Help desk
< December 29	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 31 >

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 30

Rollover Text

Okay, my guess is that this is probably somewhere in the tutorial, and I didn't see it because I wasn't looking hard enough. If so, I apologize. Is there anyway to use rollover text in the Wiki, so that when I rollover a specific picture or piece of text with my mouse, I can see the information that I set to see? Probably not typically useful on Wikipedia, but I thought of a way to use it for a specific piece of information that it would be effective in explaining. - 8472 (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For images: [[File:Image name.ext|rollover text]]. For links the alternate text will be in the tooltip: [[Link|alt text]]. For normal text (not recommended): <span title="rollover text">text</span>. — Bility (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Size of Wikipedia on particular date

Anyone know how I can find out what would have been returned by {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} for a given past date? If it matters, I am actually looking for what would have been returned on April 28, 2002, but please provide the methodology, not just the result. I figure there must be a way given that Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia was compiled with all sorts of article counts on particular dates. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia - 2002 archived data gives a relatively accurate count, but I am unsure wherefrom source this information originates. Intelligentsium 00:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for an exact number But I guess I extrapolating to an approximation between April 3 and May 17 will have to do. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Steak

why is it called a new york steak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.132.79 (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Strip steak article does not say. Try asking on the Reference desk. --Teratornis (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, im not sure. This is why we do reasearch on wikipedia..lol--GeneralCheese 03:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralCheese: are you aware images are not allowed in your signature? Intelligentsium 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for telling me that, i have removed the image from my signature :)--GeneralCheese 03:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

size

How much data does wikipedia take up (estimate)? I am talking about every page, user, article, and the wikimedia software itself. Btilm 02:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert on this but Wikipedia:Database download implies that it's about 2.8 Terabytes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thats just a decompression! Btilm 04:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it this way is rather impressive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project page Article's classes not getting updated

Hi. I started the Madonna and Lady Gaga wikiproject. However I find now that the project page statistics are not getting updated after December 22, 2009. The log for the former is present at Wikipedia:WikiProject Madonna/Assessment and for the later, nothing has been updated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lady Gaga/Assessment. I don't know what's the reason. For the former it shows only one FL, while the category shows 2 FLs, like wise for the later, nothing is getting updated. Please help. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well for starters, the Lady Gaga articles by quality and importance are not in Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments. With respect to the Madonna stats, give it a few more days, as User:WP 1.0 bot can take some time. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments to Lady Gaga quality and importance categories. Will it work now? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a Title

Hello. I posted on Dec. 28th: "How to edit a title"

I am not autoconfirmed yet. I wanted to change the listing "Richard ledes" to "Richard Ledes." I didn't capitalize the last name by accident like a dummy. Any help would be really appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.145.155 (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I moved it for you. In the future, you need to have a registered account which has been active for 4 days and has made 10 edits in order to move articles to new titles. --Jayron32 06:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Account Creator Tool

Hi im trying to get the Account Creator tool, but it says im too new to request a new account. I already made an account 2yrs ago. So i have 2yrs worth of experience. However i dont remember my username so i created a new account. How old does this new account has to be to become an account creator.--GeneralCheese 08:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be an active member of Wikipedia:Request an account. Beyond that, it takes as long as it takes others to trust you with that permission. If you have a thousand edits or so, there should not be an obstacle. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your od account, if you can remember an edit you made with it, go to the article's history - you might be able to find the user name! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User contributions

Is it possible to not show my User Contributions on my user and talk pages? Stalkers use it. Sardaka (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, all editing information about your account is public, with the exceptions of your settings, identity and deleted contributions. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems with specific IPs, you can file a report at WP:AIV for vandalism or WP:ANI for other problems which would benefit from admin help -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virus alert when accessing eBay article

When I try to access the article about eBay on en.wikipedia.org, Avira Antivirus Premium gives me a virus alert. The problem does not arise with the German version of the article. Avira says this is a script virus, identified as HTML/Spoofing.Gen A false positive, perhaps - but still annoying. 84.144.121.10 (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have Avira Personal and it is not getting any hits. What happens if you access any of the images in the eBay article?

