Help desk
< June 6	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 8 >

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.

June 7

Looking for a template and can't seem to find it

I'm fairly sure I've seem a template that says something like "Hey, in addition to this talk page, there's another talk page that talks about the same subject, but it can't just be histmerged in. See here." Anyone know where that is? Or if I'm hallucinating? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of it and i'm pretty sure that a template name would not be like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom497 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it exists I thought "histmerged" or whatever equivalent might be linked to Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, so I checked what links here for templates that link to that page and to each of its shortcuts but no luck. Anyway, you might be right about hallucinating it (remember to stay away from the brown acid!).-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC) (aka Wavy Gravy)[reply]

Not high, just old and prone to confusion (it's a kind of natural high). I'm beginning to think that's the most likely explanation. Thanks for your time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vanishing vandalism?

I was browsing the article 'haunted house' when I scrolled down and noticed a very offensive picture at the end. I checked the previous revision and saw that it didn't have the picture in it, so I reverted. But then I went to review the offensive revision and the picture wasn't there any more. So I undid the revert.

Have there been any reports of offensive images being temporarily injected into Wikipedia content, without them showing up in the edit history later? Pjgordon247 (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally what happens in a situation like that is that someone has vandalized a template that is used in the article. If they have edited the template, then it won't show up in the article's history. After all, they didn't edit the article. I don't see very many templates in that article, so I'm a bit confused as to what was done. Dismas|^(talk) 03:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, found it. [1] One of the templates was vandalized. Dismas|^(talk) 03:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

paul revere

YOU HAVE ALLOWED A POLITICAL CANDIDATE CHANGE THE FACTS ABOUT PAUL REVERE SO THAT SHE DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A COMPLETE IDIOT. I LOOK UP NUMEROUS ITEMS FROM WIKIPEDIA AND HAD NO IDEA THAT ANYONE CAN CHANGE FACTS TO SUIT THEIR NEEDS.

YOU HAVE LET SARAH PALIN MAKE THIS A JOKE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.238.50 (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't know that WP is entirely user-edited? Every article on this website was written by volunteers. Trust me, editors are changing the facts back as quickly as we possibly can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstbll (talk • contribs) 03:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I am sure that Ms. Palin did not have any direct contribution to this page. These were the actions of others and not her. Anyway, vandalism is never permanent, as you can see, the page is now protected from vandalism for a period of time. (p.s. - in the future, you can use 4 [[tilde] signs to sign your name (~~~~), and it makes discussions easier) A p3rson ‽ 04:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cant create a page

I am the officially authorised person to create a wiki page on my company's behalf. The earlier person had also tried creating the page for the company and the same was deleted. Right now my page sits at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_motion_picture and i want the page to reflect as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAR_Motion_Pictures. Please let me know how could i get the same done thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishraikar (talk • contribs) 05:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually officially prevented from creating Wikipedia pages about companies you work for. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Jayron32 06:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to get this page moved is to post a request at WP:REQMOVE. I have flagged your other edits posting the article's content on talk pages for deletion, and undone a redirect to the deleted talk page. I think the page itself needs a lot of work, and by posting here, you might well attract the attention of editors who don't feel it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Please carefully read WP:CORP as well as the link in Jayron32's post above. CaptRik (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Dar motion picture for deletion as hopelessly promotional. Wikipedia does not accept promotional articles. It could not be moved to DAR Motion Pictures anyway because that title has been protected to prevent the creation of any more promotional articles of that title. —teb728 t c 09:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

editing the page... Category:Colorectal cancer survivors

I am attempting to add an individual to: Category:Colorectal cancer survivors However, though an edit puts their name on the page, it does not show in the alphabetized area. Please provide assistance. Thank you.

