Help desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

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.

March 24

Double upload

Why does the files that I upload keep doubling itself? Is there a bug or something? This problem only occur when I use Firefox. Please view here & here for example. I have no problem uploading file on commons using firefox. It only happens on this wiki. Please help. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 00:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean. Both images appear normal to me. (I'm using Firefox 3.0.15). --ColinFine (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file history indicates the files were uploaded twice in the same minute. I don't know the cause. They only appear once at Special:Contributions/Arteyu. You could try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PrimeHunter; I've already started a discussion regarding to this on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 11:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made my first edit today but it was deleted

This question concerns the protocol of wiki and a question concerning what is an obvious conflict of interest by an administrator who deleted my edit.

My edit today was made to correct Meg Whitman's (California GOP candidate for Governor and former eBay CEO) religious affiliation from Presbyterian to Jewish and also to add a reference and photos of her giving an AIPAC speech at a national conference in San Diego last October 18, 2009. Both should be public information for voters, but both were immediately deleted by wiki administrator (jpgordon) whose profile indicates he was a former eBay employee and chief engineer. To be frank I was surprised to see her listed on eBay as Presbyterian when my long time recollection has been that her affiliation had always been shown as Jewish. Religious affiliation of candidates or public officials, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim etc. provides an indication of beliefs that should be public information and it should be public record. I don't care what she is but I do care about honesty in wiki.

I was under the impression wiki was intended as an open public encyclopedia that encouraged inclusion of honest and referenced information, and not subjective opinions. My edit corrected her religious ancestry from Presbyterian to Jewish which is substantiated by this web page http://www.worldjewishnewsagency.org/america.htm . I also added a statement that she spoke at the National AIPAC meeting in October 2009 and substantiated by photographs http://meg2010.smugmug.com/Politics/October-2009/10123011_b9u4c/1/696715622_Jb63S#696715622_Jb63S. The removal of the edit provided neither substantiation nor references.

The fact that Meg Whitman is a candidate for public office should require that administrators who have the power of revising wiki history not be permitted to delete or add edits at will and that they have no conflicts of interest. At the least they should require the same substantiation as the public which in this case was not provided.

Thank you, Ralbrecht (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator left this edit summary with his revert:(The only sources on that are pure speculation; she's Presbyterian with no Jewish ancestry to be detected (and her ancestry is known to the 17th century.)) Obviously, he did not think that the references were sufficient. You could discuss this on his talk and he can probably give you a more extensive answer. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hi Ralbrecht. When you made your edit you did not cite a reliable source which verified your addition. We don't edit from what we think we know but from what sources say. There is a section of the verification policy, WP:BURDEN, which basically stands for the proposition that any content added to an article which is disputed must be backed by an inline citation verifying it—the burden is on the person seeking to add or keep the material. As for the other edit, yes you did cite a source, though I don't know that's it's reliable, but that was not the focus of the removal. By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them..--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a wiki

How do you create a wikipedia page? I have already registeredLoxler (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2010 (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 also available to walk you through creating an article. Xenon54 / talk / 01:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your title is misleading: it asks about creating a "wiki", not a "Wikipedia page". The whole of Wikipedia is a wiki, one of thousands. --ColinFine (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Approval for New Article

Hi I wonder if someone can help me. I have created a new page entitled Cannabis in Australia (similar in structure and content to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States) in my sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bessmorris/Sandbox). I am keen for other editors to have a look at the article and approve it so that I can upload it.

Thanks bessmorris 04:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessmorris (talk • contribs)

Hi Bess. Wow, you've done a lot of work! This is an impressive start. You won't be "uploading" anything but you would move the file to the mainspace where articles reside from your userspace subpage once you're ready to "go live". People can certainly offer criticism, pointers and help out but it does not need any approval whatever before you move it. Once you do so you can ask for feedback at WP:FEED. You might also post a note about the article at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Also, at the time you move the article, it will qualify for placement in the Did you know template featured on the main page. If you want to do that and need help, I will do the nomination for you if you want, just drop a note to me on my talk page. This is not the forum for a full treatment of the content, but a few notes follow.

