, so you can see the trend from then until now. --Mysdaao ^talk 13:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so am I corrent then in understanding that there are almost as many talk pages (2.9 million) as article pages (3.1 million) now? Also is this data just English Wikipedia or all language versions? Lucidwave (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you count all the userpages, the policy and guideline discussions and what not, then discussion very much outweighs articles. Also remember that although articles are always at the same spot, discussion is usually archived to a new page. So for Obama, there is 1 article, 1 talk page + 64 archived talk pages. It is only natural that as discussion continues over the years, we will eventually have more talk pages than article pages, but that will likely still take several years. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And remember that every page has a discussion page for a reason. We WANT and we NEED discussion (on the article). It is an elemental part of the way we grow and collaboratively write an article. As such any article LACKING a discussion page is probably more interesting than the actual amount of discussion that takes place on other articles. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information on Wikipedia:Database reports/Page count by namespace is only for the English Wikipedia. --Mysdaao ^talk 16:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused now about the last comments. I'm not seeing in the statistics page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Page_count_by_namespace) where talk pages outweigh article pages. To me it looks like there are 200k more articles than talk pages. Am I misreading this or looking at the wrong statistics? Lucidwave (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

200k more articles than talk pages for articles yes. But almost everything we do on Wikipedia is about creating articles, so all discussion could be said to be about articles. Including the discussion we have on policies/guidelines (Wikipedia talk). And where User talk falls is even harder to define. It is basically everything between management and content discussion. So the point is that statistics will only tell half the story. Also there are many "empty" talk pages that only cary a banner with the importance and quality of the article for instance. Such pages exist, but have never really seen any discussion. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. So does this statistic for talk pages include all the archived talk pages you mentioned? Would there be any way to figure out what percentage of articles have/do not have talk pages? Lucidwave (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. The only way to determine a percentage, is by doing a random sampling of titles (Note that the "Random article" function is actually not random for scientific purposes). The best way to really analyze is to download a copy of the database I guess, and analyze the information yourself. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Redirect

Am I applying policy correct here. I am using criteria R2 which states that there shouldn't be redirects out of name space. In this case I am applying it to redirects from USER to ARTICLE. I would like the advice.Adam in MO Talk 11:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for speedy deletion R2 only applies to redirects from the article namespace, while the redirects you want deleted are to the article namespace. Other cross-namespace redirects can be deleted, but it is up for debate (see Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects). However, if they had qualified under any CSD, you could've used a speedy deletion template like {{db-r2}} to nominate them for deletion without discussion. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is for redirects that don't qualify under criteria for speedy deletion, so if you still believe they should be deleted, leave them listed there. --Mysdaao ^talk 13:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox

I've been using Google Chrome and the unicode character ℤ (integers) appears as a perfect little version of $\mathbb {Z}$ . I opened the same article in Firefox and the character ℤ looked like it'd been drawn by a drunken infact. Why can the same character appear differently in different browsers? I understand that a browser might not have the character installed and so produce a little square; but I thought unicode implied universal. This is most annoying: There's something not quite right about using the bold Z but that's the only way to avoid in-line LaTeX. I thought that ℤ was the solution, but no. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 11:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about your version...in my Firefox they do look the same. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please look at this. I have some screen shots included on my user talk page. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 18:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode does not mean universal support. Unicode is a standard of a table that defines how each character is written in digital text. The drawing of a unicode character is done based on a glyph provided by a font. Most fonts don't have glyphs for each and every unicode character. ℤ however is widely supported. There must be a problem with the configuration of your computer, or perhaps one of the fonts on your computer is broken. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit boxes on both Google Chrome and Firefox use the same font: Courier New. The integer symbol appears as it should in my Chrome edit box, but it appears as a blob in my Firefox edit box. Even though they use the same font. Please see this thread on my user talk page. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 18:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But both browsers are probably using different fontloading routines (you might have 2 courier fonts installed). Also, some display engines use "replacement" techniques. With this, if a glyph is not found in one font, it tries to find another font that does have this glyph. There exist large differences between applications as to how they display text. To figure out how some do and others don't display a certain glyph is no easy task, and often these are known issues to producers of the software, they just have more important things to fix (in their eyes). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems uploading an article on Greyhound Recycling & Recovery

I saved onto the system an article on Greyhound Recycling & Recovery, along with three external links as regards references.

However, I know I didn't upload the links in the proper manner, but I did include them in the hope that someone would edit it for me at a later date.

As of today, I don't see where the article has gone. Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GollyRonan (talk • contribs) 13:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at your talk page. You were notified of its speedy deletion back in May. —Akrabbim^talk 14:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Employment

12/1/09 Tuesday AM

To Whom It May Concern: I would be interested in working for Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia! I use it alot. My skills would be typing, editing, proofreading, and organizing text. Who do I talk with about this matter? I am a 55 yr old Disabled Senior Citizen on a fixed income. I'm looking for something to do at home on my computer. I have a lot of data entry experience and customer service experience. I'm looking for part-time approximately a week. My e-mail address is <blanked> and my phone number is <blanked>-voice mail available. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks, and Happy Holidays!

