Help desk
< June 17	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 19 >

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 18

Deletion history for a specific article

I'm a bit puzzled. A few months ago, I read a Wikipedia article entitled "Andrew Joseph Galambos". I was keenly interested in it since I had been a student of his in the 70's and 80's, and have not seen much information on him in the media. When I attempted to revisit the article today, it was not there. After reading the deletion policies of Wikipedia, I would suspect that the article's deletion may have been due to a lack of published references. Is there a way that I can review the discussion for that deletion? I have not been able to locate an archive of such discussions.

It doesn't appear to have been deleted ([1]). It was just redirected on the first edit. So it can be concluded that the article never existed for the subject. Are you sure the spelling is correct, or that you didn't see it at another wiki? x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) It looks like the article in question is Andrew Galambos. You can see the following in the deletion log:

14:13, 10 January 2007 Neil (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Andrew Galambos" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Galambos (2nd nomination)) (Restore)

This means the article was deleted following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Galambos (2nd nomination). -SpuriousQ (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. The deletion discussion certainly clarifies the issue. As a Galambos partisan, I am disappointed, but on reflection, not surprised. History will have to speak further to establish his fame. You guys are a tough crowd, but the incident illustrates something I had forgotten: an encyclopedia is a digest of existing literature, not a place for original source material. I only wish I had copied the original article; it never dawned on me that it would ever disappear. Maybe I'll start a blog on him. -Mosensible 05:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per a Google search, there seems enough to create a new article on Andrew Galambos. If you create the article and footnote each sentence with a legitimate source, it probably won't get deleted. You might be able to get a copy of the deleted article per Wikipedia:Userfication. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move over corner image

How do I make it so that one of the images in the top right corner on User:R will move over if there's another image that makes them overlap? --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on talk page --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Events Box

Hello everyone,

How do you add the "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses" box to an article?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertciel (talk • contribs)

{{Current}}. PrimeHunter 02:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin abuse

I'm just wondering where I can report a un-fair and abuses admin.Mikel-Fikel 82

WP:ANI. Miranda 02:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though, I would ask you to think carefully before you do that: some admins seem to have some legitimate complaints about you, as detailed on your talk page. You may find that you won't experience the most supportive environment for your complaints, given this evidence. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 02:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also warn you that unless you provide links to the supposed abuse, the admins at ANI will probably ignore your complaints. Corvus cornix 02:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damage

another word for damage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.136.58 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a thesaurus but you may find useful links there. See also damage. PrimeHunter 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is such a tempting straight line. --Teratornis 05:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

donal logue

Hi- I am Donal Logue- I would really like to use a different photo than the one someone posted of me on wikipedia- can you help me do this?

Sure! Grab a camera, take a good picture, and then upload by releasing it to the public domain. There are prompts on the "File Upload Wizard" to the left. --Haemo 05:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To explain a little more, the problem is that we have a very special free license; we can't have copyrighted images of living people up, because it violates that license. If you're taking a picture, then it shouldn't be a problem. --Haemo 05:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you need more help, you can email me by clicking my name, and following the links. --Haemo 05:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the person pushing the camera button to take Donal Logue's photo would be the one to give permission. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I figure Mr Logue knows how to use the timer on his camera ;) --Haemo 06:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or he could take the picture in a mirror. Corvus cornix 17:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask for advice how to deal best with these Baha'i topics

There are disputes about the Bahá'í religion. However it's interesting that Bahá'í criticisms is a redirect to Bahá'í Faith, where no criticisms at all are mentioned... there is only a "See also: Bahá'í apologetics - for critical viewpoints."

Well, as the name suggests, Bahá'í apologetics neither mentions critical viewpoints, but their apologetics. Further, parts of Bahá'í divisions have been moved to the apologetics, this way restoring Bahá'í POV by selection and misinterpretation of sources.

