Help desk
< January 15	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

January 16

Where to go, how to get there, how to fill in the question, and where to go and how do I get the answer for the question.

I am a beginner and I am very frustrated by web sites that can't answer a simple question and I wonder why it is that no one can create a web page that can explain to beginners how the place works. All I am looking for is information on virtual machines/computers,how to set one up, how to operate it, what I do and don't need. When I first signed up your instructions seem to be clear enough but when I go to one of your sites to ask a question I can't because I need someone who can answer the question for me. I don't know how to maneuver around your web site because there is nothing on your web site that tells me how to do so that, which just raises the level of frustration because all I want to do is ask a simple question. So can you tell me where on your web site can I go to to ask this question, how do I get there, how do I fill it in so I don't have any surprises that tell me that I have to do something to finish it but I don't know what it is, and where do I go to get the answer? I may sound angry I'm not just very frustrated by not being able to ask a simple question, I had a very frustrating experience with Microsoft trying just to ask a simple question about a problem with IE8. I spent a month trying to get an answer because there is no information that helps me to understand where to go and what to do when I get there.Thank you for whatever help you can provide.Interesting 333 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 00:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have signed up for a userid (which is a splendid idea), you do know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not affiliated with any particular software company, right? Virtual machines seem to have been invented by IBM in 1972, and there have been many kinds of virtual machines produced by many companies since then. Your best bet is to go the Reference Desk, as suggested above, and be sure to explain what brand of virtual machine you would like to set up, what operating system you are using, and what kind of computer you are using. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. You can find general information about virtual machines here, but if you need a step-by-step procedure to set up the type of virtual machine you have in mind (which you did not specify), you will have to look elsewhere. For example, there is a Wikibooks:Parrot Virtual Machine, although there is no way to guess whether that is anything like what you need. For general advice on how to ask for help online and get answers, read How to Ask Questions the Smart Way - if you have been frustrated trying to get answers, you must read that document. Be aware that asking answerable questions sometimes requires a lot of skill, particularly if you have a question that only a few people in the world could answer. Finally, be sure you are not {{astray}}. Maybe you arrived on Wikipedia from a Web search, and you are mistaking us for someone else, such as a particular software vendor. When people think they are looking at something else when they are looking at Wikipedia, they tend to get confused in a hurry, because little on Wikipedia works the way some other arbitrary Web site probably would. --Teratornis (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HELP, PLS : IT HAS TO BE LINK TO DAUGHTER OF NICHOLAS the first instead

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Marie_Alexandra_of_Baden there is wrong link ( to daughter of Nicholas second), IT HAS TO BE LINK TO DAUGHTER OF NICHOLAS the first Highlighted words Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna (1819–76),should take to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchess_Maria_Nikolaevna_of_Russia_(1819%E2%80%931876) Can someone CHANGE, PLEASE THANK YOU LUDMILA <e-mail redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlanj (talk • contribs) 00:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I read your post correctly (all the capital letters really make it difficult), then you want the link from Princess Marie Alexandra of Baden to Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia (1899-1918) to be changed to point to Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia (1819-1876).

Now, I have a question for you: Do you have a reliable source to prove that Princess Marie Alexandra's mother was indeed the elder Duchess, who died thirty years before the princess was born? Xenon54 / talk / 01:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the requested correction.[1] Xenon54, I'm afraid you read both the request and the article wrong and confused the article subject Princess Marie Alexandra of Baden (1902–1944) with her paternal grandmother Princess Maria of Leuchtenberg (1841–1914) whose mother is Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna (1819–76) and not Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia (1899–1918) as the piped link said before the correction. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PrimeHunter. I (incorrectly) assumed that all the text in the article was directly about the article's subject. Xenon54 / talk / 01:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting, initialising, outlining... what is good practice?