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can access all the above files. But when I click on the eBay link I get the virus warning. I should add that the response is coming from the WebGuard module of Avira Premium. Does Avira Personal have that too? 84.144.121.10 (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it does not. I would contact Avira if I were you. Say that you have "a possible false positive", and if they can investigate. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported the page to Avira. They confirm that this is a false positive. Thanks for all your trouble. 84.143.218.145 (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two entries for one title

How do I create another entry for a writer who shares his name with at least 2 other people who already have entries?^^^^—Preceding unsigned comment added by Swish27 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You add a disambiguation behind the title name. See Disambiguation. So you get for instance: "name (writer)" —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, as a word of caution, make sure that you check that the writer meets Wikipedia's Notability Criteria, and specifically Wikipedia's notability guideines for creative professionals. Not all authors are eligible for an entry on Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search

How do I search for categories created by User:Snooks? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That user has no edits. In general you can use http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/ PrimeHunter (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navigating in "All Pages"

When I use the A-Z index (apparently accessible only from the Main Page ... why?), if I start with one of Wikipedia's preset two-letter combos, I am able to navigate to both the previous and next pages of the index, but if I enter my own starting point, I am only able to navigate to the previous page. WHY? How about adding a "next page" link, rather than forcing me to backtrack and manually select the next one from your list? 24.57.65.135 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, indeed quite confusing. I have filed a bugreport for this software issue bugzilla:21969. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will no longer use Wikipedia.

Hello,

It has come to my attention that Wikipedia has been editing articles to promote its political views, specifically on the topic of global warming, while I strongly suspect on other issues also.

I will no longer use this site, nor will I accept any references from Wikipedia.

I will make sure that my colleagues know about this shameful behavior.

Sincerely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.142.161.245 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So noted. TN X Man 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia is a wiki with thousands of volunteer editors. Wikipedia itself makes no edits. Articles may be influenced by the views of editors working on that article. Editors often disagree and are allowed to edit eachothers work within guidelines, for example to remove or change content without a reliable source or without a neutral point of view. Editing together is the idea of a wiki. With more than 3 million articles, everybody is bound to disagree with the content of some of them. If you have read somebodys allegations against Wikipedia then note that allegations of bias often come from people who want to promote their own view and attack those who don't share it. When people try to gain support for a cause they may make unreliable claims. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is routinely the target of organized campaigns from pressure groups, sometimes involving astroturfing. Lately we've heard from groups such as the Obama birthers, and from Muslims offended by our Depictions of Muhammad. Now the climate change deniers are getting into the act. Typically these campaigns use blog sites and chain e-mails to send people to Wikipedia who can't be bothered to read our manuals or learn anything about how Wikipedia works, and thus the campaigns do nothing to improve Wikipedia. If someone actually wanted to improve Wikipedia, they could start by learning to understand all sides of a controversial issue. Instead, we usually see that pressure groups and their followers show no interest in learning anything about the opposing arguments. On the issue of climate change, for example, I have yet to see a climate change denier who seems capable of summarizing the basic evidence for the current scientific consensus. One can certainly challenge any scientific claim, but the first step is to understand it. Not understanding something is not an argument against it. --Teratornis (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous editor's actions are best explained by the top section of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-12-28/In the news. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's made pretty clear on this site and elsewhere that Wikipedia is not a primary source, so if you are a teacher, for example, who has regarded Wikipedia as an acceptable source for students to cite, you have been under a misapprehension. You may find your colleagues already understand this. Wikipedia's main value is as a fast, free reference point for noncontroversial information and a starting point for further research. This is thanks to the energy and goodwill of many thousands of individuals, of every political colour imaginable, who contribute freely toward its large and growing knowledge base, and the citations they provide from primary and secondary sources. As PrimeHunter describes above, this way of making an encyclopaedia can lead to biased or unreliable content, although the site's policies and procedures are aimed at keeping such content out, or finding and removing it if it gets in. If you look at the history of Global warming or visit its talk page you will see people collaborating to try to improve the article, and controversial or biased material being removed just as much as it is inserted. Anyone - including you - can edit. Nobody's forcing you to use the site, but your help would be valuable to the project, and your political views would be just as out of place here as mine or anyone else's, and that includes any of the small number of individuals at the Wikimedia Foundation. Ka renjc 21:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Wikipedia's coverage of global warming is extensive, with attention given to all reliably sourced points of view. Naive readers might stop at the main global warming article and overlook our other coverage such as List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Many Wikipedia users actually boast (indirectly) about having run up immense carbon footprints through extensive travel, including our founder, so one could hardly accuse Wikipedia of having any sort of systemic "green" bias. Wikipedia is distinctly unlike sites such RealClimate and Appropedia which explicitly side with scientific consensus on global warming. Wikipedia's mission is not to declare what is true, but rather to accurately report all the notable beliefs about what is true. If you (the original poster) can demonstrate the notability of your beliefs, and find that they are under-reported on Wikipedia, you can read our friendly manuals and figure out how to work a mention of your beliefs into the mix. Given that Wikipedia rewards effort and punishes laziness, I'm not sure why this site isn't more popular with political conservatives who claim to share those values. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but not a free lunch. --Teratornis (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that neither the scientific debate about global warming, nor the political debate about what if anything to do about it, will be decided on Wikipedia. Someone who wants to thwart attempts to mitigate global warming needs to persuade the climate science community that there is no problem. As history shows, for example the history of tobacco smoking, once scientists have reached consensus it's only a question of time before public policy follows. Attempting to keep debating scientific issues on Wikipedia is an ineffective rearguard action against the inevitable. --Teratornis (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "sandbox" a specific Wikipedia system item, or just a vague term?