You should remove your signature from the beginning of the article. Articles should never be signed. Signatures on Wikipedia are not intended to indicate ownership or authorship of any article. Rather, the page history takes care of the need to identify edits with users and our signatures are only for behind the curtain pages such as article talk pages and this page. The lead of the article should be a summary of the content of the article, typically split into three paragraphs for an article of this length. Usually, the content of the lead, unlike the balance of the article, has no citations provided because it summarizes content already cited on the body of the article. The current lead is not a summary but unrepeated (and good) information. You should find a place to incorporate this into the body and write the lead as a summary. I'd note one change that should be made in the current lead: "In a recent interview with the ABC...," avoid recent, place a year in place of it. For the reason see WP:DATED. The article could do with some more things mentioned in it linked to other articles (note though WP:OVERLINK and that things inside quotes should never be linked). The article as yet has no categories. You might add it to categories for Cannabis legal reform, Drug control history, Hemp and History of Australia. Finally, the article has no illustrative images. You might try searching the Commons for some images that would fit. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the article but it looks impressive. I just have a few style notes after a quick look. Userspace pages should not be added to categories for articles in order to avoid listing userspace on those category pages. When it becomes a mainspace article it can be added and should also be the main article for Category:Cannabis in Australia by adding the code [[Category:Cannabis in Australia| ]]. Don't use ref in further reading. Your page has a Cite error message at the bottom because there are refs after the last {{Reflist}}. More than one concecutive blank line gives an extra large empty space. Don't use this before section headings. Only capitalize the first word in section headings (unless other words would also be capitalized in running text). External links sections are for links to outside Wikipedia. Internal wikilinks go in See also. It is best to avoid displaying url's directly. See Help:Link#External links for how to show a name for the linked page instead ({{Cite web}} can also be used to format web citations but this is not required). You have the best chance of getting the article into Did you know on the main page if issues are worked out before it enters article space. After that there is a 5 day window (see Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules) to get it approved. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much guys, this is a great help. I will tidy up the page and move it to the main space. Fuhghettaboutit can I ask more questions on your talk page? bessmorris 04:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessmorris (talk • contribs)

Al-Farabi

There seem to be several conflicting information on this article. It's also causing quite a stir and has been for quite some time. Users are attacking eachother... it's a culture war.

For the life of me I cannot remember what the process is whereby an independent administrator fact checks the article and posts a report on the talk page. Hopefully doing this will settle much of the anger among editors on this page. Please advise. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Dispute resolution. If something ends up funny, take it to the village stocks or the lamest edit wars. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two different people same name

How can I create a new article which has the same name as an existing article. eg John Smith - the article on the football player ... and I want to add an article on John Smith - the famous scientist.

If i add a new article names John Smith Scientist, will that still come up under a search for John Smith?

Matt197899 (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'John Smith' is a disambiguation page. When you finish John Smith (scientist), then add it to the page, like I did with mine (John Smith (housebreaker). Kayau Voting IS evil 13:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates incorrectly sorted

Please assist {{Abkhazian parliamentary election, 2002}} (amongst others) is erroneously in Category:Article message boxes due to {{Election results missing}}, but I can't figure out how to get it out, as the latter has no documentation. Please help. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Election results missing}} transcludes {{Ambox}} which always adds the category when {{Ambox}} is transcluded on a template page that is not a subpage. This problem affects many other templates transcluding message boxes. Maybe {{Ambox}} should be edited to have an optional parameter to not add the category. In your specific case the simplest solution right now may be to move {{Election results missing}} from {{Abkhazian parliamentary election, 2002}} to its only use in Abkhazian parliamentary election, 2002. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Center

This is a very important topic and I demand to be able to speak with somebody on the phone about this terrible error. Why is the World Trade Center history presented in Wikipedia as facts, when millions of people around the world (60 millions just in Japan) demands a reopening of the investigation? This seems to be a politically grounded oppinion instead og actual facts. Please rewrite the World Trade Center Wikipedia page until the truth is out, so that it reflects the actual situation, witch is that no one has the facts on the happening, and what is precented in public as the truth is seen by most people as missing facts and also lying to the american people about what really happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.65.184 (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works by consensus and uses discussion pages and not phones to discuss articles. No one editor controls an article so convincing one editor of something in a phone call would be insufficient anyway. People often disagree about "the truth" and Wikipedia has policies like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to deal with that. An article like September 11 attacks has lots of contributors and huge discussions. See Talk:September 11 attacks which currently has 51 archives of discussions, and see the box with heading "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)". Many alternative theories are mentioned in 9/11 Truth movement and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Do you have a reliable source that 60 millions in Japan "demand" a reopening of the investigation? Is this number based on a signed petition (seems highly unlikely with that number) or claims from somebody who wants a reopening and refers to some poll? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NEED EMAIL ADDRESS OF THE TPR WRITER IN MEDIAWIKI

Dear Sirs,

I am preparing my undergraduate thesis on TPR. After reading your article about TPR by Jinglin Chen, Erica Day, Teresa Steimle, & Anong Streza, I could not find the primary and secondary sources. Would you please help me by giving the email addresses of the writer? I badly need these sources for I live in an under developing country. I want to contribute teaching the Unfortunate learners whose English is very low. I believe what you will do by sending the sources to me (^{[details removed]}) will be a rewarding experience for you.

