Help desk
< November 4	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 6 >

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.

November 5

Old Account Forgot Password

I had a old account of Koneesha that i made a few years back. ANd have not been on it since. I was wondering if it could be delted or sent the password to me. Thank you.

Is there a way to add a Wikipedia button to my browser's toolbar for fast access? I already have the main pain saved in my favorites but would really appreciate having it right in my toolbar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.0.187 (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can. What browser are you using? Btilm 02:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to respond to accusations of "edit war"?

I've made an edit to a page that someone immediately reverts. I explain my reasoning on the discussion page, cite my sources, and put my change back. The other editor disagrees, and reverts. I still think he's wrong. I revert. He reverts. Then he tells me "you need to build consensus before you can make the change again. Failing to do so constitutes edit warring." Why are my edits "edit earring" and his not? But this guy knows all the Wikipedia policy jargon that I have no clue about and obviously will wipe the floor with me in any dispute, and probably get my account blocked. All this regardless of the merits of the actual edit in the article. The other editor has not bothered to respond to my comments on the discussion page since issuing his threat, he doesn't need to since he has "won" by superior knowledge of how to use Wikipedia procedure. (And I recall having a similar dispute with the same editor a while ago in which he also forced me to walk away by threatening sanctions for "edit warring".) I suspect he is hoping I will lose my temper with him, when he can call down sanctions on me for that. In any other context I would indeed just tell this guy he's ignorant of the facts and just wrong. I know that is frowned on here, so I have bit my tongue.

So what can I do? It seems the status quo can always be preserved if both sides are stubborn and the one disagreeing with the change knows the procedures, reverts twice then cites the "3R rule" to stop me making my change again.Barsoomian (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:3RR. Btilm 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already have tried to make sense of that. But am still at a loss, thus my question above. Barsoomian (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part did not make sense? We want our manual pages to be clear to everyone who needs them. If you find something confusing on a manual page, please leave a note on its talk page pointing out what you find confusing and why. The only way we can make our manuals understandable is if the people who are supposed to understand them tell us where the manuals need improving. --Teratornis (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to do anything. If your dispute is with User:Shshshsh, rest assured the complaint, timestamped from May 2009, is stale, and we have recommendations against resurrecting stale issues without good cause. Intelligentsium 03:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what prompted this. If I wanted to discuss the merits of a particular dispute I would have done so. As for "Don't need to do anything"; well thanks for that advice. So I should just give up every time someone does this to me? If that's so, I'd rather give up contributing my time and effort at all. Barsoomian (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask a general question, you get a general answer: the manual page. If you want a specific answer, you must ask a specific question: give us a link to the discussion. The manual page is complex because it accounts for many conditional branches and edge cases. The only way we can simplify things is to know which conditional branch you are on. This is like describing to a physician what you think the physician needs to know to diagnose your illness. If you are not a physician yourself, you probably don't know what the physician needs to know. Therefore the physician needs to examine the patient directly and not rely on the patient's limited understanding of all the possible illnesses. In Wikipedia content disputes, there is no simple solution that works in every case. Wikipedia has an extension collection of documents describing many of the complications; see WP:EIW#Dispute. However, here are some general principles which should usually hold true:

In any dispute between Wikipedia editors, the editor who has spent the most time reading our friendly manuals will have an advantage. As you seem to have discovered. We have rules for almost everything on Wikipedia. Most disputes ultimately come down to who is following the rules most closely. It's like when two lawyers argue a case; the lawyer with the best knowledge of the law has an advantage. That's how things work here, and it's hard to imagine any other way Wikipedia could work.
Therefore, if you don't feel like putting in the same effort to learn our rules, or if you don't have as much ability to figure things out as your opponent, then you should stick to noncontroversial editing. We have lots of that which needs doing.
From time to time, novel disputes arise, that is disputes which do not fit neatly into any cases we have documented in our manuals. When that happens, the Wikipedia community must study the dispute and work out new rules by consensus. That process in the past led to the rules we have so far. Obviously, we can have no idea whether you might be running into a type of dispute that doesn't fit into our existing rules unless we can study your dispute. That isn't likely, but if it is true in your case, then sending you to the manuals won't work because they won't contain the answer.
Wikipedia, unfortunately, is not for everyone. Only a tiny fraction of our 48,398,841 registered user accounts have a significant number of edits. Most people who try Wikipedia seem to dabble a bit and give up (although they may come back later and try again). If you don't like to read complex manuals, and if you have a strong interest in writing about some controversial topic, you'll probably have an uphill battle on Wikipedia. Only you can decide if Wikipedia is worth the effort for you. It's normal to experience aggravation on Wikipedia; I think everybody responding to you here has experienced their share, but we figured out what to do and stuck around. You can investigate some alternative outlets, but again we cannot give you specific suggestions because you haven't given us specific information.