What is the policy/feeling regarding making the initial inroads to a deep subject? - given that the concepts 'draft' and 'final' are at best hazy in here. For example, is it reasonable to initiate a certain structure for an article one day, and come back on another to flesh it out? Or would this be considered too 'ugly' a state to leave an article in? I would imagine that it would be okay (least of all because it might inspire others to cover a certain area of the subject); but I have been in the position in the past where 'interim' edits have been misunderstood. Similar regarding things like citations; 'I know I will get them, but it will have to be tomorrow.' How do more experienced contributors approach it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubusy (talk • contribs) 02:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How pretty or ugly an article looks matters relatively little, since anyone can help format it correctly; what does matter is making sure that the article, in whatever state you leave it in, satisfies any notability concerns. The best way to do that is to leave references to at least 2-3 independent sources that discuss article's subject. If the article establishes notablity, you can take your time developing it. However, you may prefer to create a userspace draft instead; there, you can work on it in a deletion-free environment until you feel it is ready to be made public. Then you can simply move the article to namespace. Liqudluck✽talk 02:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider the subject. You did not tell us what you want to write about. Some topics have a high probability of "sticking" and can safely remain as stubs without exciting the deletionists too much. For example, we have articles like Wind power in the United States, Wind power in Germany, Wind power in Italy, but no Wind power in Japan yet. Clearly, the top 20 or 30 or 50 countries will have pretty much automatic notability for their wind power articles, and for many other kinds of "topic in country" articles, so there is little worry about needing to "defend" the next new article in such a series. In contrast, if you want to write about a garage band, those kinds of articles are blood in the water for the deletionist. If a subject raises any questions about notability, then having sloppy, unwikified formatting would probably draw even more negative scrutiny. Even though they shouldn't, other editors will probably look harder for reasons to delete a sloppy article than a neat one. In general, your safest bet is to find a featured article or good article closely related to your subject, and then pattern your article after the article of known quality. Whatever you do, don't scrimp on footnote citations. Citations are how you demonstrate to other editors that your article belongs. If you can't cite it, don't write it. --Teratornis (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could also draft it in user space. For example, if the subject was King Fred II of Wikipedia, you could create User:Tubusy/King Fred II of Wikipedia. That way, you could work on the article without the threat of deletion (unless you put copyrighted material, libellous material, etc). To create the draft, in the 'search' box type User:Tubusy/Article-name - you will get a message saying that the page does not exist — just click on Start the User:Tubusy/Article-name page and edit away! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to a Specific Article

Hello,

I'm hoping that you can help me. I'm fairly confused.

I've created an article entitled Jim McCormick (American Speaker). People who would be searching the article would probably simply search on Jim McCormick. Right now that takes you to a page entitled Jim McCormick. That page has a couple of lines of redirect text that refer you to other articles (i.e, Jim McCormick (infielder) or jim McCormick (American football). I see that I can simply add anther redirect here, but i there another way to do this so that the user can go directly to the correct page?

Any help you can provide would be appreciated. I've been wading through everything I can find, but either I've not found the appropriate directions or I'm not understanding what I'm reading.

Thank you.

Jabailey1 (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles could be moved to different titles so the one on the speaker is named "Jim McCormick", but I'd say that's not the right solution here. If one of the articles on Jim McCormick were a primary topic that is expected to be searched for much more than the others, then that would be moved to be named only "Jim McCormick". In this case, I don't think any of the three articles on people named Jim McCormick are much more well known than the others, so the solution to this is a disambiguation page, which is a page that contains only links to the other three articles. Move Jim McCormick to Jim McCormick (baseball), and follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) to change Jim McCormick from a redirect to a disambiguation page that links to Jim McCormick (baseball), Jim McCormick (American football), and Jim McCormick (American Speaker). --Mysdaao ^talk 06:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved Jim McCormick (American Speaker) to Jim McCormick (speaker), moved the former "Jim McCormick" article to Jim McCormick (pitcher), redirected Jim McCormick to the disambiguation page James McCormick, and added an entry for Jim McCormick (speaker) to the latter. Now I just have to clean up some links. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia images don't show up in browser

Wikipedia images don't show up in my computer. I tried Internet Explorer and Firefox. There are no pictures showing up either I login or logout. I have no problems viewing pictures on other website except Wikipedia. I used to be able to view all pictures in Wikipedia. But all of sudden, they all disappeared a couple of weeks ago. Eminslw (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a blocked domain. Most images are from upload.wikimedia.org. Can you see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Example.jpg? Some interface images are from en.wikipedia.org. Can you see http://en.wikipedia.org/images/wikimedia-button.png? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government of India policy

There was a discussion at User talk:MuffledThud#Kondapalli toys over whether works of the Govt of India are in public domain or not.

