Help desk
< July 3	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 5 >

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.

July 4

Shaq's Big Challenge needs help

Okay, the article Shaq's Big Challenge is being attacked by several IPs! How appropriate, I looked at the sidebar and saw this link labeled "help". Please help! Protect this page/ban the vandals/something! --JDitto 02:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, I'm getting tired of this. New IPs come up with every edit! --JDitto 03:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the page to requests for page protection. Hopefully an admin will block IP edits temporarily. -- Kesh 03:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's protected now. --JDitto 19:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken thumbnail?

The article Jelly bean used to have a picture of jellybeans in the top right-hand corner. The photo still exists ( you can click through to it ), and I don't think the markup used to include the image changed. Even archived versions of the page which used to show the picture, don't now. The only thing unusual about the picture is that it is rather large and I wonder if the thumbnailing won't take such large files anymore. So, what's going on? Squidfryerchef 03:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I haven't the faintest idea. I managed to get it fixed by telling it to be 200px wide, but I shouldn't have to do that. It worked on other sizes as well, but not at 180px, which is the default setting in my preferences. I'm going to look into this and see if this is a reported bug, and if not, report it now. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 04:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reported a similar problem last week here on the Help desk. For some reason, his link to a Commons image was pulling up a totally different image, one that was not stored on enWikipedia, nor on Commons. Might be similar to what's happening here. -- Kesh 04:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, here. -- Kesh 04:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems something similar is happening with other image formats - I created a test page in my sandbox here, and it also occured at the 120px size. I added a comment to the existing bug report, although I wouldn't expect much action since it's still marked as "NEW" after sitting there for over a year now. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 04:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Squidfryerchef 05:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still happening? I can see the image fine, I'm using IE 7. If it isn't working, you might try re-uploading the image. Corvus cornix 17:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Merge and Wikify

I will now stop editing pages for Wikipedia, for at least a period of one year. The reason? Your "recent changes patrol" is totally unguarded against bullying - anybody can be on it.

Some patroller put a merge and wikify tag on my new article barely within 2 minutes of its creation. And it was a long article that I had painstakingly created beforehand with external references and internal "see also" sections. This bully wanted it to be merged with a four-sentence long article about something related but basically different and provided no reasons. He or she also wanted it wikified, though it was way closer to the Wikipedia manual of style than the article s/he proposed merging it with. How can someone spend barely a minute thinking about something like that and make such a decision? If you can't take the time for QA on your patrol volunteers then you won't get good writers either.

Please inform yourselves about workplace bullying at the following links: [1] [2]
...and then think about how to create a better Wikipedia experience for your writers. Thank You. For obvious reasons I will not sign this note, though I'm sure you could get creative with logs if you're lacking in ordinary politeness and desire to trample my preference for anonymity in this matter.

Not sure what needs to be said beyond "see you in a year" - this is the help desk not the complaints department. Your "recent changes patrol" is totally unguarded against bullying - anybody can be on it. - being that this is wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, yes yes they can. --Fredrick day 06:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger doesn't mean your article will go to waste, as it is proven by the simple maths of 1 + 1 = 2. It simply means that it is unnecessary to have 2 independent entries and should have all the information under one entry instead. Also, those tags are kind of "suggestion" only, the article may be lacking in links or otherwise not entirely conforming the Manual of Styles. It is not an insult of any kind but should actually be taken as a compliment for someone else also see potential in that entry and would like to improve it but didn't have the time (or confidence) themselves. This is NOT bullying, simply someone wanting to help improve an article by tagging it on the area that it could be improved on and create easier access on the actual "cleaners". Also, see WP:FAITH. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listening. This person could not possibly have taken any time to make a good decision on either of those tags because he or she took less than two minutes to place them on my article (which was at least two and a half screenfuls and had both internal and external references). AND - what's worse - he or she did not give any reasons for the tags on the discussion page as he or she was supposed to do, according to the "recent changes patrol"-ler's guide page. It was entirely an act of misused power. - Disgruntled Writer

If you would tell us what article you're talking about, we might be able to better explain what happened, or at least to understand it. Corvus cornix 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not all about negativity here. Let me give you a starting point for further discussion. Instead of letting people do stupid things all wrong and then shaking your head at them when you have a big job of clean up to do, why don't you have pitch pages for proposed new pages? Newbies could pitch new page ideas there and get advice from old hands. And when you give advice, don't overwhelm them with a list of 85,000 links (which happened to me), because nobody has time for that. Give them the link to the Manual of Style, and tell them to ask if they have further questions. It's friendlier to repeat stuff adnauseam even if it is more work. I know, I work in tech support. I got the feeling that nobody wanted me to contribute when I got the table of links, and again when I posted the new page and was immediately tagged. I didn't do it in a hurry either, this was over a period of 4 months, reading, creating, gathering info, etc...
Look, I made an honest effort to be a contributor and I got my feelings hurt. You can say I'm a baby, but I'm out. I'm a volunteer, I don't do this because I have to. Nobody's paying me. You can make it better for other people or you can ignore the flames of Rome around you. I think you're all so busy fixing stuff that you're missing the big picture. Maybe fixing it isn't the answer. Maybe pitching ideas is a better way. OR maybe not, maybe you'll think of something else. But your volunteer staff is showing the signs of burnout or delusions-of-grandeur if they're spending two minutes max on something and giving unsupported advice to boot. -Disgruntled Writer