I understand the general concept of a sandbox, but I have been unable to learn if it has an exact Wikipedia meaning beyond that. Is "sandbox" just a title given to a user space page intended to be used for sandbox type purposes, or does it refer to something more structural or specific in Wikipedia? North8000 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "sandbox" just refers to any non-article-space page that is intended to be a location to test something. Whoever the sandbox belongs to can do whatever he would like with it; if it's a personal userspace sandbox, there's a general, unwritten rule that only whoever it belongs to can edit in the box. There isn't a specific, rigid meaning beyond that. There isn't any sort of process you need to go through to get a sandbox (just create one at, for example, User:North8000/Sandbox), nor is there a "sandbox" namespace, nor is there any sort of requirement for what a sandbox must be used for.

I hope I answered your question, because I'm not completely sure what you are looking for in an answer. Xenon54 / talk / 15:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did, thank you. I was involved in an article discussion where it was suggested that I start a new article in "sandbox" mode for multiple persons to review or work on. And so, from your answer, even that would essentially be a "working draft" of an article being developed that sits in a particular user space (e.g. mine). It's my understanding that others can access a user space article, even though such is unusual. Thanks again. North8000 (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - anyone can view your draft in user space. The main benefit of creating in user space is that only the General criteria in speedy deletions can apply (except G2), should other editors view the page - therefore, so as long as the page does not advertise , breach copyright, attack, etc., then it cannot be tagged for deletion as not notable, too small, etc. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks North8000 (talk)

"The sandbox" will often refer to Wikipedia:Sandbox which is common to everybody and mainly intended for test edits. "A sandbox" will often refer to a userspace page as described above. See Sandbox (software development) for an article about the general concept of sandboxes outside Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

updating head line on google search

The Iron City Festival was held for the first time on April 1, 2006 and is scheduled to be held April 18, 2009. The festival commemorates the founding of ...