The Caveats section of this article seems to suggest that Indian Govt works are copyrighted. It also cites a source. But I think that this is misleading because the source provided only states that the Govt of Maharashtra doesnot allow work to be published without permission being taken. This doesnot apply to the Govt of India.

I strongly believe that Govt of India works are in public domain. And I request that these articles - Kondapalli toys, Orissa Ikat, Thanjavur art plate be stripped of their CSD statuses. Admins please advise. Sasank Sleeper (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Handbook of Copyright Law in the Dept. of Higher Education website, "[the] government shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein". So, no; Indian government works are not in the public domain. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check [2]. It says “It is not denied that under section 2(k) of the Copyright Act, a work which is made or published under the direction or control of any Court, tribunal or other judicial authority in India is a Government work. Under section 52(q), the reproduction or publication of any judgment or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority shall not constitute infringement of copyright of the government in these works. It is thus clear that it is open to everybody to reproduce and publish the government work including the judgment/ order of a court. ......”. Sasank Sleeper (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Most .gov.in websites clearly show a copyright notice. In the case of the sources for the 3 quoted articles
1. iips.gov.in clearly says "© Copyright 2005-2009 Institute of Intellectual Property Studies; All Rights Reserved"
2. ipindia.nic.in has no clear indication of the copyright status of items on their website, so the default would be that it is under copyright, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. It is your responsibility to prove that the contents on that site are in the Public Domain.
3. Again, it's ipiondia.nic.in. Please note that although the documents are "available to the public", this is not the same as the right to reproduce them online - merely that the public have the right to see them.

In summary, without specific indications that the contents of the website are either PD or under a license which is compatible with Wikipedia's, it is generally assumed that the copyright of all the contents of the website belong to the website owner. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Replying to your second comment: that is only about reproducing the findings of a court or equivalent - not IP offices or other Governmental departments. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does it say "It is thus clear that it is open to everybody to reproduce and publish the government work including the judgment/ order of a court." It could have just said "to reproduce and publish the judgement/order" if you were correct. Why did it have to include government work ? Sasank Sleeper (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the first website is not iips.gov.in. It is iips.ac.in. It is not a government website. It is an educational institution. Check page 85 of that [3]. It says "Reproduced from pages 32-40 from the Geographical Indications Journal August 1st 2006". He did not say anything about "reproduced with permission". So I think it is in public domain.

{{ec} Read what you quoted earlier: "reproduction or publication of any judgment or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority". The articles you mentioned have nothing to do with court orders or judgements, do they? They are not in public domain. Here's the entire copyright law if you need it: http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could have just said "to reproduce and publish the judgement/order" if you were correct. Also, where in copyright law is reproduction forbidden ? Please quote. I donot disagree with government work being copyrighted by govt. What I am saying is that its in public domain. Sasank Sleeper (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have pointed out to you a government website that clearly says government work is copyrighted (as well as the copyright law itself). Are you suggesting that they are wrong? If so, I'm afraid that is something you must settle with the Indian government and not us. We have to work with the information we have, and that information is that Indian government work is not in the public domain. As for the passage you're quoting from here, that entire section is only about the copyrights of court orders. What it says is that government works that are court orders (or government works that contain court orders) are not copyrighted. The way they have worded it makes it confusing, I believe. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check page 38, 39 of [4]. It says "If any published Government Document/Report is being reproduced on any website, whether as excerpts or in full, the source of the same i.e. Full Title of the Report/Document along with the name of the concerned Department and year of publication MUST be provided."