Jane Hanlon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.184.246 (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can work for wikipedia, there is no signups or applications, just help out. Anymore questions, click talk.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 15:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation's job openings page is here. – ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CorenSearchBot - how to remove??

I'm new to Wikipedia. Thank you for your patience.

I have written an article about a living author - Allison Gilbert. The CorenSearchBot says it it similar to a web page with that author's bio.

While some of the words are in common, the overlaps only happen when listing the title of Ms. Gilbert's books, which is required in order to detail her work. So, in that case, they are a direct lift - which is required in order to detail her work.

The Wiki entry differs significantly in that it lists her upcoming work and has links to articles written about her.

How do I get the CorenSearchBot removed from this entry?

Thank you for your help.

Best,

Mark Weintraub —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markweintraub (talk • contribs) 15:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that according to her books, Allison Gilbert's husband is named Mark Weintraub. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He also has fully admitted he is her husband who wanted to post her bio on a "public forum" beyond her own website...tagged for CSD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and PROD have both been declined, article has been sent to AFD. GlassCobra 17:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Display on mainpage

I would like to take the page special:Categories and display its contents on the main page for an easier interface for people to edit. How would I go about linking that information onto the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.146.15 (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see the purpose of adding this to the main page. What would be achieved by such an addition? What I'd recommend for you to is create an account and either link or transclude Special:Categories from your user page for easy access. GlassCobra 17:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

goof up at List of Smoking Bans in US

I goofed up in my attempt to add information to the Missouri subheading in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States

I wanted to show in the third paragraph how narrowly two election ballots to increase the state's tobacco excise tax were defeated, and to show the level of support in shown in a 2007 state dept of health survey for a statewide smokefree workplace law.

Instead, Missouri got dropped off the table of contents listing and is connected to the end of the Mississippi entry.

I am so sorry for the goof up and hope you can correct it.

SmokefreeStan (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it. There were two problems. One was that you had put an empty reference into the Missouri section heading (with <ref></ref>) causing it to not display correctly. The other was that you didn't use closing references tags (with </ref>) to end three references. For more information on how to create references, please read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. --Mysdaao ^talk 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

What should this section be used for? How do you update it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelheller (talk • contribs) 18:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:CITE, it should be explained there. – ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

How does one make a new template? The HTML symbol for the square root is currently √ and so to write non-trivial square roots we have to either right √(a + b) or the clever √a + b, which is written as √<span style="text-decoration:overline">''a'' + ''b''</span>. To make it easier, I would like to create a template so that {{sqrt|''a'' + ''b''}} would yield √a + b. There's already a root template that calculates roots, e.g. {{#expr:(2)^(1/2)}} yields 1.4142135623731, so they can't be that hard to make. I just don't know how... ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Template. I searched the template namespace for sqrt [1] and the second result was {{sqrt}}. Example: √a + b. I'm not sure why the template page says to not use it. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 14#New template. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. But "How does one make a new template?" ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 20:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A template page is created the same way any other page on Wikipedia is created. Go to where you want to create the template (e.g. Template:New template name) and click "create this page" tab. There's more information at Help:Template#Creating and editing templates. If you're looking for more specific information on how to format a template to do the function you want it to do, I'm afraid I can't help you with that, but others might. --Mysdaao ^talk 20:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia value versus use Why Donate?

Apologies if there is a better place for this question. I looked hard and could not see from FAQ, etc. where to ask it.

It is very simple. A lot of people put work into this creation. Now too, many more people who use and may never add content are putting cash into this creation. It is a large amount--- Millions of dollars.

I now see on systems like "Ask.com" AND also otherr less known web presences, that a web search for a subject will take you right to a page in that domain/system.

I am seeing that the content of the page shown now, is actually just the entire text of the page from Wikipedia, with a small note somewhere, I am seeing even in a text that is colored and nearly transparent giving credit to Wikipedia. example: http://www.answers.com/topic/polypropylene-glycol

These systems are apparently operating with advertising support. I can only guess, but I suspect that the advertising support on the page is what makes it come up so quick in , for example, Google.

Well, here is the point then. This Wikipedia project was built by lots of donated time, and now donated money. There are web sites now operating where they present information on a subject. The websites are carrying advertising as a money making enterprise--- and the ONLY content on a page on a subject is the text from the Wikipedia page automatically pulled and dropped in. Not as an augment to another author or group of authors. But a websites are using Wikipedia as their sole content---- plus advertising.

It doesn't feel right to donate money to keep a free web resource going-- free, so that other web enterprises can use it as their sole content to sell advertising.