Ok I'm going to be "mean" here: STOP SAYING YOU'RE A VOLUNTEER. We all are volunteers here, nobody forced/paid us to listen to you whine, so why should you be more important than any one of us? Wikipedia is not a huge bureaucracy, it's a huge community, being so self-centred will not do any good in here, or in fact anywhere else. Remember everyone is helping every one else simply because of good will, because they want to see Wikipedia to be better. Spending 4 months on writing an article is an EXTREMELY bad idea, just like why people hate "behind the curtain" developments in open-source projects: Why not you write part of it and put it out, deal with any issues and allow others to also COLLABORATE on it. As a (hopefully) fully functioning individual in the society nobody can force you stay here, but if you can't resolve this simple dispute with the person that tagged it and instead start whining in here, then there is absolutely nothing we can do. --antilived^{T | C | G} 11:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, necesto a uvao, gracias, José!

hola, puedo save donde contrad a wikipedia?Muchas gracias, José Hernandez, *numero te telephono * ---*---*---.--71.96.231.15 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)pueda a reply a que?Gracias a todos a que in Brazil![reply]

es puqueo a mi nesco?Gracias tampe!

You may wish to see: Portuguese Wikipedia and/or Spanish Wikipedia. --Teratornis 16:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Copyright Infrignment of My Work

To Whom it May Concern,

How do I go about requesting that someone review a possible case of a registered Wikipedia user posting a piece of work that was written by me, and was not requested to be used? I have reason to believe that Wiki articles citing these following Legal cases were taken of my personal Xanga web-blogs, which were citied in a posting discussing my current classwork in college, and posted in bits. The Wiki articles in question are on these cases:

Lockyer v. Andrade Kyllo v. United States Grutter v. Bollinger

These cases were discussed in a web-blog posting on August 19th, 2005, which was the date of my birthday that year. Looking at the "History" on these articles, after finding them on Wikipedia during a search for one of my Law courses I am taking this summer, many of the articles appeared on here after this August date. If it is not an infringement, that I would kindly like to know. If it is, I request that the User's account be reviewed, and if the situation was accidental, then I wish no punishment on the indivdual.

The link to my personal Xanga web-blog, which is set as public is:

http://www.xanga.com/jrgini37

Simply search for the August 19th, 2005 date, and you will notice the entry. If someone could provide me an answer as soon as possible, that would be great. I can be contacted at my e-mail:

jas3719@gmail.com

My sincrest thanks to anyone who answers this question.

It would be helpful if you could include direct links to the articles in question (both on your site and on Wikipedia), and the actual passages within the article that you believe are infringing copyright. I have had a quick look on your site, and locating the articles is not easy (I didn't succeed). I am not a copyright lawyer, but my gut feeling is that if someone has copied your text word for word, and you have not given permission, then it should be deleted. I appreciate that asking you to include the paragraphs in question here may sound dubious, but we can always delete those paragraphs too after this has been sorted out. StephenBuxton 08:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are Lockyer v. Andrade, Kyllo v. United States, and Grutter v. Bollinger. Lupo 08:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've only looked at Lockyer v. Andrade and your corresponding post on your blog. I fail to see a copyright violation. Our article seems to have evolved independently; I do not see any obvious text copying. I also do not see any obvious plagiarism; the discussion of the relations to the Rummel, Solem, and Hermelin cases already occurs in the official court opinion, which is in the public domain. Could you please explain more precisely what exactly makes you think that there had been a copyright violation? Thank you. Lupo 08:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to make a pun about something as serious as WP:COPYVIO, but jrgini37 may have a case, but may not want to pursue it.

First, I looked at Lockyer v. Andrade and also find no significant correlations other than they are both summaries of the same public-domain-available information. The WP article developed in segments over many months and has more sources listed. The primary contributor has made what appear to be significant contributions to (including initiating) over 60 court case articles, many predating the Xanga pieces. Although there's no way to prove the veracity of her/his claims, that contributor states that she/he has a law J.D. and has been published in legal journals (I was able to find support for some of this through some quick research).

Now looking at Kyllo v. United States presents a more interesting situation. I quickly found at least two paragraphs in that article that are verbatim to two in the Xanga blog. The paragraph beginning, "For Kyllo, the result was tremendous . . ." was added here on August 12, 2006; the one beginning "Kyllo was charged with growing marijuana in violation of federal law." was added here also on August 12. The key words used to identify the correlations are "tremendous" and "reflected", respectively. I also reviewed the sources for both documents and do not find common verbiage to explain the identical passages. In Kyllo I went on to find significant portions of the article are identical to the Xanga blog. In some cases, the new (verbatim) passages in the WP article replaced existing passages that addressed the same point, but with different word choice. I'm unfamiliar with how Xanga may maintain history, but the URL on jrgini37's blog entry appears to support that the entry was added almost a full year before the material in the WP article appeared. The contributor is the primary for Lockyer.

