Help desk
< October 12	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 14 >

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.

October 13

Categories question

If there is only one page in a given category, is it possible to link directly to that page, even if you do not know what that page is, but you know what category it is in? Intelligentsium^review 00:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could do something like this with mw:Extension:CategoryTree, which is enabled on Wikipedia according to Special:Version. You didn't mention what you have already tried, if anything. Nor did you mention why you want to do this. --Teratornis (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think CategoryTree is what I'm looking for. I need to be able to list all page names in a category (I can sort them by parsing by myself), normally. For example, if the page bar were the only page in the category:foo, I would need a way to show "bar", in plaintext. I am trying to do this to configure my toolbox page to link directly to any users calling for help or trying to edit semi-protected pages, if there is only one. Intelligentsium^review 23:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Export can list pages in a category, but I don't know if that yields a result you could use. You might get somewhere with the MediaWiki API. See WP:EIW#Query. --Teratornis (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war?

Hey guys,

I was wondering if this qualified as an edit war.

i've never been involved in one so i wouldn't know.

Thanks

Tim1357 (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. You could call it that, but since this is a removal of the AFD template, your revert is justified. It would have been better if you had warned the user with {{uw-afd1}} after reverting (another user has done so). The term "edit war" is generally used for disputes regarding content, however. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

found old Barton & Reed coffee/chocolate pot

i have a coffee/chocolate pot i picked up at a garage sale in the late 60's. i've since discovered an engraving on the bottom which says: "Reed & Barton Silver Sodered 3610 USN C 838". I'm just curious if anyone can tell me a little about it. I do believe it's actually solid peuter with a cherry wood handle. i do have pictures and hoping to be able to attach to this inquiry. otherwise, feel free to email me and i'll send pictures to you. Thank you. ^{[details removed]} Greg Greggaspar (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this page is for helping you edit Wikipedia. I don't believe there's much we can do to help you. You might want to see an antiques dealer, though.

I've also removed your phone number and location, because Wikipedia is a very public site and we don't provide answers except on this page. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning Wheel

I have acquired at an auction what seems to be a very old spinning wheel. From the online research that I have done, it seems to be from the 1800's, if not earlier. The wheel is a little over 41 inches in diameter. What it is mounted to is about the same, 41 inches. It has only 3 legs. Only 1 crossbar btween the 2 legs that are close to each other. I just noticed something very interesting. On 1 end of the main part that sits on the 3 legs, there is a name that was put on there(on the edge). It says Browns Mill. The inscription definitely looks original. Can you help and find out any more info? I would greatly appreciate a responce.

Sincerely, Rene Quintanilla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.80.191 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the answer to the above question. This Help desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. You might ask on the Reference desk, or a local antiques dealer, or your local reference librarian. You might also tell us roughly where in the world you were when you bought this item. If the auction was in, say, Beirut, Lebanon that might suggest a different history for this item than if the auction was in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. --Teratornis (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please!

Resolved

– Old version deleted, new version at commons. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the file 'Gyantse with Kumbum & fort - Edited.jpg'

today after editing the original, completely forgetting that I had already uploaded it a long time ago without editing as 'Gyantse with Kumbum & fort .JPG'

As this version is much clearer and brighter could some kind knowledgeable person out there please replace the earlier version with this one as I don't know how to do it? Also, would you be able to put it on Wikimedia Commons? Many, many thanks, John Hill (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new edited version has already been uploaded to commons. I have removed the link to the older version from the article gyantse. If the old version is not useful, put up a request for speedy deletion, under the deletion requested by author category. LK (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the older version for deletion, noting that a newer version has been uploaded to commons. LK (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...And I've deleted it and removed the redlink here. Great picture! UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much to you all for your kind help. I do think the edited version is far easier to see. It's great to have it correctly listed - and really wonderful discovering others are enjoying it. Best wishes to you all, John Hill (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to help fix citations?