That's not the same as being in public domain. Look, it's not something you have to pick up from some vague sentence in a document and think "this must mean it's in the public domain." If the government releases it's work to the public domain, it will be clearly mentioned. They have clearly mentioned that their work is copyrighted (which means it's not in public domain). ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From [5]

sec 52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright

...

(q) the reproduction or publication of-

(i) any matter which has been published in any Official Gazette except an Act of a Legislature;

(ii) any Act of a Legislature subject to the condition that such Act is reproduced or published together with any commentary thereon or any other original matter;

(iii) the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the Government if such report has been laid on the Table of the Legislature, unless the reproduction or publication of such report is prohibited by the Government;

(iv) any judgement or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproduction or publication of such judgment or order is prohibited by the court, the tribunal or other judicial authority, as the case may be;

This says that in India, the following are in the public domain: the contents of Official Gazettes; Acts of a Legislature; reports of committees, commissions, councils, or boards; judgements or orders of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority. Other government works are copyrighted, as sec 52 is an exception to a general rule that all works are copyrighted. See Indian copyright law where this passage is quoted. Nothing that i have been able to find says or in any way clearly imnplies that ALL works of the GoI are exempt from copyright. IANAL but at this point the burden is I think on you to find a clear-cut source for your claim. DES ^(talk) 19:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but I think you'll find that granting permission to reproduce or publish without infringement of copyright is not the same as placing a work in the public domain. The former act grants permissions while retaining copyright; the latter abandons the copyright. Our policy of licensing as CC-BY-SA is somewhat similar to the former, since the author retains the copyright when granting the licence. --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of official images from India is a recurring theme, the main problem is the Indian Right to Information Act gives free access to government data but nothing in the act says it can then be re-used for anything for example commercial activities. Confusingly sometimes the phrase in the public domain is used for these images but that just means it is available to the public but not to do with what they want. Images quoting this act on Wikipedia have required fair use statements. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in degrees

what is the difference beyween Bachalor of Engineering and Bachalor of Technology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.11.123 (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might find what you are looking for in the articles about Bachelor of Engineering or Bachelor of Technology. If you cannot find the answer there, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User page masquerading as a Wikipedia article

Resolved

– Speedily deleted by User:Fastily. – ukexpat (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last fall, an article was placed on Wikipedia about a company called Dubli. In fairly short order, it was identified as non-notable, went through the process of deletion, and was removed from Wikipedia. Exactly the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.

However, the user (Textellent) that set up the original article originally placed the content of the Dubli Wikipedia page on their User page[[6]]. And it's still there. And if you search Dubli Wikipedia in Google, that's what comes up -- even though if you type Dubli into Wikipedia itself, you don't see anything.

Is this use of a User page appropriate? I've refrained from making any edits to the page because I'm not sure what's appropriate, and I'm not sure who to ask. So I'm trying here. Suggestions?--64.201.38.62 (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have aread of Wikipedia:User page in paticular WP:FAKEARTICLE. Basically Wikipedia is not meant to act as a free web host as outlined here and long term devlopment of an article in a user sub page would be discouraged. It appears this page has been in limbo for over 6 months..It is also discouraged to not have a deleted article as a sub page (Im assuming faith here that the article was deleted) and the page can potentially be deleted. I would ask the user his/her intention with the article and assume good faith that She/he'll shortly be fixing this page and launched as a real page so proper discussions of notablility can occur. If not It could be moninated for deletion as per my understanding of wp:userpage. Any other thoughts out there? Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be tempted to take this to Miscellany for deletion (MfD). Leave a message on the user's talk page, as suggested by Ottawa4ever. If there is no reply, or a dismissive one, then list it at MfD - if you want help with this, drop me a line on my talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like obvious spam - the user hasn't edited it since last August, so I doubt it's a work in progress. I have tagged it for speedy deletion as spam. – ukexpat (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet?

Hello

When logging into my account, it said "An editor thinks you are a sockpuppet" - after reading about it i am still none the wiser. I think this might be a result of my conversations with the editor of the "Apple Cider Vinegar" page. I made an addition to the page, as the page is full of inacuracies and claims. After he removed my edits I contacted him and asked about it. I then contacted him to point out the problems with the page and the fact that it looked like he was using the page, aswell as the "Vinegar" page to promote a number of other websites containing many unproven claims.