Below the reference I quoted from mediawiki with TPR topic.

Thanks so much -

http://matsuda.jslw.org/mediawiki/index.php/Total_Physical_Response

PRIMARY SOURCES:

Asher, J. J. (1965). The strategy of the total physical response--an application to learning Russian. ERIC ED011378

Asher, J. J. (1966). The learning strategy of the total physical response: a review. The Modern Language Journal, 50 (2), 79-84.

Asher, J. J. (1969). The total physical response approach to second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 53 (1), 3-17.

Asher, J. J. (1969). The total physical response technique of learning. Journal of Special Education, 3 (3), 253-62.

Asher, J. J. (1977). Learning another language through actions: the complete teacher's guidebook (1st ed.). Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.

Asher, J. J. (1981). Fear of foreign language. Psychology Today, August, 52-59.

Asher, J.J. (2003). Learning Another Language through Actions (6th edition). Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.

Asher, J.J. Total physical response. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://www.tpr-world.com/.

SECONDARY SOURCES:

Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles. White Plains, NY: Pearson-Longman.

Cook, B. S. What is TPR? Retrieved March 30, 2008, from http://www.tprsource.com/index.html.

Garcia, Ramiro. (1996). Instructor's notebook: how to apply TPR for best results (4th ed.). Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.

Kunihira, S., & J. Asher. (1965). The strategy of the total physical response: An application to learning Japanese. International Review of Applied Linguistics 3:277-289.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marsh, V. (1998). Total Physical Response Storytelling: a communicative approach to language learning. Learning Languages 4 (1), 24-28.

Palmer, H., and D. Palmer. (1925). English through actions. Reprint ed. London: Longman Green, 1959.

Seely, Contee. (1998). TPR is more than commands at all levels. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.166.74.169 (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address.

The page http://matsuda.jslw.org/mediawiki/index.php/Total_Physical_Response is on another wiki, not Wikipedia. It uses the same software, MediaWiki, but we are not associated with the other wiki in any way. However, there is an article on Wikipedia, Total physical response, that has other sources which may help you. --Mysdaao ^talk 12:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't SHOUT, especially in your section heading! – ukexpat (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to add to a numbered list

Hi,

I'm trying to add a reference to a numbered list and I cannot seem to make it work

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apothecary#References and see the reference #11 that is out place ;)

Kim - Newbie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.233.255.196 (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those references are footnotes to the main text. They each have a number occuring in the main text and a link on '^' or a letter to the occurrence. They are edited by editing the corresponding place in the main text but your addition does not appear to correspond to a place in the main text. The Ambrosia song "Apothecary" is apparently not mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia so it may not be worth mentioning here. If there had been another article about it then it could have been linked in a hatnote. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Mac update

I'm not sure how to edit Wiki so i ask,

The Bernie Mac site i have noticed he did a flash player film in 2005 called Lil Pimp as he stars his voice as Fruit Juice which i saw was not there. can someone please update it for me please? Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Mac

Reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lil_Pimp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.254.116 (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use Wikipedia as a reference; use another (RELIABLE!) website as a reference. You can do so by adding the code: <ref></ref> after the fact you mention. (Do NOT input a space in-between.) So now you can click on 'edit this page' and edit. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Bernie Mac update

i am pretty sure most of the cast from the Flash player film Lil Pimp have not had this film put in their sites as well, Eg: David Spade, Jenifer Tilley, William Shatner etc, please update, thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lil_Pimp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.254.116 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Pretty sure' and 'absolutely sure' are different. Make sure you provide a reliable source (ideally a secondary source) before you touch anything. For how to do it, see above. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upload file under fair-use

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to upload a file under fair-use to Wikipedia. I can't do it because, I "must be an autoconfirmed user logged in here on the English Wikipedia before you can upload files directly to this project." Wikipedia:Upload. Rerumirf (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a few days and make ten edits. then your account will be autoconfirmed and you can upload it. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kayau is generally correct, except that I've reviewed your edits, they seem to be in good faith, so I'll give you confirmed status now instead of making you wait 2 more days. Give me a few minutes to figure out how (you'll be my first), and I'll notify you on your talk page when it's done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping! Rerumirf (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles norminated for deletion, where can I object?