Over at Sustainability we have a large number of badly formatted cites, some just to the raw http address. It would take quite a bit of time to fix by hand. Is there a bot that fixes refs? For example, for the internet refs, can a bot go out and verify it exists, grab the author, page name and organization name, and fill in the web cite template with those appropriate values? Seems like such a bot would be very useful, and so should exist. LK (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Bots to see if any perform this (or a similar) task already? Perhaps they just need to be modified slightly. If not, you can post a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. — QuantumEleven 08:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would be better off asking at Wikipedia:Bot requests, as the folks there are in a position to either explain why it shouldn't/can't be done, or get it done! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Citation bot could help you out (although it is temporarily blocked). TN X Man 11:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I report violations?

How do I report violations? There's an article with numerous policy violations, and I can't repair it:

U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks

I have tried to clean up this article, but there is someone there who is guarding it in its current form. (Edit warring?) There is almost no discussion on the discussion page beyond the other editor and me (though there's plenty of that), so no consensus is happening. I have asked for help from the WikiProject but haven't gotten a response from them yet. This is an article related to 9/11, so it's highly charged and vulnerable to fringe ideas and conspiracy theories.

I think these violations need attention. How do I report this? What else should I do? Dcs002 (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Requests for comment, these look like the best avenues to draw attention to the problems you perceive with the article. The page on dispute resolution also lists steps you can take if these measures fail. — QuantumEleven 08:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

adding links

i add links and every time i have to enter a code word! then when i try to fix my links it says editing too fast anti spam measure blah blah blah. dont the slow idiots like it when people edit too fast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorson (talk • contribs) 11:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an anti-spam measure, you are limited from performing this action too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorson (talk • contribs) 11:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The restrictions should go away when your account becomes autoconfirmed in 4 days. Some people make spam bots to automatically add links to many articles. Measures against such things can unfortunately give inconvenience to some new accounts. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sounds more like age discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorson (talk • contribs) 13:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction applies to every new account regardless of the user's age. --Teratornis (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic letters in HTML

Resolved

I'm trying to get the gothic letter ${\mathfrak {X}}$ in HTML form. Any ideas? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 12:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode 𝖃 renders as 𝖃 PrimeHunter (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing that as a square. My laptop's only a few months old and runs on Vista. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 13:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Dec, it might be your browser: the character displays properly for me in Firefox but as a square in IE8. Special character handling is largely determined by the application you're using, and what character sets you have installed on your machine. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See e.g. Help:Special characters#Displaying Special Characters. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I was using Google Chrome. I've opened Firefox and it works. It's a little unsettling then to know that if I use 𝖃 in any articles then people might not be able to see it... Thanks a lot for the help. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 13:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I am using Firefox, but I am also seeing that as a square only. The linked article says that Firefox should automatically show special characters. Any idea what is wrong with my browser? --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use Firefox and see it correctly there, but now I have tested other browsers and see a square in IE8, Google Chrome and Opera. I know little about special characters and don't know whether there is a more portable version or something which renders as a normal X if the special character cannot be displayed. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Help:Multilingual support or Wikipedia:Gothic Unicode Fonts addresses the problem? I'm just giving the links, I haven't checked them thoroughly. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the second link offers some suggested free fonts you can install that can successfully render Gothic characters. I feel like there must be a cunning warning template somewhere that could be attached to articles replete with these characters, advising readers on how to make the characters display. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saddhiyama: it's probably not a problem with your browser, then, but a character set absent from your machine, and there are a lot of variables determining how that should be rectified. If you happen to be running XP you may need to install extra font sets from the Windows install disk; you may also need to edit your font substitution preferences in the registry of your computer to tell the computer which fonts to check if it doesn't find a particular unicode character in the default. I can advise you based on my verrrry limited experience, but the computing reference desk might have more knowledgeable people. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes I am using XP. It was the sentence "Special symbols should display properly without further configuration with Mozilla Firefox, Konqueror, Opera, Safari and most other recent browsers" on the Help:Special characters#Displaying Special Characters that made me wonder, because it made it sound like it should automatically be fine just as long as you were using one of those browsers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the vast majority of cases that's true, but Gothic characters are quite rare and I believe few font sets contain them (hence the list of a few that do at WP:Gothic Unicode Fonts). If you have a suitable font on your computer the listed browsers should be able to use it, but if you don't have one that can render the character there's nothing the browser can do about it. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the discussion thus far; I'll explain why I ask my original question and then that will lead to another question. I'm going through mathematics articles trying to clean them up. There's a lot of articles with in-line LaTeX which messes around with the spacings and can really end up looking like a mess when displayed on certain web-browsers given certain settings. The manual of style recommends using HTML (or unicode) for the in-line mathematics and keeping LaTeX for those special display-line occasions. Given that so many people are having problems viewing the Gothic X, would it be better to keep the LaTeX ${\mathfrak {X}}$ in place of the unicode 𝖃? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 17:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unicode 𝖃 fails in so many browsers that it should be avoided if at all practical. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and this bit in the MoS seems close enough to a mandate. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error in the Stana Katic article