This happens because you can't put the name of the person in the category, you have have to go to the article about him and add this: [[Category:Colorectal cancer survivors]]. Hope this helps! Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 07:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done it for you. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 07:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard shortcuts question - desire an anti scrolling shortcut re VIEW SOURCE

When studying revisions to long contentious articles prior to deciding if I want to edit or not, I'd like to be able to VIEW SOURCE leaving the cursor where it is and the article in the display window showing the cursor, and then turn VIEW SOURCE OFF, still keeping my faithful cursor visible and at the precise spot I'm studying.

Is there a short cut for that?

I couldn't find one here Wikipedia_talk:Keyboard_shortcuts and FYI the list of browsers on that page is 'way out of date.

Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe use the viewsource option and go in preview, then you can leave the textcurser where it is and use the mosue to scroll to look where and how it is --> after changing material at the point you left the text curse move the curser to the left by pressing the [-->] key. Is that you want? mabdul 12:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, but unfortunately no, that's not what I was looking for. As I try to learn wiki formatting, it would be great to hotkey from READ to SOURCE mode and back on the fly without touching the mouse. Is there a way to do that? It would be analogous to Alt-F3 (reveal codes) in the old program WordPerfect. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talk page blanked?

It looks like Talk:Kevin_Stea was blanked once and somebody's comment edited out once. Could somebody either help fix this or let me know how to fix it? Cloveapple (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or was it blanked because it was a BLP and therefore should stay blanked?? Cloveapple (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the unexplained deletions. —teb728 t c 10:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and talkpages should be either deleted or otherwise get some content (at least wikiprojects) for not generating empty blue links. mabdul 12:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to add reference material to an article

There is an article in Wikipedia about my late father, whose career was served in the Royal Air Force. In the article there is a brief resumé of his wartime experiencess. Before he died, my father did indeed write a book about his wartime experiences that ran to 71,000 words, which has been saved in pdf format. There are links at the end of the article to his obituray in The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Scotsman, all of which drew from some of the events described in his book.

Is it possible, and if so how, could I add his book to the article so that if someone clicks on the references at the end, his book would open? Or, would it meet the guidelines to form an article in itself if this is not possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodgkinson (talk • contribs) 11:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can either link the pdf if it is only or you can upload it if it is under a free license and link it within the article. mabdul 12:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Mabdul's reply, if the book has been published, it can be linked to (if it is available online) or the details (publisher, year published etc.) can be listed if it is not available online. This information will usually be added under a heading such as External links or Further reading. Published works may also be used as references for information in articles. Even if the book was not published, a link may be added to the article if it is available online. Wikipedia has guidance on appropriate external links at this page.

To add a link and heading to an article, you can use this format (note the space between the website address and the title of the book):

== External links ==
 * [http://example.com/link_to_the_book Title of the book]

If you have any problems, you can get help at this page. --Kateshortforbob _talk 12:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies. The book is not already on the web and was never published. My preference would be to upload it so that that a reader of the article can see a reference to it and click on the reference to open it. I am a novice at this, so how do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodgkinson (talk • contribs) 13:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you own the copyright to the book, and wish to put it on the internet under a free content licence, you can do so at Wikisource - an online library of free content, and a sister project of Wikipedia (so you can log in there with same username/password). It would have to be added as 'plain text', not a PDF. For instructions, see Wikisource:Help:Adding texts.

If you want to keep it as a PDF, then you'd have to upload it to 'some other website' - and we can't help with that; but there's plenty of websites around where you can upload and store content - some are listed in Category:Web hosting. Chzz ► 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible error on Nelson Mandela page

Section: First marriage The couple had two sons, Madiba Thembekile (Thembi) (1946–1969) and Makgatho Mandela (1950–2005), and two daughters, both named Makaziwe Mandela (known as Maki; born 1947 and 1953). Their first daughter died aged nine months, and they named their second daughter in her honour.[102] All their children were educated at the United World College of Waterford Kamhlaba.[103] Thembi was killed in a car crash in 1969 at the age of twenty-five, while Mandela was imprisoned on Robben Island, and Mandela was not allowed to attend the funeral.