how can I get this info updated? B jacobsen Treasurer Blacksburg Business Association —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksburgbba (talk • contribs) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy! Just go to the article in question (Blacksburg, South Carolina) and scroll down to the section that needs to be updated: Blacksburg, South Carolina#Other Information. Next to the section title ("Other Information") you should see a blue link that says [edit]. Click on that, and you can directly modify the text of the article. That said, at some point in the future it would be nice if someone rewrote that whole section to bring it more in line with standard encyclopedia-article format; point-form bullet lists of trivia and factoids aren't really encouraged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also read our WP:DATED guideline about statements that will go out of date quickly. --Teratornis (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table

A table I have created has benn messed up for some reason. It has been changed a different color around the outside and created extra space at the bottom. How can I fix this? Mr. Prez (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your contributions, I presume the problem is with One Big Happy Family (tell us next eim, please). You started with a wikitable, but did not have any row or table end markup. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is with One Big Happy Family. So the problem is that I didn't have row or table end markup?

Help with creating an article

Hello

My article was recently deleted because the tone was seen to be unabiguous advertising. I'd like to re-write the piece and would like other wikipedians to help me construct this. The article is currently in my user space. How do i ask them for help Neenzan (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for feedback is a place to ask for comments on your draft. --Mysdaao ^talk 17:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Football titles

In an article on Mississippi Association of Community Colleges Pearl River Community College is listed as having 0 football titles with 0 out rights. It should read 19 titles and 19 outright. We lead the conference in championships.

Tim Hatten , Head Football Coach, Pearl River Community College —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.148.128 (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use a descriptive title in future questions.

At the article Mississippi Association of Community & Junior Colleges, the information on Pearl River used to list 19 titles, 15 outright, before a change by an anonymous user. I have changed Pearl River's information back to this. 15 outright means 4 of the 19 titles were ties. If this information is false, you can change it, but please provide a reliable source. --Mysdaao ^talk 17:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History data bug for United States Constitution

I found a wikipedia bug with the History data for the United States Constitution article and I'm not sure where to report it. If you select the Edit History for the article United States Constitution, select Earliest and scroll to the bottom of the list, the last one is at 01:33 October 15, 2001 by Anatoly_Vorobey. If you select that version of the article ([oldest in list]), it comes up with both a Previous and Newer revision links. Since it is the oldest article it shouldn't have a Previous revision link. The *Previous* revision link leads to a version of the article edited on 19:26, August 10, 2002, about 8 months later. Any idea where to report this? Any idea if this is likely to happen with other articles which go back to the *very* beginning of Wikipedia?Naraht (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is common for article histories going so far back and it has been reported. Many old edits back in 2001 were not stored permanently so there may have been previous edits which are no longer accessible anywhere. The oldest stored edit of United States Constitution had edit summary "restoring the older version for now; please see /Talk", so it certainly sounds like there were edits before that. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is indeed caused by the software migration of 2001/2002. It's possible to import changes from the nostalgia wiki to here now btw. It might be that this would fix the history. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the fact that there is a link that goes nowhere that I consider a bug, it is that the link goes to a later article rather than an earlier one. But I understand if it is unfixable.Naraht (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on rights requests and other requests

I would like to know if registered users with no additional rights can comment on requests made at places like RfA, RfB and other user rights related requests, also could they comment on AWB approval requests. Thanks Paul2387 (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All registered users can !vote in RFAs and RFBs and other user rights requests. Certain votes require an editor to be registered for a prescribed length of time and have a prescribed number of edits but there are few of those. As an editor you can comment anywhere you feel you have input that is helpful. Hope this helps. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vandal and personal attack