This is a clear case of POV establishment. I'm not yet sufficiently experienced in the English Wikipedia to know how to deal with this situation best, so I ask for advice. --KnightMove 07:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you to add critical aspects to the article Bahá'í Faith. Bahá'í criticisms was merged with the main article as you may see here. For further discussions please use the discussion pages. --Mipago 09:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not a topic for discussion pages only. I'm still waiting for some neutral advise. And there seems not to have been any agreement to redirect the criticism-page by removing all information in it. --KnightMove 15:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles about religion on Wikipedia have heavy contributions from adherents to the particular religions, perhaps because often the adherents know more about their religions than anyone else (most people who reject a given religion will simply do their best to ignore it). However, allowing religious adherents to write about their own religions is an even more glaring conflict of interest than when an individual writes about himself or his own company, because it is at least faintly possible (although exceedingly difficult) for an individual to be objective about himself or his company, whereas every religion I know of rejects objectivity from the get-go, even occasionally going so far as to label objective examinations of its claims as blasphemy. Every religion I know of involves some or many claims about supernatural, metaphysical, or transcendental phenomena or events for which no conclusive evidence exists; many religions go even farther, making testable claims which do not stand up to straightforward testing (for example, consider claims about the efficacy of intercessory prayer: when controlling for placebo effects and so on, prayer is never found to alter the normal laws of probability, and this is easy to prove for oneself simply by praying for anything known to be objectively impossible at the moment, such as praying to any deity to instantly regrow an amputee's missing limb. Religions which have a tradition of claiming that prayer works continue to go right on claiming it despite all evidence to the contrary). For some odd reason, perhaps having to do with our tradition of religious tolerance, religions are generally exempted from the rigorous standards of honesty and factual integrity we apply when judging secular entities such as corporations and politicians. There seems to be an unstated gentlemen's agreement that even though we expect a corporation's products or a politician's policies to work the way their promoters claim they will work, somehow a religion is free to claim anything it wants about anything, and not only do we have to respect religious frauds, we grant them tax exempt status (which means all taxpayers are helping to subsidize religion). Even so, Wikipedia makes some attempt to bring objectivity to religious coverage; see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion. --Teratornis 15:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bahá'í criticisms was merged into and then redirect to Bahá'í Faith. A reason for this is that consensus at AfD 'Bahá'í criticisms' appeared to agree that Bahá'í criticisms fell into Wikipedia:Content forking. If you want to work in criticisms about a religion in the article about that religion, a good way to do this is review how criticisms is worked into articles about other religions or presented on Wikipedia about other religions (e.g., Roman Catholic Church, Anti-Catholicism). WikiProject Religion probably is the best place to help develop your proposed content. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These infos help, thx. --KnightMove 13:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

making a page

can any one tell me how do i make a wikipedia page about some one

See Help:Starting a new page but check it meets WP:BIO and check its not violating the biogeaphies of living persons policy. The Sunshine Man 09:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My birthday

Sometime last year, I signed up for the Happy Birthday message. I received one in 2006. However, yesterday (June 17) was my birthday, and alas, I received no message. What is the reason? Smartyshoe 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza has been dissolved. Happy Belated Birthday! Miranda 11:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Smartyshoe 11:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But check out Wikipedia:Birthday Committee. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your search engine is case-sensitive

How do i redirect people typing caluniversity or calu to California University of Technology —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neted (talk • contribs)

Answered on your talk page. Miranda 14:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to rename an account

(This request is basically full of personal information, so I've removed it altogether. It should be at WP:ACC, but I'll process it from here anyway.) --ais523 14:05, 18 June 2007 (U T C)

Copyvio's

Is it a copyvio if someone copies almost verbatim large chunks of text from one or more articles without clear attribution (ie quotation marks) and leaves links to those articles as well? It sure seems like a copyvio to me, but I'm not sure of the exact status in such a case. Thanks, Gatoclass 14:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if it is a copyvio, should I remove it right away, or put a template on it, or what? Gatoclass 14:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If text is being copied from one Wikipedia article to another, it's not a copyvio just as long as the edit history is preserved somehow (a link in the edit history might be enough, but I'm not sure, copying the edit history page of the copied-from article to the talk page of the copied-to article definitely is); see Help:Reverting and Help talk:Reverting, for instance, for an example of how to avoid copyvio when text was copied from Meta (another Wikimedia wiki) to Wikipedia. If the text is a copyvio, remove it immediately or use {{db-copyvio}} if that would remove all content from the article and there isn't a 'clean' version in history to revert to. --ais523 14:26, 18 June 2007 (U T C)

Hmm, well I guess the answer then is that it is in fact a copyvio, when it's copied from sources outside Wiki with no proper attribution - even if the links to the outside source are provided? Gatoclass 14:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From an outside source, definitely; if the outside source isn't licenced under the GFDL (most aren't), it's a copyvio even if attribution is given. --ais523 14:51, 18 June 2007 (U T C)

Thanks, in that case I'd better revert and leave a warning to the editor in question. I have noticed that he is changing a few words here and there in the text now to make it look more "original", but I really don't think the substitution of the odd word here and there is sufficient to prevent it being a copyvio. The editor in question needs to come up with his own construction, not just take someone else's text and then massage it a bit to make the copyvio less obvious. Gatoclass 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I find a total list of warning boxes?