My review of Grutter v. Bollinger is a bit more problematic. Again there is a similar level of common verbatim passages in both articles, but the ones in the WP article appear to significantly pre-date the ones in Xanga (as early as June 2003 when jrgini37 was 16). Also, the primary contributor to the other two articles does not appear to be involved. Again, I looked at original court documents and could find no obvious reasons for identical language, but further research shows the highest correlation is with what purports to be a law school student's paper apparently published in 2004 by www.4lawschool.com. (I keyed in on the phrase, "perhaps twenty-five years hence, racial affirmative action would no longer be necessary in order to promote . . .".) Since I don't have a means for verifying the actual publishing date of the 4lawshool.com paper (which is copyrighted, by the way), or whether its author (Bram) is an incarnation of either jrgini37 or the contributor to the WP Grutter v. Bollinger article, I can't determine who is copying whom.

That said, it appears there is enough evidence to raise questions of authorship and tag both Kyllo v. United States and Grutter v. Bollinger as possible COPYVIOs, but more information is needed to sort things out.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in Grutter v. Bollinger, the "twenty-five years hence" sentence has been present since June 24, 2003. See this diff. That's one day after the Supreme Court's judgment in this case.[3] I find it somewhat unlikely that our contributor copied from that 4lawschool paper... rather the inverse. At the worst, both copied from a third source, but I haven't found any. Lupo 14:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point; I didn't notice those dates. I don't think the initial WP contributor did any copying, since the complete section of the article that shows up in Xanga and 4lawschool isn't fully developed until a week later on June 30, 2003 by an anon IP. Then the complete section is available to anyone after that date.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grutter is no longer a WP issue since the WP article appears to have the earliest versions in question (thanks Lupo). Jim Dunning 15:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the contributor to Kyllo v. United States to explain where the identical statements come from. Maybe he copied from Xanga, or maybe there's a common (hopefully PD) source. Lupo 15:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, since jrgini37 didn't identify the specific passages he feels have been plagiarized, we did our best to identify them ourselves; the results of the analysis:

Lockyer v. Andrade — We can identify no unusually similar passages between jrgini37's Xanga article and WP, so there appears to be no copying issue.
Kyllo v. United States — There are a number of identical passages between the Xanga and WP articles. The WP edit history indicates that the passages were added to the WP article after the apparent posting date of the Xanga article (although we have no way to verify the posting history of Xanga other than to look at the date in the blog and the date scheme used in the article's URL). The WP contributor reviewed the passages in question and believes they are her/his contributions based on writing style, but is puzzled by the apparent discrepancy in dates. At a loss to solve this puzzle, she/he is recommending that the best thing to do is revert the article to its pre-contribution state and let it develop from there.
Grutter v. Bollinger — As with Kyllo, we found a number of identical passages, but the original source material appears to be the WP article. Based on the article's detailed edit history, the passages in question clearly evolved in WP between June 24 and 30, 2003 (1 2 3 4), immediately after the Supreme Court's judgment and over two years before the Xanga article was posted. Since the passages were developed on WP, any subsequent appearance would appear to be the copy. We note that the same passages appear in a copyrighted "law school student's paper" published apparently in 1994 by www.4lawschool.com (again, after the WP version appeared). The path they took to Xanga is unknown to us. The copyvio tag, therefore, has been removed from Grutter v. Bollinger, as it doesn't apply to WP.

jrgini37, we hope this answers your questions. Please let us know if you have additional information or questions, and thank you for bringing these issues to our attention.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to submit an article

I want to submit an article about my company. As infosys and wipro are appearing in wikipedia. How to make my company appear in Wikipedia?

I would suggest you avoid writing the article yourself. Please see WP:COI. If the company is notable, request someone else write an article about them here. -- Kesh 15:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see: Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. --Teratornis 16:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani College

College of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering This article is about an engineering college in Pakistan. Certain users espeicllay user : Ceme hanif has edited this page very frequently in the past weeks and written profane stuff about the college. Abusing college faculty and writing bad stuff. User should be banned and the article shoudl be vandalized for further editing.

User talk:Ceme hanif contains a {{welcome}} but no warnings yet. See WP:WARN if you want to warn Ceme hanif. --Teratornis 16:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see nobody's done anything. I left a uw-v1 warning. Corvus cornix 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mareva injuction

mareva comp[ania naviera SA vs. International Bulkcarriers S.A (1975)2 Lloyd's Rep 509 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashah (talk • contribs)

Although not really phrased as a question, I can only assume you're looking for Mareva injunction. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 13:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how to make a new entry

Iwant to make a simple new entry in Wikipedia. Although there is tons of info about how to do it, there is no easy to find place on your site to actually do it. Please tell me where i can make an entry

If I understand you right, you just want to know how to get to the article itself so you can create it, right? You can do it one of two ways: type the name of the article in any text box, for example at WP:SAND, and put double square brackets around it, like this: [[new article name]]. Then click "show preview" and follow the red link to your article. Or, you can type the name into the search box and follow the red link at the top of the search page to your article. In either case, be sure to type the name exactly as you want the title to show up. Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. delldot talk 12:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that have gone the longest without edits?