-- If Thembi was born in 1946 and died in 1969, then his age was either twenty-two or twenty-three, not twenty-five as the article claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.54.224 (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The age is certainly wrong. There is disagreement about his birth year. Most sources say 1946 but the Nelson Mandela Foundation says "born 1945, died July 13, 1969 aged 24" at http://www.nelsonmandela.org/index.php/memory/views/genealogy/. Maybe we should mention both years with a source for each. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing check boxes

Normally when editing, check boxes appear under the "edit summary" box to mark the edit as "minor" and to "watch" the page.

Today, both check boxes are missing. Can someone please tell me where they might have gone or how to coax them back? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still have them. Try to clear your entire cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That brought them back. It is odd; I don't think that has happened to me before. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving disputes about warnings on the user talk page

My question is regarding disputes about warnings on the user talk page. Is it advisable to request a WP:Third opinion or what is the procedure if the dispute cannot be resolved? I had a dispute about the justification of some warnings on my talk page. Davidelah (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, warnings on your talk page can be removed, if that's what you mean (see WP:BLANKING). If you're referring to the validity of the warnings, perhaps WP:WQA would better serve you. TN X Man 15:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WQA is just what I was looking for. Davidelah (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A TeX performance problem

I prefer to set my browser color to 'deep gray' background and 'light green' text. (the white color is too dazzle to me),and the problem comes: Everythings is fine except the FORMULA which appears as TEX. The text and the background color are mixed up. But I found 'wordpress.com' appears fine with my color set(custom color setting won't effect the TeX part). Is there any advise for me or would you fix this problem for custom setting browser? Thank you. My environment: windows7, firefox4.01. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilman (talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the complexity of a formula, TeX will render it as either HTML or as an image. If it renders it as an image, the image has a white background. That cannot be configured (it's a limitation of TeX itself, as well as a Mediawiki concern).

However, in Special:Preferences, under "Appearance", there is a box entitled "Math" with several options (numbered here, just for convenience in discussing it);

Always render PNG
HTML if very simple or else PNG
HTML if possible or else PNG
Leave it as TeX (for text browsers)
Recommended for modern browsers
MathML if possible (experimental)

The default is 2.

If you change it to 1, then all formulae will appear as images - thus the background colour would be forced to white.

If you change that to 3, then a lot of equations that would otherwise appear as images will appear as HTML - for example, try it out on Equivalence principle#Active, passive, and inertial masses.

You may also wish to experiment with the other settings - 4 will make the 'raw code' display instead of the rendered equation - which will thus be coloured as your preference, but things like $ F_1 = \frac{M_0^\mathrm{act} M_1^\mathrm{pass}}{r^2} $ are not exactly easy to read.

With your browser and system, I believe 5 and 6 will still render images.

So I'm sorry I can't give a full solution, but I think choosing setting '1' or '3' will probably be satisfactory in most cases.

You may also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility, which aims to improve such aspects of the project. Chzz ► 16:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Computing reference desk. They specialize in answering computer questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. mabdul 16:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I chose '#Always render PNG' and it looks better (but some of them still not be rendered into PNG), so I switched it into 'raw code' which is very helpful for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilman (talk • contribs) 12:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JUMPING ABILITY OF LANGOOR

Dear Sir , I have heard that if langoor jumps from one end to another , & if in between the jump he think that he will not be abel to reach the end point , THEN IN THAT CASE HE HAS THE ABILITY TO TURN BACK IN MID AIR & REACH THE STARTING POINT .

PLEASE CLEAR MY DOUBT, & reply on (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.75.50 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If gray langur doesn't help, please try the Reference Desk. – ukexpat (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not edible pages

I have noticed that some celebrity and company pages cannot be edited. How can I make it to where my pages cannot be edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.194.46 (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are referring to page protection. Page protection is only applied rarely, generally to prevent vandalism. It is not used to lock down a preferred or "official" version of a page. TN X Man 15:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the concept of edible pages is certainly food for thought. Chzz ► 16:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I call dibs on Chocolate! Naraht (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to it, I claim the venison and beer! Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Can I have Sushi? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Article citation banner

I have been charged with the task of improving the Wikipedia page of WSOU-FM radio station with information provided to me by the WSOU-FM management team. The page I am referencing can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSOU. For record, I am a member of the WSOU staff.