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two of my articles Abendrealschule and Akademie have been nominated for deletion, because they are seen as mere dictonary translations. To my mind there are not. Is there a place I can object to this. The German Wiki has a deletion discussion. I could not find one here.--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These articles have been proposed for deletion, so there is no discussion forum. If you object, just remove the banner at the top of the page, preferably after improving the article to meet the nominator's concerns, using an informative edit summary as you do so. You may wish to leave an explanation of why you think that deletion would be wrong on the article's talk page. If the nominator, or anyone else, is unimpressed with your reasons/improvements, then they can bring the article for community discussion about deletion at WP:AFD. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much time would I have to do this?-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I am sure, I could improve them and I am sure that they are no dictonary translation. A school like the Realschule does not even exist in other ountries, so why should Abendrealschule be a translation? Translation of what? Same goes for Akademie. It is not a translation of the word "Academy" even if it sound similar.--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do it now. I don't think they are dictionary entries, but you'd better reference the second one because Wikipedia must have references. I'll decline them for you if you don't think it's just, but I'm quite convinced that someone will AfD it. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, should I just write on the discussion page that I object or waht should I do?--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried that before, when I was new. I've declined them for you. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will try to improve the articles.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do right now is improve them. Someone may open a conversation to seek additional input on if they should be kept. Don;t worry about that right now since there will be a link provided on the page and someone should give you a heads up. Read Wikipedia:Your first article. Make sure to pay close attention to citing sources. This is needed to establish notability and make the article verifiable to the reader.Cptnono (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I appreciate. It is not my first article and I will provide sources, but how much time do I have to improve? A problem of mine is that it is hard to provide sources for what everybody knows. Everybody in Germany just knows what a Abendrealschule is and the German article also does not cite sources.... but I am sure I will find some.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Kayau removed the proposed deletion tags, there is no immediate prospect that the articles will be deleted, so in that sense you have as much time as you want. If someone does then take them to the "Articles for deletion" process, a debate will be held for a week, after which, if a consensus to delete emerges, the article would be deleted. WP:DELETE explains all the deletion processes on English wikipedia, and the methods for participating in them. Does this answer your questions? Gonzonoir (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does indeed. Thank you :).-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make an internal link to a specific version of a page?

Resolved

– Hanche (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a certain talk page, I want to create a link to a specific version of the main page. My search-fu is clearly not up to the task, and after wasting half an hour on it I give up. There is a way, isn't there? (I suppose I could make it an external link, but it feels wrong.) Hanche (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know you would have to make an external link, but you can format it so it appears as a regular link. What follows is a link to the main page as it appeared on January 26, 2002: Main Page. See this post is edit mode for the markup I used to make it appear as a regular link. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Main page is made by transcluding several pages that are edited separately. There is no way to link to the whole main page as it looked at a certain time, unless somebody made an image file at the time and you link to the image. The separate parts have page histories, for example at Template:In the news and Template:Did you know. Or do you not mean the Main page but the non-talk page for some talk page? Then a url from the page history is the easiest and most common method but you can also use {{Oldid}} which has a few advantages such as staying at the secure or non-secure Wikipedia depending on where a user clicks it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the latter. {{Oldid}} is what I was looking for, indeed. Thanks!

URL with square brackets

Resolved

– Smartse (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone fix this reference: <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.caboodle.hu/index.php?id=12&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[backPid]=11&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=7494|title=Hungary's state health service for banning new recreational drug|date=2010-02-11|publisher=Hungary Around the Clock|accessdate=22 March 2010}} [http://www.webcitation.org/5nZNz9amH archived]</ref> so that the link works properly? The square brackets screw it up so it looks stupid. It's in the mephedrone article as a reference in the legal section for Hungary. Thanks Smartse (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Algebraist 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Smartse (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes not Showing Up

Changes I have made to Gay Student Services vs. Texas A&M do not show up in the article page (they show up in a 'new' article page that only I can see while logged in), even after I have saved them (not preview), though changes I've made to other, more protected articles do. MEastman (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They show up to me. Have you tried refreshing the page? PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me thank you for offering to help.