I think he was annoyed that I suggested this and he has slapped this 'sock puppet' thing to be difficult. Can anyone help with this?

Regards

Seth —Preceding unsigned comment added by SethCRKOne (talk • contribs) 15:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppet is a user editing from several different accounts deceptively to create false consensus or to avoid blocks or topic bans - see WP:SOCK. Kintetsubuffalo is suggesting that your pattern of editing gives him cause to think that you are the same editor as 212.159.138.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Regardless of the merits of his suspicions, we would expect a report to have been made at WP:Sockpuppet investigations before a tag was placed on your page. I've removed the tag and requested Kintetsubuffalo to file a report at WP:SPI before tagging user pages. --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we even allowed to tag a registered user as a sock of an IP? The Checkuser policy prohibits checking suspected sockpuppets this way. I once tried to file a report of suspected sockpuppets for two IPs but the report was dismissed and no action taken as the editors were IPs. ~A H 1^(TCU) 03:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that forgetting to log in does not make one a sockpuppet. See WP:AGF. If a user forgets to log in, we shouldn't take that as de facto abusive sockpuppetry unless it is clear they are logging out specifically to avoid a block or to deceive others. --Jayron32 05:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing lists

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia:Contact us page, reports of vandalism can be sent to info-en-v, is this a public/private mailing list or an account managed by the Wikimedia foundation? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an email account that feeds into WP:OTRS. Nanonic (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thank you. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article-name make sense?

I am going to translate a part of German Wiki-article, which is about educational attainment of different ethnic groups in Germany and I am wondering what might be an adequate name. The German name is "Immigration-background and scholastic success" would that be an adequate name or should it be called "Educational Attainment of different ethnic groups in Germany", which would sound better to an englishpeaker? -- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Immigration-background and scholastic success" would not quite be adequate for what your are proposing, since the topic is specifically placed in Germany. In addition, since "ethic groups" is not synonymous with "immigrants", I am left unsure about the precise topic. Perhaps you could provide a link to the German wiki article, so that other German-speakers could give you more detailed advice. Is it de:Migrationshintergrund#Migrationshintergrund und schulische Erfolge? --RexxS (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is "Migrationshintergrund und schulische Erfolge". *deleted confusing stuff* (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think what I wrote is confusing. What I really wanted to say: A person, who has at least one vietnamese parent will have a "vietnamese immigration background", no matter if he was born in Germany, Vietnam or another country and no matter if he has the German citizenship. So a person may be German (=have the German citizenship), but still have an immigration background and he will be called "vietnamese-German" or "German with vietnamese immigration background" in that case and the article now talks about people from different immigration backgrounds, so people who have different ancestry or ethnic group. It does not talk about place of birth or citizenship. How would I translate that?-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here I found a paper that translates "Migrationshintergrund" with ethnic group, so would you agree "Differences in Educational Attainment by Ethnic Group" would make sense? -- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hintergrund" is best translated as "background", so "Migrationshintergrund" is literally translated as "migration background" or "foreign background". However, the best translation for English speakers - and the most politically correct term - would be "ethnic group" or "ancestry". I would title the section "Ethnicity and School Achievement In Germany".