--Teratornis (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the pages linked at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests#Negotiations and choose an avenue (such as WP:3O or WP:RFC) that you think appropriate for getting others' opinions on the matter. When there's a content dispute between two editors, the important thing is to get one or more uninvolved editors (especially ones who are knowledgeable about the article's topic) to weigh in and establish a consensus on how the content should be handled. Deor (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

noon family of Shujabad

I have seen the details of noon family of Sargodha. As per censes of 1931 only 708 were living in sargodha but 3766 were living in multan district. it is astonishing that detail is available for small number and no detail about majority. As per my family information, Noons are living in Shujabad Distt Multan, Karror Pacca Distt Lodhran and Shikarpur sindh beside Sargodha. Rana Taj Ahmaed Noon and Rana Shaukat Hayat Noon from shujabad are Ex MNA;s and Rana Mumtaz Ahmad Noon from Karror Pacca was also MNA. Rana Mohammad Qasim Noon from Shujabad was minister in Ch Pervaiz Ellahi cabinet. Presently Rana Ejaz Ahmed Noon from Shujabad is MPA and Rana Ejaz from Karror Pacca is also MPA. As per family traditions heard from our elders, Raja Raj Wardhan was incestor of Noons, who have adopted this name from Nanoo son of Raja Raj Wardhan having 7 sons. One was settled in Sargodha ( were spoken Maliks due to Friendship with Awans of that area, one was settled in Karror Pacca Distt Lodhran, one was settled in Shikarpur and 4 were settled in Shujabad District Multan after accepting Islam on the hands of Makhdoom Jalaluddin Jahanian Jahangasht of Uch. All Noons except of Sargodha write Rana clearly showing the Rajput origin.

Please verify from historians and include on pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rana Fayyaz Hussain (talk • contribs) 06:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, what you have written seems to indicate that the information is not from reliable sources ("as per my family information", "As per family traditions"). Alternatively, I would suggest that this would be better placed at the Noon family talk page, where people with more expertise and knowledge in this area would be more able to help - I will copy your statement there on your behalf. Also, please note that this Help Desk is for answering questions about how to use Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re-enable mobile on iPhone

Yes I am yet another who has accidently hit the " permenently diable mobile" button in wikipedia on an iphone. Is there a fix? I have read the posts of 1 September and 11 September and they are no help at all. Clearing the cache and cookies did not work, and adding the "m" to the address is a one time fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.26.138 (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read at [1], especially the sixth message Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

someone is using Wikipedia format on their site

Someone is using Wikipedia's page layout and format *exactly*, including the background image, on their web site. It gives the incorrect impression that their pages are yours. Do you want the URLs? DianaGaleM (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are allowed to mirror Wikipedia if they follow the licensing terms; see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and the links in the lead to lists of mirrors. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the caveat being that some sites have linked directly to wikipedia's servers to retrieve content for their websites via hotlinking, and those websites have (properly) been prevented from doing so. The use of the background image, or images with Wikipedia's logo and proprietary marks, is problematic, and probably should be reported somewhere. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would guess that the DianaGaleM has just found one of the many websites which run on MediaWiki software, and are using the Monobook skin by default. The background image is part of that skin, although if they are using the Wikipedia logo there is a problem. AJ Cham 16:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do want the URL. Otherwise we sit here and try to guess whether that site is duplicating content they are allowed to duplicate. --Teratornis (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to change a wrong article title

Resolved

– Page moved -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote in wrong way the title of an article: this means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_SEA_Directive_(2001/42/EC) instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_SEA_Directive_2001/42/EC. How can I change it, if it is possible? -- Ilariadotta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilariadotta (talk • contribs) 12:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, "renaming" an article is called "moving" the article, and you can find information on how to do it here: Help:Moving a page. In short, if your account is autoconfirmed, a "move" tab will appear above the article, click it to move the article. I see, however, that the article's title is already European SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) - this is what you wanted, isn't it? — QuantumEleven 12:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, effectively I was searching for the "move" tab (as in the Italian wikipedia) but I haven't! Maybe my account is not autoconfirmed. But I would like to change the title in this way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_SEA_Directive_2001/42/EC (this means without paretheses). So I can do nothing at all? -- Ilariadotta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilariadotta (talk • contribs) 12:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page. Your account will be autoconfirmed when you have had it for 4 days (you qualify on number of edits, as they are more than 10!). Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilariadotta (talk • contribs) 13:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birth places