Hello. I am curious- is there a quick & easy way to search for articles that have not been edited in the longest time?

(For example, if there's an article from Spring 2002 that was only touched for the first few days but never again even to this day, it would show up on the top of this search result.) --70.133.218.43 12:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Ancientpages lists articles in this way, but it is currently quite out of date. --Kwekubo 12:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spammy Chick Publications articles

These two articles Chick Publications and Chick tract are filled with little more than advertising material. They just describe the publications and use nothing more than links back to the main site. Very, very little 3rd party citations of notability, etc. How do we clean these up? --Whydoesthisexist 12:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the exact issues you can see WP:CSD for speedy deletion requirements, WP:PROD for proposing deletion or WP:AFD for the more formal deletion ~~review~~ process. Of course, if there are third party sources that can sustain notability, just fix it. See WP:V and WP:N for help or drop me a line at my talk page. JodyB_talk 13:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chick Publications is way notable, both among its supporters and its detractors... I don't see it being deleted, though the articles could use work. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chick Publications was speedy closed due to WP:SNOW. A PROD would undoubtedly be speedy removed. A Google search for '"chick publications" -wikipedia -"chick.com"' turns up thousands of hits, surely some reliable sources can be found there. There were also lots of independent sources before User:Whydoesthisexist filed the AfD. Corvus cornix 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more fact

We have a someone who is personally dominating an article, and he has bad judgement and doesn't know the subject. The big problem is that because of your present policy on citation, when he has provided one or more inconclusive or low-quality citations, it doesn't seem as though it's going to work to just add a ^{[citation needed]} after his irrelevant citations. I would like to ask that you introduce a variation on ^{[citation needed]}, call it {{morefact}}, that displays as [citations inadequate] and otherwise works like ^{[citation needed]}. We need this badly. 72.85.207.17 13:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Packer[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. As to the article in question, is there active talk on the discussion page? You might wish to seek a third opinion at WP:3O to help encourage him. It could be that he's a good editor who just needs a little guidance and instruction. Truthfully, if he doesn't respond to the first template, I'm not sure he would respond to the second. JodyB_talk 13:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty active, and there are quite a few people who know the subject and are wringing their hands over this person. He's a cultist. This is his big chich in life; you must have met a few of those. Sweet reason hasn't been working. DOn't you agree that there needs to be a way of dealing with inadequate citations? By the way, I just now registered, and I was embarrassed to find that I'd been informally giving a "handle" that was registered to someone else. FETSmoke 13:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have explained that I would expect him to remove a [citation needed], but maybe not a [citations inadequate]. That's why we need the innovation. FETSmoke 13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about Tesla coil, correct? -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether we need to get into specifics. I'm vicious; I'm not squalid. :) FETSmoke 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse another unnamed user of providing inadequate citations in an unnamed article, while you neglect to cite the name of the article, and the name of the user you are accusing. I doubt I'm the only reader who finds this ironic. You alluded to this unnamed article and unnamed user to build a case for this new template you are requesting. I'm trying to grasp the reasoning process that led you to believe other people would agree with your conclusion that we need a new template, based on a case you are trying to prevent anyone else from examining. Even if your accusations against this other editor are correct, there may be other ways to deal with the problem which already exist, and someone with more knowledge of Wikipedia might be able to find one if you provide the minimum information necessary for your question to make some sense. Please do not weasel on the Help desk. If a particular article or user is relevant to your question, link to them. --Teratornis 18:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all right. I was simply trying to prevent a big ugly scene. I thought it might be better to try to solve the problem within the community of that page, using a tool that is clearly needed on Wikipedia, but I defer to your criticism and on your head be it. It is Tesla coil. Some people find relief from the existential quandary of life by believing that Nikola Tesla discovered a way to obtain arbitrary amounts of energy anywhere for any purpose; "free energy". We have one such user. He doesn't understand what he's talking about, but it's what gives meaning to his life. He's presenting some of Tesla's more gradiose and unfounded speculation using language that implies that it's generally accepted fact, when it defies what we do know about the world. He also redid much of the page by simply transcribing from Tesla's patents, because he worships Tesla. He doesn't understand what he wrote, and few other people are likely to. It's holy writ to him. Recently some of the worst of the stuff has been fixed up a bit by others. (BTW, other people believe in space alien visitations, or that automotive engine efficiency can be increased above 100%, but that these things are being suppressed by a conspiracy, and find meaning in their lives from that.) I'm sorry you incline to such a negative view of my strategy.FETSmoke 02:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't expect to benefit from outside involvement in this, and I doubt I should have let you talk me into giving specifics. [citations inadequate] is clearly very valuable, unless there be established an understanding that this is what is meant by [citation needed] when placed after existing citations. Do you assume good faith on my part? You're theoretically supposed to.FETSmoke 05:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding useful details. I assume good faith on your part, just as I assume your opponent acts in equally good faith, but I didn't need you to have good faith, I needed you to give me information about your problem. ("Assume good faith" does not mean "Believe everything this random stranger says without any evidence." Asking someone to support his claims in no way questions his good faith. Lots of well-meaning people provide incorrect information. I'm simply pointing out that if you hang out on the Help desk for a while, you will generally see that questions which do the best job of demonstrating good faith by providing all the information helpers need to understand the problems tend to get the best answers.) The contest between you and your opponent is not to see who possesses good faith in the greatest measure. On Wikipedia we don't care what anybody thinks about their motivations, we only care what they do. We apply the policies and guidelines the same way to everyone (in theory, at least). If anything, the assumption of good faith seems somewhat patronizing to me, because it's like saying people aren't smart enough to recognize what they are doing, yet think they do know. One shows more respect, I think, by accusing someone of knowing their actions were wrong, even if the underlying assumption about their perception turns out to be too generous. Of course most people don't see it that way, they would rather be called well-meaning and (implicitly) ignorant than smart and malicious, so we cater to that preference with the assume good faith guideline. (This preference might be due to centuries of traditionally harsher punishments for deliberate evil than for unintended evil.) It doesn't affect how we apply policies and guidelines to people's actions. We delete noncompliant stuff just the same.