For those Help Desk regulars who are trying to read the tables in question, it compares ethnicity to achievement in several classes ("Fächer"). Grades ("Noten") in German schools go from 1 to 6, 1 being "sehr gut" ("very good") and 6 being "ungenügend" ("unsatisfactory"). The first column lists the grades, then the ethnicities, in order, are "Turkish", "Italian", "ex-Yugoslavian", "Aussiedler" (ethnic Germans whose families left the country, and the person has now returned), and "Indigenous German". The first table is grades in German class, the second in maths classes, and the third is what percentage of students went on to Hauptschule, Realschule, or Gymnasium. Xenon54 / talk / 19:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's a fascinating article, even with my limited German. It seems to me that the article contrasts academic achievement between several groups: native Germans, ethic groups, and immigrants-by-country-of-origin. It's difficult for me to be certain, but it seems in places to examine differences between the members of an ethic group born in Germany and those born outside who subsequently immigrated. I think the answer to your last question is that in English, we might refer to "second generation immigrants". As an example, a person born in Germany with one or more parents who immigrated from Vietnam, would be understood as "second generation Vietnamese" in English. Returning to your original question, may I tentatively suggest the title "Academic achievement among different groups in Germany", which should be broad enough to allow you to discuss groups differentiated by ethnicity, or by immigration status, or by place of birth. I see the article also comments on differences on the impact of immigration on academic success between the areas of the former Bundesrepublik and the former DDR – so I'd advise using as broad and as neutral a title as you can. Nevertheless, the title isn't set in stone. At a later date, if someone thinks of a better title, the article can be moved to that, so don't worry too much about getting the perfect title first time. Good luck with your efforts! --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you:) I will call it like that. Yes, you are right it examines different attainment in first and second generation immigrants and also examines differences between eastern and western Germany. If you want me to, I will inform you when I am ready, so that you do not have to read it in German.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec again) "Migrationshintergrund" has a precise meaning in Germany, as it's used as a classification in population statistics. "Immigration background" is probably as literal a translation as I can make, and I'm quite sure that "persons with an immigration background" is not quite the same as an ethnic group, although the article discusses both – see the table with headings 'Herkunft der Familie' & 'Migrationsstatus' for example. Whatever title you chose, please read WP:NAME and make sure you only capitalise the first word and any proper nouns in the title. I shall be delighted to read the article when you've completed it. --RexxS (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mitchum

My contribution as follows to the Robert Mitchum page has been deleted:

'According to Tony Curtis, Mitchum was the director's first choice to star in 1958's The Defiant Ones, but Mitchum refused to work with a black man. Sidney Poitier would become the first male black actor to be nominated for a competitive Academy Award for his role in the film. Curtis is also on record as saying he had approval of Poitier as his co-star. Curtis made both these comments during an interview in 1999 on TCM's Private Screenings[7] with host Robert Osborne.[8]'

I have personally seen the interview on Turner Classic Movies, Private Screenings. Curtis has made the statement. It is there for all to view when the program periodically airs on TCM. No one is either verifying or denying the validity of the statement. It is simply Curtis making the statement to Robert Osborne during a discussion of the movie The Defiant Ones.

Can you pls advise why this has been deleted from the website page.

Thank you

18:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Digby scallops (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor says that Curtis later recanted that statement. So even if he made the statement at one time, if he recanted then it's no longer operative and shouldn't be in the article. Your best bet would be to go talk to that editor and ask him what his source for the recantation is. Meanwhile, err on the side of caution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear with me here please. With respect, should it not be encumbant upon the editor who says Curtis recanted the statement to cite his sources? Mine are, as you say, out in the public domain.

Also, on another point, I see the Tiger Woods page cannot be edited. I also see references to the date, fine, Florida Hwy Patrol etc re: the MVA seem to have been deleted. Can you pls advise why information not in dispute appears to have been removed?

Thank you for the clarification. 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digby scallops (talk • contribs)

Digby,

Both of these questions are better asked on the talk pages of the respective articles. wrt Tiger Woods, read the talk page before you ask, as I'm guessing the question has already been asked and answered already. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vitae bene

what am i doing wrong i can't find this name, phrase in any language or place i have seen it used a name for a boat i have search multiple languages words serperate and together i need the english translation/ meaning/ name sorry for the trouble have a good day thank you for your help 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavina1 (talk • contribs)