What's the accepted way of doing things when it comes to listing someone's place of birth? Say someone was born in place p in area A, and since their birth the old area A has been split into a new area A (same name) and an area B so that p now lies in area B. How should we list their birth place? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 16:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably list it as born 01 January 1900 in Town, Area-1 (now in Area-2) with wikilinks to the appropriate town/areas if possible. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know a few people who get rather angry on points like this. My own personal opinion is that it is the situation prevailing at the time of birth that counts. So, "born 13 February 1956 in Salford, Greater Manchester" is illogical because Greater Manchester wasn't created until 1 April 1974. Either "born 13 February 1956 in Salford", or "born 13 February 1956 in Salford, Lancashire" will do for me. Put wikilinks on all linkable locations/areas. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But saying Salford Lancashire is also illogical since Salford is not in Lancashire. Some reference, as PhantomSteve says, ought to be given to its currently defined location. Otherwise we are in danger of perpetuating the falicy that Salford is in Lancashire. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 18:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought about it a bit more, perhaps the best thing is just to have it as born 01 January 1900 in Town with a wikilink for the town - in the town's article, it should (presumably) have mention of changes in the area (such as counties)? If not, you could add a mention in the town's article! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: per WP:MOSNUM#Dates, we don't put leading zeros in when writing dates out in full. • Anakin ^(talk) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find "born 13 February 1956 in [[Salford, Greater Manchester|Salford]]" acceptable, it points to the proper article yet hides the potentially-objectionable "Greater Manchester". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and the potentially-objectionable "Lancashire". ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salford was in Lancashire in 1956 not sure what is objectionable about a factual statement. MilborneOne (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64, I like your solution

. Anakin - I know that, and in an article I wouldn't put the leading zero - don't know why I did it here -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User blanking their talk page to remove warning

User_talk:Jenqui, what do I do about it?----occono (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly OK for a user to remove warnings from their talk page, in fact it is taken as an indication that they have read the warning. – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings. You can mention a warning in the edit summary if you want it to be easier to spot for others. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this user is entirely within their rights to remove the warnings and/or greetings. However, it should be noted that almost all of Jenqui's edits have been vandalism, usually with misleading edit summaries. I'd strongly encourage any admin that checks this board to look into this. GlassCobra 18:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry.----occono (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV exists for vandalism reports. – ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm quite aware of AIV. However, as the user has only edited once since October 31, it would be inappropriate to report them at this time. GlassCobra 19:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the user a final warning. If they vandalise again then you'll have grounds for them to be blocked. Just leave a message on the administrator intervention against vandalism page. I'll keep and eye on them in the meantime. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

occono - the guidelines say that it is perfectly OK for a user to remove warnings. It also says that this implies that the user has both read and understood the warning. It's not like it isn't easy to find past warnings - and most of us leave an edit summary mention that a warning was left -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Username change.

I requested my username changed, and I have not gotten a letter back about it. But my userpage is changed to the name I requested. The bar at the top of the page (the one that has links to all "my" stuff) has not changed. Is this normal, and do I have to do it manually? Thanks

GandalftheWise (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to leave a quick note for User:Kingturtle, the 'crat who renamed you. GlassCobra 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The account has been renamed successfully, and you should log into that account instead of the recreated GandalftheWise account. Note that GandalftheWise was created just a few hours ago, so is not the same as your old account. It was recreated as a result of your old account being SUL enabled. Simply logout, and then log in as User:Mìthrandir, and all will be well. AJ Cham 20:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

saving edited text

I'm centering a heading and everytime I save it, it looks right but then I go back to edit and the codes are gone and it's not centered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisagmv (talk • contribs) 19:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Are you perhaps previewing instead of saving? Also, I see your contribs only include your edit here - where are you trying to edit? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do provide links so we know what you're trying to edit. Also, if you're talking about ordinary section headings made == like this ==, they're not supposed to be forcibly centered, as their standard appearance is part of the theme. • Anakin ^(talk) 21:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most common cause of this problem is that you clicked on the Show Preview button instead of the Save Page Button:

If you do not click on Save Page, the edit will not be kept. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Want To Write An Article -- But Does The Subject Matter Meet Wikipedia's Criteria?