If your opponent is promoting patent nonsense, we have a guideline to deal with that. But it sounds more like he is promoting pseudoscience. Wikipedia has lots of articles about pseudoscience, but such articles aren't supposed to present pseudoscientific claims as widely accepted facts. If your opponent has been warned repeatedly about disruptive editing, an administrator might elect to ban him (there is a procedure for that). As to whether we need another template, as far as I know nothing stops you from being bold and creating it, but then someone else might come along and decide to delete it. I can't really predict the chances of that (my track record at predicting the behavior of 48,325,091 other registered users is rather poor). Without having delved into the details of your opponent's behavior, I guess I'm initially skeptical that he's going to be influenced much by a different template, if he's as irrational as you say he is. I.e., if all his life experience hasn't convinced him that "free energy" is a pipe dream, how will a slight change in a template change his editing habits on Wikipedia? However, I don't see any harm in trying. If you think it could help, that's reason enough to give it a shot. --Teratornis 00:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help

my One Piece Facts And Fan Fiction i belive that when i finish it it will be of great help to people that need infomation on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdonn (talk • contribs)

You would do well to read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought - whilst interesting, the page you have created is not suitable material for an online encyclopaedia, which is why it has been flagged for deletion. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 13:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:WWMPD. --Teratornis 15:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entry for Mslexia needs updating

The magazine is not subscription-only. It is available to buy in Borders bookshops around the UK, larger branches of Waterstones and independent bookshops such as The Women's Stand at Olive & Oscar in Shrewsbury (UK) and Foyles in London (UK), as well as Mercurysubs in Auckland (NZ) and a few shops in Europe. A full list of stockists is available on the website: www.mslexia.co.uk/menu/bookshops.html. You can also purchase single issues directly from Mslexia, or on the website: www.mslexia.co.uk/menu/subscribe.html.

The editor is now Daneet Steffens (not Debbie Taylor). Debbie Taylor is the founding editor.

More recent past guest editors include: Val McDermid (issue 33), Kirsty Gunn (issue 32), Sara Wheeler (issue 31) and Kate Mosse (issue 28). Mslexia also run an annual Women's Poetry Competition. Past judges have included: UA Fanthorpe & RV Bailey (issue 34, 2007), Wendy Cope (issue 30, 2006) and Jo Shapcott (issue 26, 2005). (Please note: to this end, Wendy Cope was not a 'mystery guest editor' in the same sense as, say, Deborah Moggach).

Other writers who have contributed articles include: Rebecca Atkinson (issue 31) and Patricia Duncker (issue 30).

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.87.197 (talk • contribs)

The wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that its an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit...so you could have made the changes yourself, if you wanted to! Why not give it a try - simply go to the page for Mslexia and click on "Edit thig page" at the top. Leave a comment on my talk page or on this page if you need help. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 13:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Citizens

Where and how can a person obtain the required forms for non-citezens to register for a work permit (Green Card) or a form permiting them to work in the U.S. Also what are the requirements?

Thanks

Mr. C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.155.229.33 (talk)

Wikipedia is not a citizen's advice bureau, but you might like to start by looking at United_States_Permanent_Resident_Card and taking it from there. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 14:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information

how can i write something on wikipedia that can be found my all users as an addition to what is already on the site? EXAMPLE: Lets say there was nothing for FBI I could then put Federal Bureau of Investigation do you understand? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qazwsxqaz (talk • contribs).

I don't really understand your question. Using your example, do you mean that there is already an entry for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but no entry for FBI, and you wanted some way that people who go to the page for FBI are automatically sent to the page for Federal Bureau of Investigation? If so, then have a look at WP:Redirect, otherwise please feel free to expand on your question below. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 14:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you mean how to create a new article on a new subject, and FBI was just an arbitrary example you don't want to write about. See: Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article. And only create an article if the subject satisfies Wikipedia:Notability. If it's a company or then see WP:CORP, and if you are associated with it then see WP:COI. PrimeHunter 14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

live swans

where are live swans sold and the prices 63.245.104.27 14:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Sorry. Try a Google search -- Kesh 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this Help Desk is for assistance with using Wikipedia itself, not for help with purchasing pets. You might try Googling "swans for sale". Good luck.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to compile a group of wikipedia pages

I want to give my uncle who is big into gardening but doesnt have an internet connection on his PC a fairly decent set of pages on gardening from wikipedia.