Resolved

Stana Katic: You have her birth date as April 31. THERE IS NOT 31 DAYS IN APRIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.129 (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

How do I become an admin?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to ask that question then you're probably not ready to be one. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 13:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i just want the answer so that someday in the future I can be one.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Head over to this page. There are directions listed near the top. TN X Man 13:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best thing is not to edit with adminship on your mind. If you make it your 'goal' in wikipedia, you're not likely to get it. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RFA every day, for as long as it takes to become completely routine to you. Especially study the failed requests for adminship. Note each reason why someone objected to each applicant. Make sure your editing record on Wikipedia presents none of those reasons. One general bit of advice would be to never express an opinion on Wikipedia on any subject other than what it is in the guidelines and policies. It also helps to have been the primary editor on several featured articles. Be very careful about getting sucked into any content disputes or even meta-disputes. Anybody you disagree with on anything can come to your RFA and vote against you. Regardless of the merits of your position, objections can snowball, as other editors notice the commotion and assume you are too troublesome to trust with the admin tools. You have to be like a politician rather than a pundit. Don't rock the boat. Also note that the RFA has its own sort of subculture which may differ from the subculture of the parts of Wikipedia you are used to, so head over there and lurk for as long as you need to learn that culture. You might also wait for at least a dozen other users to offer to nominate you for adminship, on their own initiative without you asking first. --Teratornis (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When is it ok for editors to change other editors Talk Page

Hi help desk. When is it ok for a other Editor to change one's Talk Page Sir Floyd (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Other's comments should not be changed unless there's a very good reason. If you explain the situation more clearly, we can give a more specific answer. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chamal, well I'm getting these messages from block IP-Users (& I don't know who they are). User DIREKTOR who keeps editing my page stated "User:Sir Floyd, be sure I will remove any and all sock edits I encounter on your talkpage. You can call it whatever you like "vandalism", "harassment", whatever... " . Chamal I 'm finding this rather annoying and rude. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be some kind of issue on Sir Floyds talkpage, but there is a lot to look ....Anyway if someone is coming to your talkpage and you feel harresed by them...You just tell them you don't want them to post or edit your talkpage (effectively banning them from posting on your talkpage)and if after that they continue to do it then report them to WP:ANI if you are getting harassed by IPs on your talkpage then ask at the Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection to get it semi protected so that users who are not autoconfirmed can not edit it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have already asked User:DIREKTOR more than once to stop posting on your talkpage here and he continued to post, here this edit is interesting edit summary of "hiding my harrasment"? Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try dispute resolution and open a request at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts .Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Off2riorob. I just thought because it had something to do with block IP-Users that gave him the right to do what he is doing (on my talkpage). I might just leave it for now, maybe User:DIREKTOR won't do it again :) Sir Floyd (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LoL be advised, this is not a request for help, this is just another in a long, looong line of transparent attempts on the part of User:Sir Floyd at badmouthing me in the Wiki community and getting me blocked. Heh, maybe User:Sir Floyd has forgotten to mention that the IP I reverted was an obvious sock of banned User:Trusciante/Luigi 28/PIO/etc. an account that refuses to stay banned and continues to vandalize articles thanks to his ever-changing IP? I reported that account and he's been trying to get back at me ever since. User:Sir Floyd is a very hostile user with a highly pronounced political agenda who's been actively trying to get me banned for months with very silly reports on maybe a dozen various Wikipedia noticeboards (all of which were painfully transparent and ignored). The post from User talk:Sir Floyd which I removed was a call for assistance against me on the part of the sock IP. Perhaps after his latest sock (User:Trusciante) was summarily blocked following a WP:AN/I "block request" against me, the sock is looking for assistance from a hostile user that is not actually banned. :) I do not see why I should consider myself at fault here? (P.S. "Hiding my harassment" was a benign joke, obviously you can't "hide" anything. I removed my post after User:Sir Floyd told me he doesn't want it there as he considers it "harassment".) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