Because this information is being provided to me direct, I do not have a website to "verify" or cite to. The WSOU management team wishes to know, despite this roadblock, how the banner "This article needs additional citations for verification." can be removed from the page. This is being requested because the banner takes away from the legitimacy of the page.

149.150.236.196 (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You won't like this answer, but unless reliable third party sources are cited, the template should not be removed from the article. Because of your conflict of interest, you should not edit the article directly - please discuss the changes that you wish to make using the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also note that "Information provided by the WSOU XXX department" is not a reliable source because it cannot be verified. – ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Account for the wife

Hello. I am a fairly experienced editor already. Recently, I was looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Texas/San_Antonio and noticed the "Photo Requests". Being that my wife is a photographer and we live in San Antonio, I suggested to her that she take this on as a hobby. I intend to create her a separate account from mine for her use. I can't foresee us editing in the same genre of topics, we simply have different interests, but if something should happen in the future, what is the proper way to deal with the accounts. Should we declare some sort of message on our pages declaring our relation to each other? Should we promise not to partake in the same discussions (that arn't community wide such as policy changes)? Should we send proof of our identities to ArbCom? What is the appropriate route to take this so we arn't ever accused of sock-puppetry? I couldn't find any policies covering this scenario but I can't imagine it hasn't happened before. I can't see her ever being interested in things like AfDs, RfAs, ect ect so I can't see our editing ever overlapping; but I want to make sure. I think her only interest is in photos and she might perhaps spend most of her time on Commons rather than here. Also, I may in the future want to submit myself to another RfA, what would be the appropriate course then?--v/r - T P 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any need for you and your wife to make any declaration with respect to your separate accounts or for any other of the actions that you list. By the way, your wife should upload her images to Commons so that they are available to all Wikimedia projects.Oops you already know that, sorry. – ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) WP:FAMILY explains it. If you are both using the same IP address, then it recommends placing the {{User shared IP address}} template on your user page. Furthermore, it talks about how editing in same areas can be controversial and also how to deal with such situations. Hope this helps! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you've come up with many solutions, and we just need to talk you down. :) I'd suggest that your wife get an account of her own and that both of you make the accounts global (including here commons). Any comment on your user page should be more than enough, like the {{User:UBX/marriedto|name=lfinder}} that I use. In general, every time I've seen a relationship called into question it has been people having to prove that they *aren't* related to (or meatpuppets of) each other.Naraht (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Lindstrom

I recently entered a completely revised article on Baseball Hall of Famer Freddie Lindstrom. The original piece was marked as lacking attributions. My revision has a complete list of footnotes. How can we delete the edit warning. Thanks. 184.44.1.212 (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done in this edit, though I would recommend using the {{cite book}} and {{cite news}} template for the references where appropriate. – ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You can simply remove it. The admonition not to remove such templates only applies when the issues outlined in them have not been fixed. In that article's case, it has been addressed, thus you can freely delete the tag.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 16:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fordson High School Fact Error

Resolved

Tom Spiroff is listed as a notable graduate of Fordson High School.

A quick IMDB check yields cheap movies listed but nothing in the actual film's links citing Tom Spiroff as "Executive Producer."

Thus his being listed as a Fordson high notable alumnus amidst the group that is listed is not valid. Tom's achievements are minor when compared to the true notables in the list such as the town mayor, a prominent psychologist, and a professional actor internationally recognized in dozens of big films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.84.254 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you click the edit button, and remove his name from the list. It has no reference, so that'd be fine. Chzz ► 16:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Chzz ► 18:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting for Baiting

Is it possible to report a user for a clear incidence of baiting to a moderator or any other board or figure?