What would be the easiest way of collecting all the pages on plants (or a lot of them anyway) while still keeping the same formatting and for example still clicking on the genus of a plant and have that explained etc. basically to have the links to all the other pages downloaded at the same time.

thanks, Bingo87.232.42.93 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's contents are available on 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection. Information on how to download it can be seen at Wikipedia-CD/Download. Hope this helps.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Tomeraider. For another option if you are technically inclined, see: mw:Manual:Wiki on a stick and WP:DUMP. --Teratornis 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Password Request

About an hour ago, I had a 'password request' made on my account, leading to an e-mail saying that

Someone from the IP address ... requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "Andymc" is "___". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.

This has happened a couple of times before, like once every few months. Is this fairly normal, due to random idiots or possibly bots, or should I be worried?

Andymc 16:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it's someone trying to harass you or hijack your account. It's not common, but it's not really rare either. I don't think there's anything you can do other than remove your email address from your account and just list it on your user page --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 16:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore it. The email only goes to you anyway, and you don't have to use the new password. Just take it as a note that either someone else thinks that they have your user name, or they were idiots who thought they could hijack your account with no effort. Either way, no harm was done. -- Kesh 16:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, ok. Just one of those things, then. Andymc 16:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page formatting

Why are my barnstars overlapping with my column of text? This is a new problem of the last few days. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get it fixed now. It looks like your margins ceased to exist, although it might take some creative programming to get it to work. I'll let you know when it's done. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 17:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Your table with the barnstars was missing a margin code - I added margin:0px 20px 0px 0px; to the style code, and it seems to be working now. I don't know why it wasn't a problem before, but it's working now. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 17:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Hi I really like Vulpix and I want to add a template to my user page showing so. How would I do that? -I PWN U ALL 17:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the Userboxes and see if there is one to your taste, or if not, create your own. That page provides links to the directories and gives instructions on how to do-it-yourself. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 17:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second time I think you posted on the wrong question cause now I am confused. -I PWN U ALL 18:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a proofreader

I would like to assist Wikipedia's online community by proofreading English articles. However, I'm not sure how to establish myself as an 'official' Wikipedia proofreader.

I have a feeling that I need to inform somebody first. I've tried researching all of this, but all the information I got was a bit vague - any help would be much appreciated!

RuthW 17:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be an 'official' anything to proofread articles; if you find a typo, grammar mistake, or other mistake in an article, you can just click 'edit this page' at the top or the [edit] link for the relevant section to fix the problem. That said, there's a list of users at Wikipedia:Typo of users who often correct typos (which you can feel free to add yourself to if you like); that page (and Wikipedia:How to copy-edit) contain useful information that it may be worth reading if you intend to do a lot of proofreading. Hope that helps! --ais523 17:18, 4 July 2007 (U T C)

image sizing

can someone explain to why sometimes images are 'not' resized in articles, even when specifying pixel size? i have two examples: Eberhard Waechter (baritone), and Johann von Herbeck. both use the standard image sytax: [[image:phoo.jpg|thumb|300px|caption of foo]], without effects. thanks...cheers! --emerson7 | Talk 18:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe wikipedia syntax will expand the images, it will just go with their normal (largest) size. This wouldn't apply to .svg though, I assume, but you can't do actual pictures with that. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 18:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography

I apologize if this is the wrong forum to ask this question, but I am not an expert on Wikipedia, and I'm not very computer savvy either. But I hope someone will provide help here.

I have spotted a biography entry that appears to have been written by the subject whom the biography is about. In other words, it appears to be autobiographical, which I understand is either prohibited by Wikipedia or highly frowned on (I'm not sure which). At the least I think this bio should be flagged with a bias caveat, or even removed. However, I'm not sure who actually wrote the bio.

The ISP of the person posting matches the city that person lives in, but authorship is otherwise unidentifiable as far as I know.

My question: can a Wikipedia administrator identify the person who wrote the entry to see if it's the same person the entry is about?

I will be happy to supply the entry title if someone wants to check this.

Please forward this post to the right people if I've picked the wrong place to send it.

Thanks. Debbie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.8.52 (talk • contribs)

It's the right place to put your question, but if you could provide a link to the article concerned, that would help even more. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do have policies on this. WP:COI and WP:BIO state rather strongly that you shouldn't create an article on yourself, and editing it isn't a very good thing. If the subject does not meet WP:N, you can WP:SPEEDY it, although it would probably be best if you gave us a link so we can look at it for you --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 18:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to my previous queries. Here is the link:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kurt_Eichenwald

Is it possible for you to check the ID of ISP 76.184.47.215 and of Milo73? As I mentioned, I believe these identities could be for one person: the subject/writer-editor of the entry. The suspect additions and edits begin on about June 29. I would appreciate an administrator's looking into this and responding.