It doesn't feel right.

Here is what it feels like. It feels like making donations to the community foodbank, then finding that some of those taking food from the foodbank take it to their sandwich shop as supplies to sell lunches for their business. There is a saying there is "no free lunch" but right now that is just what the Wikipedia is serving, on the hard work and millions in donations of many.

This is a creation of a community. The community can set its license for use in anyway. Right now it is that anyone can grab it all and run the advertising that the community doesn't want.

What should be going on to make it feel right?

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.52.121 (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The licence was specifically chosen to allow commercial re-use. It's always been in our mind to allow things like an african printing company to knock up a copy (these days a few thousand articles from millions) and sell it cheap to local schools, or to allow a Brazillian magazine for teachers to put a CD of articles on their cover. You really can't write a licence that says "commercial use is allowed for nice people, but not for nasty people". Contributing (time or money) to Wikipedia is altruism; when you start begrudging what the recipients of your altruism do with it, or interfering with how they use it, then it isn't altruism any more. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but just how often does a "Brazillian magazine for teachers put a CD of articles on their cover", and how often does and "African printing company knock up a copy and sell it cheap to local schools" IP-John has a very good point: Wikipedia is being exploited. My time and effort is being exploited. I had not idea that other websites were cutting and pasting our articles, selling advertising space around them, and then putting them on the web. Something really needs to be done. You could easily re-write the license so that no direct copies could be made via the internet medium (thus allowing Brazilian magazines and African printers to carry on). ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Finlay has it just correct. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, period. It isn't "free for people who do nice things with it." It's not up to us. "Contributing to Wikipedia is altruism; when you start begrudging what the recipients of your altruism do with it, or interfering with how they use it, then it isn't altruism any more" is a perfect summation of the situation. I don't see it as exploitation, merely the usage of free knowledge. GlassCobra 20:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(r to Dr Dec) Wikipedia's licence makes it clear that the material will be used in exactly this manner. You are told this in the paragraph immediately below the edit box. If you don't want your contributions used in this manner, you probably shouldn't be contributing. --Jayron32 22:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you meant to say that you believe that Finlay is correct. Personally I find your point of view somewhat naïve, although you probabily think that I'm a cynic. For me, the idea is that people can read and learn from Wikipedia; not that they might plagiarise for financial gain. Wikipedia asking for donations so that people might plagiarise the results for financial gain? That really annoys me. (Especially since I have myself made a donation) The licence can, and should be changed. How would you feel if I asked you to donate money to buy a poor man a knife so that he might peel some potatoes but, upon receipt of his gift, he went to the market and sold the knife? That would be okay I guess, because we're all hippies. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analogies to physical goods are rather flawed here, since, unlike Dr Dec's knife, the content can be both here and there. I'm sure GlassCobra said what xe meant to say, and it might be considered rude to tell xer differently. The terms of the licence are quite clear to anyone who reads it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you understood my point. But if you would rather focus on the semantics rather than my intended point then let me rephrase it: If I asked you to donate money to buy books for a library so that people could come and learn from those books in that library, but then you discovered that people were photocopying the books and selling the copies for their own financial gain. Would that make you happy? The whole altruism mantra is most naïve; people exploit and will continue to exploit this free resource until the Wikifoundation wises-up and tightens up the legal controls. I will think twice before I donate next time. I would be interested to see how many of those saying that it's okay to plagerise Wikipedia for financial gain have actaully donated themselves. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 01:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(@ Dr Dec) I believe the difference here is in emphasis; in your sentence "the idea is that people can read and learn from Wikipedia," I'm emphasizing the importance of "people can read and learn", whereas you appear to be emphasizing the "from Wikipedia." Every site that mirrors us or uses our material attributes it back to us, does it not? The Answers.com example above not only attributes its material to us and links to Wikipedia, but they even include a link to donate to Wikimedia. Should not our goal be for every person to benefit from our compendium of knowledge? Why should it matter what website they read it from? Everyone sees that it comes from us. Our contributions to this site are not lessened because our material is exported elsewhere. Indeed, it might even be argued that we, the users and contributors, are actually more important because our articles are seen so many places besides just here (not to say that "just here" is some sort of understatement, as last I checked we are still one of the highest viewed sites on the entire Internet); if an error is made here, it is duplicated on the large number of sites that mirror us as well, thus increasing the number of people that might potentially see it and concurrently our obligation to make sure that we ensure our reliability as much as possible. I do not see my view as naïve, but rather more practical. Why should we tailor our license? Our mission is, and has always been, to be a free encyclopedia for the betterment of the world. GlassCobra 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how about the case where someone reads a Wikipedia article, and uses the knowledge to earn money? Wikipedia isn't entirely a collection of useless trivia. Some information on Wikipedia has practical value, and some people can read it and monetize that value by applying the information to their work. There are also the internet access providers and computer vendors, who profit, in part, because millions of people want to access Wikipedia. The original poster should read our article about free content. "Free" means free for everybody, even people who can make money off it. However, we have the principle of copyleft which prevents anyone else from locking up our content. That's the point AndrewHowse was making when he showed the flaw in the analogies with material objects. No one has the legal right to deprive you, me, or anyone else of the free use of Wikipedia's content. Since nobody else can monopolize Wikipedia's content, that limits the amount of money they can make off it. You aren't likely to see the next Bill Gates earning his fortune by repackaging Wikipedia's content. To make vast amounts of money in this game requires the ability to assert intellectual property rights to stifle competition. Also to the original poster: when you say that seeing someone else making some money off Wikipedia does not "feel right", what you are feeling may be what Yochai Benkler calls "jalt" - a combination of jealousy and altruism, a strange mix of wanting to help people, but making sure nobody else gets paid in the bargain. This is probably just part of being human - in every organization, most people feel their efforts aren't being properly rewarded. Have you ever known a person who complains of being overpaid and overpraised? --Teratornis (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a different issue. The copyright can only, and should only, cover the information as it stands. If someone uses the information in conjunction with their own mental faculties to formulate new and distinct ideas then they have done exactly what Wikipedia was intended for: they have furthered human knowledge and human understanding. If they choose to make financial gain from that then that is totally their choice. Although I might like to see a donation made to show their appreciation. The distinction is clear: financial gain from plagiarism is bad; financial gain from research and development is not bad. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 01:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding info to infobox