We have an obvious vandal here and not only that but his supposed homepage School genius is obviously just a personal attack against someone. I dont know where I am supposed to post this so i posted it here. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals go to WP:AIAV, and personal attacks (but only if not accompanied by vandalism) go to WP:WQA, or in extreme cases, WP:AN/I. Intelligentsium 19:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, I don't see anything really wrong after a cursory inspection of the user's contributions. What is not a vandal; AGF, perhaps? Intelligentsium 19:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I have reviewed the user's contributions and though some might be considered destructive, they might also be from misunderstandings; other edits are apparently in good faith, so I do not agree this is an obvious vandal (and there is nothing on his userpage, as you linked, indicating it is an attack against a third party). Process needs to occur here. You can report vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but before posting there, a final warning in an escalating series should have been posted to the user's talk page (for example {{Uw-vandal4}}, {{Uw-spam4}} or {{Uw-speedy4}}), and the user must have vandalized within the last few hours, including after the final warning was given. Various warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. This user's contributions are not easily relegated to just a vandalism only account, so warnings need to be issued or the conditions precedent to blocking this user won't get off the ground. By the same token, if this user is operating in good faith, the warnings will provide him food for thought so that you can get him to reform the problematic edits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror site

Hi, can anyody tell me where I would go to report a mirror site? Rock drum (talk·contribs) 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are looking for Wikipedia:Mirrors. Regards So Why 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is nothing technically wrong with a mirror site; Wikipedia is freely licensed, after all. The problem is only if the mirror is not likewise released under the CC-BY-SA or GFDL, or is not properly attributed, either with a link or a URL. Intelligentsium 19:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convert a sandbox article to a wikipedia article.

Could someone tell me how it is done? I can't see anywhere from the sandbox how I can upload it. Must be easy given the number of articles on wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean Pallen (talk • contribs) 19:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would move it into the mainspace, by removing the "User:Dean_Pallen/" prefix. Only autoconfirmed accounts (like mine) can move articles; I will look at your article and move it, if it does not fall under a speedy deletion criterion. Intelligentsium 19:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have chosen a poor place to write your article. You seem to have written it at Template:X2, which is not the right place at all. When one says "sandbox draft" on Wikipedia, one means a personal sandbox draft, as might be found here (you have to create it). I will/have moved it into your userspace. Intelligentsium 19:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean Pallen (talk • contribs) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot Get My Product Included In Comparison Listing

I have edited and re-edited the Issue and Bug Tracking Software comparison lists a number of times to add a listing for my product, IssueTech.com, but it keeps getting deleted, and I cannot fathom why that is happening. I have looked at just about every link and FAQ on the site - and every log - but still cannot find a valid reason for these deletions. All the other companies and products in our space are listed, so I don't understand why I cannot list ours. It is a legitimate product, with many successful users, and has been for almost 10 years now.

Please respond and explain what I need to do to get listed. Thank You.

User: Hardot1

Hardot1 (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your post, I gather you are affiliated somehow with this product. You may be interested in our conflict of interest guideline, as well as our guidelines regarding external links. In brief, you should not edit articles related to you, your company, your product, your competitors,etc. Intelligentsium 20:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and understand the COI and External Links concepts. The listing information I provided, however, violates neither of those. It was strictly factual information (not an article or a link) about a product which fits directly with those above and below it. How were those products listed, if not by those most knowledgeable about them? I would think any potential reader would want as complete a listing as he/she can get, and Wikipedia should be the best source for that. Do I need to have a user of the product list it?

User: Hardot1

Hardot1 (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems your entry has been removed because your company is not notable enough to be included in that list. Oftentimes (but not always), lists only include entities which already have an article on Wikipedia (however, please do not create one yourself). Intelligentsium 21:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where to buy

Where can I buy the E Pigeon Smith narrated Battlefield series about WWII engagements? Geoff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.94.223 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask this question at the Reference Desk. The help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. Btilm 21:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:PrefixIndex

When I go to Special:PrefixIndex and enter the prefix Requests for adminship, how come only the current requests show? Btilm 21:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see all the requests. Perhaps you forgot to change the namespace from Main to Wikipedia? Intelligentsium 21:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Works for me [1] Regards So Why 21:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed with Wikipedia Article