Debbie

I haven't had the chance to look into this in a huge amount of detail (but will do), but are you sure that you in some way suspect 76.184.47.215? As far as I can see all the edits made by that editor to the article concerned are minor / grammatical in nature, and not of any consequence in the grand scheme of the article. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my earlier reply, I don't know that you can necessarily level the charge of autobiography at User:Milo73. Agreed, his / her first contribution did add a large quantity of material (about 60%, or so, roughly speaking) to the article concerned, and that the vast majority of that added material was not in accordance with the guidelines on neutral point of view and citation, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the individual who made the edits is also the subject matter of the article. I'd suggest, if you have a concern, that you propose the deletion of those tracks of the article which do not accord with the above policies, and seek a consensus. Actively seek the contribution of User:Milo73, and express your concerns. Then take it from there. I'd be interested to see what other editors' views on the topic may be. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I have several reasons for thinking that (1) 76.184.47.215 and Milo73 are the same person, and (2) that that person is the subject of the bio. They are too detailed to go into here, now. My question to you was whether you, as administrators, can verify poster identity definitively. I don't want to get involved with speculation and consensus efforts. I was mainly wondering whether there are technical ways for you guys at Wikipedia to figure out who's posting something -- or do they remain anonymous even to you?

I don't know how to contact Milo73; even if I were to figure it out, I'm not comfortable with the idea of making the effort. I was just hoping Wikipedia could do better than I at determining ID definitively through ISP or email tracing.

Thanks.

Changing method of deletion for superfluous user page(s)

I created a few trial pages as sub-pages of my userspace before migrating them to the mainspace. An example is at User:Gilesbennett/Ezio (opera). I no longer needed them once they had been migrated, so marked them for deletion using the method still showing on them.

A couple of days ago I created a few other trial pages, which I subsequently realised could be marked with speedy deletion templates instead. I duly did that, and the second batch of pages has been deleted, but the first remain. I would change the tag on the first batch of pages to speedy, but am aware of the note on the template which says "don't remove this notice while the discussion is in progress, unless you know what you're doing". I don't really know what I'm doing where this aspect of wikipedia is concerned - what's the correct methodology to remove the old prod template and replace it with a speedy without knackering up a load of other pages, and where can I find it?

Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 18:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's in your own userspace, just tag it with something like {{db-test}}, and remove the MFD discussion. You don't need to take it through the formal process, since there's absolutely no reason at all why someone would object to it. That sort of thing is more for things such as Wikiproject pages, someone ELSE'S userspace, things people might actually care about --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 18:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up, would that not leave a miscellaneous page or two hanging around? I'm thinking of the MfD talk pages associated with the pages concerned - would I then flag those with {{db-talk}} just to tie up the loose ends? Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, tag them with either {{db-talk}} or {{db-test}}. Alternatively, if you know any admins, you could just swing by their talk page with a list of pages you'd like deleted, and have them dispose of them for you. Not quite as formal, but likely to be much quicker and save time in the long run for the admin as well (since they won't waste time putzing around CAT:CSD making sure that it isn't a valid page and whatnot --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 18:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a bug?

An IP address made that edit, but, this says I made it, though this is really the edit I made. Codelyoko193 _Talk 18:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not a bug. Your second diff link doesn't show that you added that information. It just shows that you'd made the last edit before that information was removed. So you made a couple edits between when it was added and when somebody noticed it, that's all. --Maelwys 18:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Help:Diff for more. PrimeHunter 21:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Codelyoko193 _Talk 13:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orginization

HELP!!! I need something to orginize my userboxes with! Two have how should I say "fused" and I am going to have to delete them. Can anyone help? -I PWN U ALL 18:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which two? Cats and not taking yourself too seriously? Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 19:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh sorry I just the fused ones which where the this user plays gamecube games and this user plays Mario games. They are just really messy and I need help orginizing them. -I PWN U ALL 20:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to bio that seems to have been heavily, autobiographically written/edited

Thanks for responding to my previous queries. Here is the link:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kurt_Eichenwald

Is it possible to check the ID of ISP 76.184.47.215 and of Milo73? As I mentioned, I believe these people could be one person: the subject of the entry. The suspect additions and edits begin on about June 29.

Debbie

Please post your replies under your original section. Do not make a new section for every post --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 19:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, I've reposted a better worded version of above on my original query. Debbie

Removal of Advertisement template

how do I get rid of 'This article or section is written like an advertisement' icon that has been posted on a page?199.246.158.2 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once edits have been made improving the prose so that the article does not read like an advertisement, you go to "edit this page" and removed the template from (typically) the top line. LaraLove ^T/_C 20:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's Fraser Milner Casgrain it does read like an advert and (further) clean-up is required. --Fredrick day 20:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The tagged version [4] had 42 links to the company website. None of them were citations, and 39 of them were to promotional pages for the company's "Areas of Expertise", added [5] by an editor saying "my company".[6] See WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:EL. PrimeHunter 21:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

Someone remind me - this category seems rather pointy ("dependent" does not seem particular NPOV to me). Oh mighty helpdeskers - remind me, where's CFD? or do they go to MFD? (no wonder, newbies get confused). --Fredrick day 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD is at WP:CFD. PrimeHunter 21:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information gone

I have edited the page:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients

by adding an instant messaging client that is not listed there: SAPO Messenger.