I would like to submit an article about an advertising agency in Raleigh, North Carolina. Although the agency is fairly small and has not received extensive press coverage, it does have a number of notable accounts, including The PGA TOUR and American Kennel Club Companion Animal Recovery. To honor Wikipedia's demand for objectivity, the article would be straightforward, unbiased and completely factual. My question is, is the agency a suitable subject for an article? Does it meet Wikipedia's criteria for "notability?" While I have reviewed the FAQs on the subject, I'd like to get an "official" ruling on this if at all possible.

Thanks.

((help))

Elmerfudge (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you would need to find are reliable third-party sources that establish the notability. Ideally, these would be non-local sources which are verifiable. If you could do that and keep it neutral and factual, I don't see a problem. However, there isn't really an "official" word since it's a collaborative effort by many editors. My suggestion would be to create the article on your userpage and work on it there, then ask an established editor to take a look at it before posting. Please ask if you have any questions. Thanks. Wperdue (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Elmer. Just to add to what Wperdue has already said, I'd say that extensive press coverage isn't necessary so long as there is some coverage—even if only in a trade publication. I seem to recall there being a guideline that "Notability is not inherited". Now it seems to be only a guideline against claiming inherited notability in defending an article that is nominated for deletion. From that guideline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INHERIT#Notability_is_inherited), "It is a radio program on a notable radio station therefore the program is automatically notable" is cited as a bad justification for the notability of an article's subject. Flipping that, I'm not sure if an advertising agency whose only claim to fame is handling notable accounts would stand the test. I guess my question would be, has the agency made the news for the advertising campaign it has devised, as opposed to simply being noted as having landed those contracts? If yes to the former, I'd guess it stands a fair chance. If no, I'd guess it may require some greater profile before justifying an encyclopedia article. That's not to put the chill on you creating one, it's just to say that if you have another idea that might be the one you want to put your efforts toward for your first article.

To notability of a related issue, I would point out that some advertising campaigns have their own articles. 1984 (advertisement), aired only once a quarter of a century ago, and Get a Mac, a currently popular campaign running for three years, spring to mind even though I wasn't sure we had an article on the latter. Both link to articles on their respective ad agencies in the lead, and both are bad articles; the first is a stub, the second looks better at a mere glance but has only 3 refs and a ref tag. "Another bad article exists, so I should get to publish my own bad article" is another bad justification! ;) Abrazame (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, WP:YFA, and WP:LAYOUT. Your only contributions from your account are the above question. Be aware that your odds of success when starting a new article from scratch on Wikipedia are proportional to the amount of editing experience you have on existing articles. If you've never done anything else on Wikipedia, it is hard to write a new article from scratch and make it stick. That's kind of a problem, because creating new articles is a very common motivation for new editors to start editing, but it turns out to be one of the harder things to do around here. What you want to do is not impossible, but it could be difficult. You did the right thing by asking here first, though. --Teratornis (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't waste my time. If some idiot decides it's too insignificant to note, they'll just delete it without any warning. The signficance police around here have been doing this a lot lately for certain types of information about people -- actresses, models, etc., -- for a while now. They've purged dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of bio entries without any real warning or time for discussion by the claim that they aren't of importance, despite the individual appearing in magazines/been written about hundreds of times (i.e., we're not talking vanity pieces). 24.250.216.51 (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionpedia currently shows 63,197 pages which have been deleted from the English-language Wikipedia. This is only a partial list of Wikipedia's deleted articles; Deletionpedia does not keep blatant copyright violations and so on, just the good-faith attempts that didn't meet Wikipedia's content rules. Wikipedia deletes a lot of articles, to be sure. (Imagine the massive scale of anguish behind those numbers.) Biography articles can be particularly difficult for new users because there are a lot of marginally notable people who do not have articles on Wikipedia, and a new user might try to add one without realizing what the rules are. However, there are also Wikipopuli and WikiBios which accept bios of everyone. It would be nice if our software could automatically detect when a new user is on a path that will come to grief, and could advise the user on the appropriate alternative outlet to use instead. Things have improved a bit with the editnotice which appears when one tries to create a new article now. The editnotice at least tells the new user how to improve the chance of success. But a generalized message cannot tell a particular user whether his or her idea for a new article stands a snowball's chance. --Teratornis (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's not quite fair to call deletionists "idiots". Some of them are objectively intelligent, as evidenced by their mastery of Wikipedia's complex rules. By that measure, deletionists are more intelligent than people who assumed they knew the rules without bothering to read them. A more appropriate adjective from the naive contributor's point of view might be "unsympathetic". But that is how every community appears to anyone whose goals conflict with the community's goals. Wikipedia isn't much different than other organizations. Every organization has rules, and enforces them against people who blunder in and make up their own rules. At least on Wikipedia, all the rules are in writing. --Teratornis (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but in this case, the deletionists are, in fact, idiots. They got some new BS criteria passed regarding what was "accepted" without much attention being called to it for whatever minimal comment period was relevant(I know the pages were deleted not more than three or so months after I'd added some information, IIRC, and there was nothing on them at the time which said they were up for deletion), and then they just started deleting such pages wholesale, regardless of the fact that they'd been around for years, and had been steadily updated by people other than them for all that time period. They just decided that certain people and professions weren't worth having autobiographical data on (despite the fact that the contributors in question were of a different opinion), and changed the rules to fit their biases. The information was factual, not vanity based, of interest to a fair percentage of people, and not "spam" oriented, either. It was exactly the sort of thing you look for in terms of encyclopedic content. But it's no longer on wikipedia. It's this kind of crap, along with some other senseless garbage that I've already argued about till I'm blue in the face regarding, that has largely made me stop bothering with contributing to wikipedia. There are certain power groups around here that manipulate the system in order to throw their weight around -- near as I can tell, it's because they like being tin-pot dictators. These are also the same sort who don't hesitate to screw with autobiographical data on people they don't like, to the point where one person of some wealth and note told you to lock the pages or he'd sue. 24.250.216.51 (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I oppose a merge?