Thank you

Rickymack (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it'd be a good idea to pursue this. This edit was vandalism, plain and simple - and this is hardly conducive to collegiate editing.

I strongly suggest you forget about it, and simply make sure your future edits are good.

I don't think any further action would be helpful.

If you do decide to pursue it though, the options would include WP:WQA (less formal), and WP:ANI (more formal) - but, beware the boomerang effect. Chzz ► 17:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you very kind help.

Rickymack (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

user name

I am a bit confused about the 'user name'. Is it the name that will be used when someone wants to access my Wikipedia page? If it is then I would want to change it to my full name. How do I go about editing the user name?Stevescrim (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You go to Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple to change your name. If you want to change the displayed sig name, go to My Preferences. It will change the one with the four tildes, but the name on your userpage and in history will stay the same. I strongly recommend against using your real name though as that opens you up to being harassed in real life by all manner of weirdos. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Your username is Stevescrim. This is the name people can use to find you and the name tied to all of your edits. If you wish to request a new username, you can do so here. TN X Man 18:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Again though, remember that it is unwise to use your real name on the internet as stuff said on here is Google-searchable and some people can and will use info against you for off-Wiki harassment. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how people can find me if they do not know my user name and if they do how do they find my page? Where do they type my name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevescrim (talk • contribs) 18:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your username is linked at the end of every (non-article) post you make. This signature links to your userpage and talkpage. TN X Man 19:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to your page in the signature. They can also type User:[name] in the searchbox. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Your username is Stevescrim because that is the name you chose when you signed up for an account. What can be confusing is that all pages other than the mainspace, where articles are kept, have prefixed the namespace they are in. This help desk, for example, is in the Wikipedia namespace so it has "Wikipedia:" before it. Usernames are in the user namespace so they are thus at "user:person's user name". This means that when you make edits they will be recorded as having been made by User:Stevescrim. You can see this, for example, in the edit history of this page, here, where your edit for the post above is recorded as "User:Stevescrim".

When you signed up with this username you were automatically assigned a user page which is at User:Stevescrim and also a talk page, which is at user talk:Stevescrim; that is where people who were looking for you would go to read about you and leave messages for you. If you want to change your username you could request it at Wikipedia:Changing username or you could abandon this account and sign up for a new account under your full name since you only have three edits total. Your current edits would not be re-attributed to you and please note that once you do so you should not use the old account at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the "Stephen Stuart" that you have written about at User:Stevescrim, please note that your "user page" is not part of the encyclopedia. If you are trying to add yourself as an entry in the encyclopedia, please read Wikipedia:Autobiography. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FIA competition racing engines

Dear Sirs. Under Wikipedia: 'List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions', there appears a list of winning engine manufactures. Prominent on that list is the US flag representing Ford Motor Company engines 'although by Wikipedia's own admission: these engines are not designed nor built by Ford Motors. They are designed and built by Cosworth Racing Engines, engine constructors in the UK. 'Cosworth's only connection with Ford is through sponsorship. In the interests of truth and accuracy: Shouldn't the US flag be replaced by the UK flag with regard to this item? 'And shouldn't the Name Ford be replaced by that of Cosworth?

If a sponsor can legitimately receive credit for designing and building engines then why stop there: Wouldn't you give credit to Marlboro (cigarets) for designing and building race-cars instead of McLaren? Regards, B.