I have a couple of problems with one Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautham_Hospital_panayapilly_cochin). 1. The name of the article is supposed to be Gautham Hospital. The rest of the title is the address (Panayapilly, Kochi) 2. All of the content was directly copied from the site http://www.gauthamhospital.org/. This could be a copyright violation. Even though the article was rearranged, it still reads almost exactly like the main page of the official website. 3. The article seems like self-promotion. The listing of available services and affordability make my case. Wikipedia is for objectivity, not self promotion. 4. The article was created by a user who only history is editing this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sriram_chandran). He has also defeated my proposed deletion. After further digging, I found out that he is an employee at Gautham Hospital (http://www.gauthamhospital.org/content.php?page_id=22). I remember reading about something against employees editing their business's articles. Conflict of Interest or something... 5. Notability criteria. This might be notable or it might not.

So... what should I do? Delete all content and rewrite it? I have no experience with this topic so I wouldn't know what to say. In addition, I'm worried about being continually blocked by Mr. Chandran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Occamsrazorwit (talk • contribs) 21:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Occamsrazorwit (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occamsrazorwit please try putting a message on Sriram chandran's talk page. I think you should at least invite him to discuss the article before building a case to delete it. He made a point about the hospital being significant or unique in the region. I think you are right when you say "This might be notable or it might not". I don't think that Sriram chandran's comment that having the article in Wikipedia "might even save lives" is decisive. Since both of you may be fairly new editors you may be surprised how productive a collaboration can be. (If Sriram chandran sees the advantage too.)

Occamsrazorwit, here are my comments on the numbered points you made. 1. Consider whether "Gautham Hospital, West India" is both unique enough as a title and avoids location names (e.g. Kerala, Kochi / Cochin, Panayapilly) that are unfamiliar to many Western readers. The actual location can be named in the article. 2. There is no copyright on information itself so I think you will have no problem if you work on a consensus text. The article should contain a link to the official hospital website. 3. Agree. 4. I see no problem at all with any facts that mean an editor is expert on a subject. Occamsrazorwit, be aware that it is a strong principle in Wikipedia that we do not expose personal information on an editor. I see no sign of anything as serious as a WP:COI problem. 5. Yes, see above.

I copy this message to Sriram chandran's new Talk page and I suggest you both exchange your views here. I shall watch there. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations, once discovered, are removed immediately and aggressively and surface-level, cosmetic rearrangement of the text does nothing to change that. If this was a blatant copyvio, it could be deleted under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion (which is requested by placing on the article a tag in the form {{db-copyvio|url=http:www.example.com}}), and if questionable, it can be tagged for review by placing {{copyvio}} on it and listing at today's list. However, looking at the website, unless there is some interior page I'm missing, I don't see anything but a few phrases that are clearly copied so I am going to strip them out. You are correct about the title and I have moved it. We do not use locations like this unless they are actually part of the proper noun title or are needed for disambiguation purposes to resolve a confusion between an existing article with a similar name (in which case the "disambiguator" would go in parentheses). See WP:PRECISION.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. The page has basically been fixed although it's still a stub. But thanks :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.29.65 (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User name different when signed than what it actually is

I noticed this when I signed a response I made on the Al-Qaeda talk page: Talk:Al-Qaeda#There_is_no_evidence. My user name is KittyKat1001001. However, when I signed (using the four tildes) it said my name was Kitty, the lover of Kats. It is linked to my user page but I don't understand why it changed on that page. Any help would be appreciated. P.S. I previewed my changes for this page after I signed it and it did the same thing! Kitty, the lover of Kats (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible you changed your signature in your Preferences? Intelligentsium 23:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what probably happened. Under the "Signature" heading in Special:Preferences is a box. Entering a name in the box will cause that name to display as a "nickname" and appear in place of your username when you sign. Entering wiki markup and ticking the box enables you to make your signature fancy and colourful (within reason, of course), as the software will use whatever markup is in the box as your signature. Clearing the text box and unticking the tickbox will return you to your default signature. Xenon54 / talk / 03:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've now fixed it to what I wanted. Thanks again for the advice. KittyKat1001001 (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]