An editor has added merge tags on two articles but hasn't put any rationale for merging anywhere. If there's no proposal, where should I oppose it? Should I just remove the merge tags explaining why in the edit summary? 90.214.11.152 (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The merge should be discussed on talk page of the destination page of the proposed merger. If the tagging editor has not started a discussion on that page, then I would encourage you to open a discussion on that page and list your reasons for opposing the merge. Wperdue (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow turned off all pictures on Wiki

I was on Wiki and I did something and turned off all the pictures. Please..how can I turn them back on?? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jthumbs (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have an option to turn off images. Often this problem is caused by accidentally blocking images using advert blocking features, so try checking that. In Firefox, for example, check Tools → Options → Content → Load images automatically → Exceptions. Internet Explorer may have something like that as well; I can't remember. • Anakin ^(talk) 21:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rights

I know that you can get rollback rights and account creator rights, but are there others, and how does one go about getting them. Also, how can you get account creator rights, do you have to be an admin?

Mìthrandir 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The various flags can be found here -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what the ....?

I “created” an account. I went to my email to confirm it. The confirmation link was dead. I copied it to my browser and “sent” it. The response was “invalid address”. I returned to the article to add a name to a list of names. I included a verification reference. The response was “this edit will be removed without a reference”. What?? I went to carefully re-read the tutorial, now I'm more confused than before. And what is Dieter60 (talk) or Dieter60 (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC) ? Does it represent a blank space where I'm supposed to enter something? THIS IS WAY TOO COMPLICATED, FULL OF GOBBLTYGOOK WHICH ONLY FURTHER CONFUSES ME, YOU NEED EXPERT ASSISTANCE TO DECODE THE TUTORIAL.[reply]

Relax :) We'll try to answer all your questions.

Your account is created.
Your email is unconfirmed. You may want to try again, but associating your account with an email address is optional.
The message, regarding your edit on Love for Sale (song), says "There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a <references/> tag." When you create a reference you see, you wrap it between <ref> and </ref> tags. That creates a little numbered link to a footnote containing the reference text, which will appear at the location of the <references/> tag. Most articles already have one, but that didn't. I have made the necessary fix. See Help:Citing sources for the full details.