problem with article title

I have article which has an error in the title (partial name)...can it be changed by the user or must I delete the article and recreate it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbcard1 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct way to change an article title is to move the page to preserve the edit history. Your account should have become autoconfirmed when you made the above edit, so you get a "move" tab at the top of pages. After you created the new page with a copy-and-paste move, an administrator was required to make the correct move so I have done it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Printing the editing page?

I need to print this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Sizemore&action=edit&section=4

showing the entire editing window to use as an exhibit in a legal matter. I'm using Firefox. When I hit print preview, only the first paragraph of the original article shows in the editing window; it's the second paragraph I'm most interested in.

Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelasticjew (talk • contribs) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have section 4 (Racketeering case) open for editing; when you do a print preview, only that section will show. Open Bill Sizemore, highlight what you want to print and print or print preview. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, when the print dialog page opens, make sure you bubble "print selection"Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 16:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the editing page open because I need to show who added this section in line with the added text.

Is there a way to print the section I need showing the editing information?--Gelasticjew (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "editing information'?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 17:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need the exhibit to show the text, who added the specific text, and when.--Gelasticjew (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just click submit. Once you do the time stamps should show up. Then just hit ctrl +P, then bubble "print selection" and print.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 17:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to go through the page history and find the difference— this will show the editor. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page history lists all revisions to the article along with the editors responsible. If you click 'prev' next to one it will show you what change was made in the edit - for example, this is the most recent change. Is that what you're looking for? Olaf Davis (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to be addressing the concern of using Wikipedia editing history in a legal dispute. Is someone being sued in court over their Wikipedia edits? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raname an Image file?

Is it possible to rename an Image file? Bubba73 (talk), 17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the file is on Commons, see: Commons:COM:FAQ#How can I rename/move an image or other media file?. --Teratornis (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is on Wikipedia, then yes. Tag it with {{rename media|new name}} and it will get moved by a bot. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is on WP. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Page

I would like to know if anyone can create a new page in Wikipedia? If so, what is the procedure?

Thanks. Cabbasse (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

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

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

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is available to walk you through creating an article. TN X Man 20:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need to delete

I apologize but I have accidentally created documents which need deleting. I should not have clicked the save button (and will not do it again :-) until I am ready to go live) Can I delete my pages I have created so I do not inconvenience others by having to delete them? I can't seem to find this answer.

Many Thanks,

Trish Ritzer —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrishRitzer (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only administrators can delete pages but you can request deletion by placing {{db-g7}} on a page if you are the only contributor to the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find it helpful to know that pressing 'show preview' in the editing window lets you check what your page will look like without making it live. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking input on restructuring of Biomonitoring-related articles

The purpose of this question is to propose a series of changes to two articles -- Biomonitoring and Biomonitoring (chemistry) -- of some interest to an organization, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), with which I have a financial relationship through my employer. I believe these articles are confusingly named, and at least one is very much inadequate. I have done the most work on the latter article, as I will describe in detail below. The research and writing is my own, but ACC is supportive of what I have done here; it is a subject they would like to see represented in a clear and comprehensible manner. Because of this potential conflict of interest, I have created these new pages in my user subspace prior to seeking input here. The three new articles, detailed below, can be found here, or each may be directly accessed as such:

As you may have guessed, the term is shared by two separate concepts: One about measurement of ecological health via aquatic organisms, and one about measurement of chemical substances in humans. Currently, the article Biomonitoring refers to the subject in aquatic ecology, and an article titled Biomonitoring (chemistry) refers to the human variety. I propose replacing these pages with the two above and disambiguation page for the following reasons:

The article of interest to me is the former: when I began researching this project it was extraordinarily short[1]; it has since been expanded somewhat[2], but is still not a particularly strong article. I have written what I believe to be a particularly complete and scrupulously sourced article, with citations almost entirely from government websites (all available online) and academic journals (many with abstracts available online). This largely builds on the sourced material in the existing article, although replacing it would indeed constitute a complete rewrite. My version of this article is also to be called Human biomonitoring because humans are the focus of this scientific activity; the current version of the article lists "biological monitoring" as the alternate term, but I think this is incorrect. A Google search shows that term is very strongly identified with the aquatic variety. Meanwhile, a Google search also shows that "Human biomonitoring" is popularly used by governments and research institutions.

The article now called Biomonitoring I propose be renamed Aquatic biomonitoring -- a Google search again shows this term is used by governments and research institutions to describe this activity -- but I have not worked on the article itself and have no substantive changes to propose besides the move.

Because these terms are often simply labeled "Biomonitoring" within their respective fields -- a simple Google search for "biomonitoring" returns information about both (even though there is a tilt toward the human variety) -- I propose that they both be linked under a disambiguation page named Biomonitoring.

I am very interested in obtaining feedback about this, and to see if other editors here agree that replacing the current Biomonitoring articles with the ones I propose is indeed reasonable. Please feel free to move them if you think they are worthwhile and I have made the case for them or, if you prefer, let me know if there is any objection to my moving these articles instead. I realize this is quite a lot of material to digest so I have no problem waiting a decent interval for feedback on this question. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask for opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment. --Teratornis (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest discussing this on the Biomonitoring talk page and Biomonitoring (chemistry) talk page -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm afraid there isn't enough activity on those Talk pages to get a response, but it's worth doing in any case -- and the WikiProjects are worth asking. Will do shortly. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to become an administrator

The purpose of my question is to ask how to become an administrator, any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

CEALIV (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you need to get a lot more experience of wikipedia than your contributions would appear to indicate that you have. 40 edits is nowhere near enough!

Secondly, you need to show that you have an understanding of the various policies of Wikipedia (not off by heart, although some of them you would - but you certainly need to know them enough to be able to find the relevant one without having to look all over Wikipedia!)

Thirdly, you need to have contributed in a significant way to articles - firstly, having created substantial articles, or major contributions to existing ones; secondly to have a hand in getting articles to Good Article status and Featured Article status

Fourthly, knowledge of acting against vandalism on pages, the warning system

Fifthly (and most important, in my opinion), you have to have the trust of the Wikipedia community - as it is the community that would decide whether you can be an admin or not!

- and those are just for starters! See also the thread Adminship above.

Incidently, the most common response I see to your question tends to be either "You wouldn't want to be an admin" or "If you are asking, you aren't suitable!". As a non-admin, I couldn't possibly comment! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)By your statement, it seems you view adminship as a goal. Adminship is no big deal. Administrators are little more than janitors; people the community trusts with tools which would be dangerous in the wrong hands (such as corrosive cleaners and the keys to all the rooms). Administrators are no more respected than you or I. Please read over what adminship is not. That said, the following is technical detail:

Administrators are chosen based on discussion on RFA

Statistics show that successful admin candidates have about 20000 edits *Administrators must have experience in all facets of Wikipedia.

Many good editors fail at RfA.

Adminship is no big deal

If, after this, you still want to be an administrator, edit in all areas of Wikipedia for a few years, familiarize yourself with policy, then put yourself up at RfA. By that time, though, you probably won't want to be an admin anymore. Cheers, Intelligentsium^review 23:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it takes all sorts, but I'm having too much fun editing to have admin duties foisted upon me! Remember, anything an admin can do you can get done too – admins are very nice people and are (usually) very happy to do actions on your behalf. And if an admin won't do it, perhaps it shouldn't be done? Jan1naD - (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]