Wiki extract: ("The Ford engines were designed and built by UK company Cosworth. 12 of the drivers' championships won using Ford engines were with the (Ford-financed) Cosworth DFV engine; the other was with the Cosworth-built Ford Zetec-R engine".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balddricks (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss this is on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, I am from Republic of Moldova. Please write about John Beernaerts, Elena Vayenga (russian singer) and Nicolae Testimitanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy. Thank You. Scymso (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All articles are written by volunteers and so all of our content results from those being interested in a subject taking the reigns themselves and starting articles. This means that though it is possible that someone will see your post here, and decide to write one or more of the articles, it is not likely if past experience is any guide. You can be bold and write the articles yourself, if the language barrier does not make this impossible. You can also visit Wikipedia:Requested articles and make a specific request, though please note that many requests there do not get acted on for sometimes very long periods of time, and sometimes not at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please do not delete

Dear Sirs: regarding your article on "Names of Lithuanian places in other languages," i note that you are thinking of deleting this. I beg you not to do that as your list provides the open sesame key for several hundred thousand Americans to trace their Lithuanian roots. For the Jewish -American community, in particular, your list provides a critical means for linking the Yiddish-Hebrew name versions of our ancestral towns (the names that our grandparents used) to the more commonly used Lithuanian and Polish pronunciations. Your list will allow our family to now trace our Lithuanian roots and visit our ancestral home. In gratitude, Merrily Baird — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.255.180 (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The place for you to place your rationale for keeping this article is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Lithuanian places in other languages. Please visit that page, but I suggest before you do so that you first read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the JewishGen article and their website [2]. They do exactly the things you are describing. Also they may treat your information with more respect than it will get in Wikipedia where anyone can edit! LADave (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead End Article

My article about Trevor Clark is being labelled a dead end article by Wikipedia. It is requested that it have links to other articles. There are three items in my article that could be linked in blue to others in Wikipedia, though I'm not sure how to do that. They are: Now (magazine), The Globe and Mail, and the author Ross Macdonald. Would Wikipedia be able to do it, and remove it from the dead end category? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus1029 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of information at Help:Link. A basic wikilink has two square brackets before and after the word you want to link, so to display Kitten you would type [[Kitten]] . doomgaze (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reverts

Why where this and this reverts made, apart for being rude. This is not a comercial but rather a caltural reference, translated from here, and the only explanation I have for the reverts are caltural bias. Deror (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking User:History2007? They would have the answer for you. CTJF83 22:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully stand by my reverts. Wikipedia is becoming the new Craig's list where everyone and his brother mentions a new CD, some band they have formed in a garage, etc. and spam it. And there is always a hook for listing some new CD somewhere. Does Britannica mention the CDs by various artists? No, not at all. The no spam policy must be followed everywhere. And FYI Dror similar sentiments were expressed here before then by myself and others (search for Craigslist). So no need to reach for the "cultural bias" panic button, just because it is there. Spam is a totally cross-cultural phenomenon, and must stop. Period. History2007 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the edits as being spam, there was no addition of links or other obvious signs of spam. The content might not be suitable for the articles, but to accuse Deror of spamming seems to be assuming bad faith without much evidence {for example, he hasn't edited the article of the person involved, as might be expected if he had a conflict of interest). I suggest that this discussion be moved to Talk:First Epistle to the Corinthians, as it seems to be a content dispute, and the talk page is the most appropriate forum. Quasihuman | Talk 22:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you see why there is all this waste of time on here. This is the "worst of Wikipedia" in my opinion. Time gets wasted about a music CD being mentioned in a biblical analysis article, while serious errors persist elsewhere. Time to stop and fix errors and improve content instead of this talk, talk for ever about CD items in articles. History2007 (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reverts were warranted. This is textbook undue weight on connective trivia. The problem here is the edit summaries. That the user was spamming is a judgment of Deror avi's intent and looking at his edits he does not seem to be a spammer but a good faith user who may not understand why this material doesn't belong. A neutral edit summary stating the actual problem with the addition, maybe linking to some policies/guidelines/essays as I just did would have been better on many fronts, including wasting less of everyone's time, because we likely wouldn't be having this discussion if the edit summaries weren't rancorous.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding ArticleFeedback

Howdy. How do I hide the ArticleFeedback boxes that are showing up on some articles? I don't want to see them.--Rockfang (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is discussion here, FYI. History2007 (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]