That is the only edit you have made under this account, but if it is not the edit you're referring to, please link us to the article. • Anakin ^(talk) 22:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hello Dieter. Your account was created because you just edited under it. I know this in a few ways. First, you can see here that your post was made while logged in from the history of the edit. Second, you didn't understand what signing was but when you asked the question here about it, it worked. Let me explain. The software knows you're logged in and when you type four tildes (~~~~) (manually, or by clicking the editing button that looks like this:

), when you save, those tildes automatically format to your signature. The signature is your username, linked to your userpage (currently red-linked because your userpage hasn't yet been edited), followed by a link to your talk page. You can also sign with three tildes, which produces just your linked user name when you save. When you typed the four tildes in your question, and then three, they did just what they were supposed to, which was place those links to your user name and talk page. Signing is for posts to discussion pages (not for articles), so that others know who posted, as would have been proper at the end of your question above. Does that help? The nest thing you will see at the end of this sentence is my signature, which I will place with four tildes:--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"bad link" template

What's the template that should be used to denote an inline citation that points to a dead link or doesn't point to what is being quoted? The Jeffrey Dahmer article has a reference to a "Creation science" page which just redirects to the home page of a creationism web page rather than making the claim that the article's reference says it does. I'm sure I've seen this sort of template before, and it seems like a better option than just removing the falsely-referenced statement. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Requesting sources. A few that might be applicable here are {{cite check}}, {{dead link}}, {{failed verification}}. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the WP:LINKROT page help? —Akrabbim^talk 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think you are thinking of either {{citecheck}} which gives a message like this:

(Incidently, I have made sure that that does not include this page in the category "Articles lacking sources", whereas the {{citecheck}} tag does! See Template:Cite check for more info)

Or alternatively: {{Failed verification}} which gives ^{[failed verification]} -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the failed verification tag. Thanks! Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck is this bullshit?

Every time I try to log in to my account, it says it doesn't exist, but when I try to make a new one with the same name, it says it's already taken. You retards need to learn how to run your site properly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.75.71 (talk • contribs)

Would you like some cheese with your whine? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^{Oh snap it's a whinny vancouverite τ} _¢ 04:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely due to the fact that the name is taken already through the unified-login system. It may not exist locally yet, but since it is registered globally you cannot create one with the same name. Q ^{T C} 04:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We retards learned how to run the site a long time ago, thank you very much for your concern. But it's hard to keep up with all the new bullshit that comes up daily, so we are a bit behind the times. Despite your belief, I assure you that this too is merely bullshit and has nothing to do with fucking. Anyway, what OverlordQ says is probably what has happened, so you could try creating a new account (with a different name this time). ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we might be able to help better if you told us the user name you were tring to log in with - then we could look into it and give a more authoratitive answer. It is just possible that the problem isn't with Wikipedia but with you. However, with the user name, we would be able to find out if what OverlordQ suggests is the case. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is a difference in upper/lower case. Even if you type the corrrect case, your browser may have stored the wrong case and change it for you when you try to log in. But it's really hard to guess what is wrong with a username when the person posting the problem decides for unknown reasons to not reveal the username. It's like going to a doctor and say: "It hurts somewhere in my body but I'm not going to tell you where it is. You are a retard if you cannot cure it." PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can't create a username that is too similar to one that exists already, to avoid impersonation. If this is the case, the interface should display an explanatory message to that effect. decltype (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always liked the admonition "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar". However, I read recently someone pointing out that if you really want flies, "bullshit" is the right bait. Maybe this person read the same article.--SPhilbrick T 21:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to my website

Risa Sekiguchi (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC) I added a link to my website on Japanese food and culture, Savory Japan: http://www.savoryjapan.com/ but it was removed by Mari Oda, who said it was because it was self promotion and sells items. My site is mostly non-profit and the sales are very minor. It does, however, provide articles, recipes, interviews with authors and famous chefs, as well as news on Japanese cuisine. I would appreciate a review of the site by the help desk to determine if the link can remain. Thank you for your consideration.[reply]

Hi Risa, and thanks for engaging us here. I enjoyed browsing your site – I'd never really thought about the importance of knife techniques, for example.

Unfortunately, as described in Wikipedia's guideline on external links, it's beyond the scope of Wikipedia to link to most personal websites and blogs. Instead, many articles, including Japanese cuisine, contain a single link to the relevant page in the Open Directory Project. I was surprised to find your site not listed there... I don't much about it, but you might want to suggest your site by following the "suggest URL" link from this page.

As you noticed, Japanese cuisine contained links to other blogs, which I have since removed ([2]). The maintenance of lists of external links is an ongoing task in Wikipedia, and the inclusion of certain links is not necessarily grounds for the inclusion of similar links.

All the best, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Risa Sekiguchi (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks Adrian! I've already contacted the Open Directory Project, thanks to the link. I certainly understand, and look forward to contributing to Wikipedia when and where I can. Unfortunately, I find it hard to write in the "encyclopedic style". It must take practice and discipline.[reply]