The site was re-edited and now the information on SAPO Messenger is gone! Why is that so?

512upload 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a redlink (meaning it did not have an article) and was removed with other redlinks.[7]. PrimeHunter 21:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, why aren't the brackets just erased?

512upload 21:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary of the removal was "removed clients without seperate pages, as per guidelines for list". ssepp^(talk) 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was this removal of SAPO Messenger. See Talk:Comparison of instant messaging clients#Notability. Wikipedia articles are not for everything. PrimeHunter 22:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What notability must SAPO Messenger have so it can be displayed on the comparison of instant messaging clients!?

512upload 00:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editors of the article have apparently decided that programs without their own article will not be considered. Somebody would have to make an article about it first. See Wikipedia:Notability for notability requirements for an article. PrimeHunter 00:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, if I create an article of SAPO Messenger, it can appear in the comparison of instant messaging clientes, am I right?

512upload 16:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N and WP:V. It would need multiple third-party references in which SAPO Messenger is the primary focus of the reference, not just a glancing mention. Is there a notability guideline for software? I guess the best would be WP:CORP, see if the software meets those criteria. Corvus cornix 17:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Display of information

On pages like:

Comparison of instant messaging clients

it would be must easier to see the features of each program having the titles of the features in view.

This means that there should be a box where a person would browse with a side-scrolling-bar having the titles of the features always viewable. Hasn't Wikipedia got such a feature (I'm a newbie in page designing)?

512upload 21:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen such a feature, and the lack of other responses suggests none of the current Help desk helpers have either. The best I could suggest in the meantime would be to repeat the headings row a few times in the table, instead of only at the top and bottom. The complex table in this section is particularly awkward when the browser shows only rows around the middle, with no headings row visible. --Teratornis 23:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox Limits

Is there a limit to userboxes? -I PWN U ALL 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but please keep in mind that the Wikipedia community exists to create an encyclopedia. We are not Myspace. ssepp^(talk) 21:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan on adding many, many userboxes to your User space, it might be friendlier to put them on a separate subpage which is linked to from your main User page. Corvus cornix 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the headlines manually is just plain dumb (unefficient). Has anyone in Wikipedia heard of text boxes!? The info of the clients could be put inside them (like a spreadsheet inside a box with a vertical scrolling-bar) and out of the box, the titles of the features! Is it THAT hard?

512upload 07:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disappeared article

How long does acceptance/rejection take? I submitted an article, written by another person, a week ago, but have neither received an acknowledgment nor has the article appeared online. The article was about author-artist Kevin Cisneros, it was written by editor Mary Cadney and included a Library of Congress website link which could be used to verify article's assertions. Thank you, Ray McAfferty (email removed) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.12.174.137 (talk • contribs).

The article acceptance/rejection process works in hindsight: all new articles go 'live' immediately, but many are subsequently deleted. However, I don't see an article on Kevin Cisneros either in existence, or in the deletion log. You might have done something wrong when submitting the article. If you still have the text and want to add it you can create that article by going here and clicking on 'create this page'. ssepp^(talk) 22:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And then I realized that anonymous users can not create articles. Was your article submitted at WP:AFC perhaps? It is rather backlogged. ssepp^(talk) 22:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also mention that the article was written by someone else. You can only use that text if the person who wrote it agrees to release their text under the GDFL license. ssepp^(talk) 22:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some searching I guess you are User:Raymcafferty. Please log in and sign messages here with ~~~~. Where did you submit the article? If it was the jpg file mentioned at User talk:Raymcafferty, then it was the wrong place. An article about Kevin Cisneros should either be suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for creation or created at Kevin Cisneros. PrimeHunter 22:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article was the image file. Ray, this is not how articles on Wikipedia should be created. Please read Help:Starting a new page if you would like to create a page. Raven4x4x 01:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

search the FAQ link is not working

Why doesn't the "search the FAQ" link work on the Wikipedia:Help desk. Both of them at the top of the page give the same non-result. All it does is time out for me? I can't determine if someone has already asked/answered the question I'm about to ask, so I will go ahead and ask it anyway. Truthanado 22:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a server problem just ago. Try the link again. ssepp^(talk) 22:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed. I guess I should be more patient. Thanks. Truthanado 22:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filter User contributions page for non-top edits

Is there a way to filter the User contributions page so that I can see edits that are not the top (last) edit? I find myself often looking to see what has happened to articles I have recently edited. It's a great way to see what other Wikipedians are doing, often expands my knowledge of the article's topic, and sometimes catches the rare vandalism. The only way to do that now is to manually scan the list for articles without top.

If it's not currently possible to do this, let me make a suggestion. It would be nice if there was a filter option check box at the top of the page. For example: [ ] View top edits. By default, the box would be checked and could be manually unchecked if the user desires. If checked, you would get the same list you get now. If unchecked, you would get a shorter list, skipping (and not showing) those edits that are the most recent for each article. Thanks. Truthanado 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like something a user script could do. Unfortunately, I don't see a script with that functionality listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts#Watchlist. ssepp^(talk) 22:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]