Resolved

Is there a way to add other fields to an info box. For example, {{Infobox artist}} has no field for website. Is there a way to add it within the infobox? GloverEpp (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go to the template talk page and request a feature. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, it's generally accepted to put the personal websites of subjects into the "External links" section of their articles. GlassCobra 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox artist}} already has a website parameter as the box at top of the page indicates. It was added in February [2] but not added to the documentation. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Download logs

Is it possible to download the log files for Wikipedia. I'm looking for something that contains time/date, user/IP, resource. I don't really care if the resource is a page edited or a page viewed or both. I know I can see the recent changes, which fits my need, but I don't were I can download, say, 3 months of changes. -- kainaw ™ 21:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent changes table is not recorded permanently. Perhaps if you said what you wanted to use this data for, we might be able to help you more efficiently. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on Markov chains with websites to try to optimize the webserver. I want to do simulations on a rather large site. So, I need a real-world log of who accesses what in the order that things were accessed. Then, I can run a bunch of different algorithms that I've been reading about on the data to see if any of them do a reasonable job of caching the correct "future" pages. Yes, it is just like any other caching thing, but I'm writing a paper of caching of dynamic web pages and I need to add some pretty graphs. -- kainaw ™ 22:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will need the access logs of the servers. Most of the requests for Wikipedia however are directed to the squid caching servers. The caching servers do not log all traffic however. The non-cached pages are logged for a few days, but that information is private per our Privacy policy. If you want access to that information you will have to make a formal request with the Wikimedia Foundation. However they only cooperate rarely with requests like that. Oh, and then we haven't even gotten to the images and videos, which are hosted on yet another system. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in the access logs. I just wanted to get the "Recent changes" as a simple log-type file instead of a web page limited to a very small number of changes. -- kainaw ™ 05:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New message notification

I've noticed this before, but then the problem when away for awhile, but now I seem to be having it again. For some reason, my new message notification isn't clickable. I can't click the talk page or new message links. Anybody know why this happens? Grsz¹¹ 21:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard about such issues. Since when have you been experiencing this problem ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember when exactly, recently though. Grsz¹¹ 21:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might it coincide with the Fundraiser banner perhaps ? What browser are you using ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the fundraises banner on my main page. I use Explorer. I just received a notification that was usable on a different page, so it seems to only be on the main page, like when I first visit. Grsz¹¹ 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have this problem as well, but it's only on the main page. Also note that I use IE as well.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the correct resolution is not to use Mozilla. I can't stand Firefox, ick! Grsz¹¹ 22:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Version ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with Same Name-Default Appearance

Resolved

Our U.S. organization and another in the U.K. both have exactly the same name, but we are unrelated to each other. Their article was made first.

We've since updated both our Wikipedia article names to add our country designations afterward, and their article was moved to reflect the new name with "U.K." in it. However, when one types our name without the letters "U.S." or "U.K." afterward, Wikipedia defaults users only to the "U.K." article, and does not present a choice to the user.

How do we update Wikipedia to give users the choice of which article they are seeking?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewilke (talk • contribs) 23:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should use a WP:HATNOTE. I'll take a look too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fight for Sight has been made into a disambiguation page that can direct users to either article. GlassCobra 23:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]