Yes I refreshed repeatedly. It's actually a bit strange. If I, or someone else came in, not logged in as a user, we got this URL that does not show the changes, or the new Campus Activism section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Student_Services_v._Texas_A&M_University

But, if I logged in, then I got this URL, with a page that looked identical, except that it did include the changes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Student_Services_v._Texas_A%26M_University

Now, of course, that you are here, I refreshed yet again, and now it does seem to be there, and takes me to the regular URL, with the changes (I had to refresh two more times before it finally showed it, though). So,it appears resolved now. Thanks so much for your time. MEastman (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool that you got it regular again. It was actually still showing up to me on both of the URL's, so if refreshing didn't work there really isn't anything else I would be able to tell you. Happy editing! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers in TOC

If the names of sections start with numbers, how do you stop the table of contents from also adding its own numbers? It's confusing to get a result in the TOC like this:

1. Introduction
2. 1. Background
3. 2. Participants
4. 3. How-to guide
5. 4. Future goals
6. Conclusion

--198.103.172.9 (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not adding numbers to the section headings seems like the obvious answer. Could you link the article to which you are referring? PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no way to use a different numbering system? I'm stuck with numerals for all headings and subheadings? --198.103.172.9 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't. Uniformity is good, that's why we have a Manual of Style and its offshoots. – ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Wikipedia display

The appearance of Wikipedia in my browser has suddenly changed. The graphic interface is not working as usual. The photos are not showing up at all, the hyperlinks are all underlined, and everything has a very 1995 look to it (if anyone here can remember what web pages looked like back then). There is very little in the way of layout, mostly just text. I have tried using both Safari and Firefox (on a Mac) and I get the same result with both. Other websites display just fine. Can anyone diagnose my problem? Is Wikipedia having technical difficulties? Is it plausible that my organization has blocked access to the graphic interface for Wikipedia but not for other websites? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the same issue. Not sure what's going on, but you may want to ask over at the technical village pump. TN X Man 17:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some issues with the servers atm, and it will take a while to fix them. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ready, Wikipedia shows the graphs in the normal state and appears well on my computer.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am having the same problem right now ***Adam*** 08:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

New site is garbage, I will be back ina montt to see if you fixed it or changed it back. my donations will go elsewhere

WHy did you make these horrible changes? it is so hard to search through now! Why would anyone come here anymore? THe sites ease of use was so much better before, alot of people will go back to using other methods. Its not like you get advertisement money. Why not just leave it alone. Your not yahoo , who has to change there site around every 6 months to keep customers interested

Actually, it appears to have been a problem with the server, meaning it's likely to be the fault of not enough people donating. 86.137.172.194 (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Layout problem across multiple browsers.

For some reason, the Wikipedia layout looks really screwed up today. I tried different languages, different Wiki projects, different browsers, and on all of them the tabs that are supposed to be on the top and the stuff that is supposed to be on the left ("main page", "random article", interlanguage links, etc) are all at the bottom of the page now. What is going on?

力伟 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See two sections up. TN X Man 17:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stylesheets not loading

As the subject suggests, none of the wikipedia stylesheets are loading in Firefox 3 with Adblock (enabled or disabled) and Noscript (enabled, but *.wikipedia.org is whitelisted), as well as on Internet Explorer.

Is a server down/malfunctioning?

I doubt I'll remember to check back here until much, much, later. If you have a question about my setup, or wanna give me a solution, please CC <blanked>

It should be fairly obvious how to edit that to make it a usable email address.

Thanks!

Edit: didn't see the dozens of threads asking the same exact thing. My bad.

Riffraffselbow (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Display?

What is wrong with the layout of wikipedia. Is there a change if there is please please please please go back to the old way. I am using a Mac computer I pulled up the site on both Safari and Firefox and it still looks weird.

See a few sections above this one. TN X Man 19:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's new appearance

I don't like the new appearance of Wikipedia. Can I restore it to the appearance used up til yesterday(March 23, 2010)? If so, how? Jgaryp (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See several sections up. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez you guys got off lightly - I was getting DNS errors for about 3 hours...couldn't access Wikipedia at all. – ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Display Problems

I'm having the same problems in Google Chrome, but Firefox is working fine. •• Fly by Night (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to clear your entire cache in Chrome? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

How do I update deprecated reference templates using AWB, I can't seem to find info on it anywhere.

Basically an example of what I mean can be found here. Paul 2387 22:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]