The word "vitae" is several forms of the Latin noun "vīta", meaning "life". "bene" is an adverb meaning "good". So I would hazard a guess at translating it as "good life" - although the owner of the boat may have gotten his grammar wrong! In the future, please take factual questions to the Reference desk, as this page is only intended to answer questions about Wikipedia. Xenon54 / talk / 19:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That sounds like Latin. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so you should try Wiktionary instead. From Wiktionary definitions, bene in Latin generally means good or well, and vita generally means life, so vitae bene probably means "good life". If you can't find what you're looking for there, ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk, which is the place to ask general knowledge questions. --Mysdaao ^talk 19:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The email confirmation message is not coming

I've been waiting for around a month for the confirmation/verification email to arrive and it still hasn't. When I try to login using the username I've provided in the application, it says that the user does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.54.32 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Head to Special:UserLogin/signup and try again. Did you get an error the first time you tried? Did you get an error this time? The software doesn't allow you to register a name that it deems to be too similar to an existing name. Also, did you enter a valid e-mail address? The e-mail should come pretty quickly - usually within 5 minutes, and 15 at the most. If all else fails, the folks at Request an account can help you. Thanks for volunteering to help out Wikipedia! Please consider reading the introduction when you get your account created, and please don't hesitate to come back here if you have further questions when you begin to edit. Xenon54 / talk / 19:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the username and where did you make an application? You can immediately log in to an account when you create it at Special:UserLogin/signup. Registered users don't have to get a confirmation email or give an email address unless they want to use email features. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a template

Hi! I'm trying to edit Template:Hemingway so that the short story collection Nick Adams Stories links to the article about the book, and not to the article about the character Nick Adams (character) as it does currently. I'm not having much success, so am requesting help. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it. The problem was that [[The Nick Adams Stories]] was redirecting to [[Nick Adams (character)]], but I've changed the redirect to as it makes more sense to point to the stories. Although, if the name is actually The Nick Adams Stories, it should be moved there. I'll leave that up to you.--Beloved Freak 21:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks. I just created [[The Nick Adams Stories]] yesterday. I wonder it got a redirect? Anyway, thanks for figuring it out.~~ I see what you've done. That's correct, and the article should be Nick Adams Stories without "The". Thanks again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It looks like the version with "The" in the title was created as a redirect to the character back in 2005 which made sense as there was no article then about the stories. --Beloved Freak 22:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know this is marked resolved, but I've run into another problem. I'm trying to get [[:Category:Books by Ernest Hemingway|Posthumous]] to show up as a category to add to the relevant articles. I added the category to the template yesterday, but seem to have missed a step. Do I have to add a category as well? If so, how and where. Still need help. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you wanted? I've added the category, without the colon, underneath the main contents of the template but before the noinclude tags. I was worried about the category showing up on works that were not books, but those that I checked do not seem to have the template anyway. ~A H 1^(TCU) 03:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not right yet. I'm trying to add this category so it doesn't show up as a redlink as it does here. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have the category syntax wrong. [[:Category:Books by Ernest Hemingway|Posthumous]] does not create a "Posthumous" subcat, nor make the cat link show up with the text "Posthumous" (as a piped link does on a normal wikilink) it makes the page sort under "Posthumous" in the category. Category:Posthumous books by Ernest Hemingway is a red link because no one has created the category page. it also currently has only one member and I doubt it will ever have enough members to eb a useful category -- how many such books are there anyway. I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to do. DES ^(talk) 06:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Hemingway's death 8 books have been published, and one of the eight has recently been re-edited and republished. Once the category is established I'd add those to it. The syntax in the template (which I didn't create) is identical for other categories: i.e [[:Category:Books by Ernest Hemingway|Non-fiction]]. I guess my question is this: do I have to add a new sub-category called "Posthumous books by Ernest Hemingway" and how exactly is that done? I'd like it to live under the main category of Works by Ernest Hemingway. If this is the wrong place to ask, please point me elsewhere. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thalidomide

Hi there,

I am from Australia and my mother was one of the people who suffers from the effects of Thalidomide.....I was wondering who to contact in relation to the pachage support for survivors...

many thanks Leanne Stork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.127.241 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, remember to keep in mind that Wikipedia does not provide medical advice. ~A H 1^(TCU) 03:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the poster is asking about the recently announced compensation scheme in the UK. – ukexpat (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]