I know several "warning boxes" such as the {{inuse}} and {{underconstruction}} but where can I get all the other ones such as the "needs cleanup" or the "the contents of this article are disputed" etc etc?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekingbeav (talk • contribs)

See Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates. PrimeHunter 14:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Template messages is the master index. --ais523 14:26, 18 June 2007 (U T C)

new article appearing in wikipedia.org

On Friday, June 15th, I created a page for the Transportation Library, Northwestern University. It now appears on the web, so that is ok; however, it does not appear in Wikipedia.org. In other words, when I search for the <Transportation Library, Northwestern University> in the Wikepedia search box, nothing appears.

This is my first attempt at putting an article up on Wikepdia. Did I do something wrong or fail to do something that would add this page to Wikepedia proper? Please let me know. Thanks! kaygeary 15:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Mary Geary[reply]

It's at Transportation Library, Northwestern University. When I searched for it by that name, it came up immediately. Maybe a simple typo? -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's built-in search is notoriously brittle. You may have better results by searching Wikipedia with a search engine, for example here is a Google search on Wikipedia. Speaking of which, can someone explain to me why the search form in Wikipedia's default skin doesn't contain a third button to run a Google search on the search form contents? Given that Google search on Wikipedia is probably faster and more usable for the majority of Wikipedia's readers than Wikipedia's built-in search, not to mention that Google search does not load Wikipedia's servers, there would be obvious advantages to making Google search on Wikipedia more accessible to the millions of casual visitors who haven't yet found their way to the Help:Search topic and spent the time to study it. --Teratornis 15:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably concerns about advertising. --ais523 15:38, 18 June 2007 (U T C)

I recall that the search results page sometimes contains links one can click to re-run the search with external search engines, for example I think I have seen this when Wikipedia's servers are too busy to run the search themselves. Perhaps the difficulty is one of emphasis: there isn't enough room in the left-side navigation bar to give equal emphasis to all the various search engines which can search on Wikipedia. However, I still think there should be a more direct way for casual users to learn about the search alternatives; many of them may need a long time before they would know to read the Help:Search topic. -Teratornis 15:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it might be a case of a link to Google being fine on a search results page where it's relevant, but not on every page of the encyclopedia. I agree that Help:Search should be more prominent. --ais523 15:48, 18 June 2007 (U T C)

I've wondered briefly about the possibility of creating something like a skin aimed at new users. It might, for example, contain mouseover popup annotations to explain all features of the Wikipedia interface, along with appropriate warnings for new users who attempt to create new articles before having edited much or read much into the help. (What are the odds that a brand-new user who has barely read any manuals can create a new article that sticks? There are so many "wrong" ways to write articles here.) For someone familiar with Wikipedia's features, that sort of interface would be too busy, so the advanced user could select an advanced skin (such as the current default skin, which appears to be optimized for people who know what they are doing already). Wikipedia has 48,227,606 accounts, plus perhaps even more unregistered users, and I suspect a large majority of them barely know what's going on here yet. It would be interesting to see a list of Wikipedia features, policies, guidelines, etc., along with the percentage of users who currently understand each one. --Teratornis 20:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a Company Page

Jmbrown1322 15:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Why doesn't the site allow me to post company info when there are plenty of companies with info pages on the site? How would I go about doing this?Jmbrown1322 15:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has already answered the question on your talk page, but for the answer, read WP:ORG, which explains which companies are notable by the Wikipedia definition, and WP:COI, which explains why we discourage people from creating articles about companies they are closely associated with. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golspie

In the paragraph on Golspie (set out below) it refers to Caithness and Sutherland Enterprise planning to construct a mosque. This is utterly untrue and has now led to press interest. Pleae remove it immediately.

The Church of Scotland and the Free Church have well-established congregations, while those of the Roman Catholic and Anglican Church faith worship in nearby Brora. Caithness and Sutherland enterprise are currently planning the construction of a small Mosque on the outskirts of the village in the spacious land near the industrial area.

That edit was added January 24, 2007 and :WHOIS says the IP address of that user is registered to Highland Council Education Department, Scotland. The post probably was by a student. I could not find any reliable sources mentioning the proposed construction. I revised the Golspie post with referenced material. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First time contributor - how to form a proper citation

Hello,

I just posted my first contribution, an entry for "John Wingate Thornton". The page comes up and states that there is no source or citation for this page, but I have added a citation. I have read the posted FAQ material on this subject and have examined other pages for examples, but I don't see what I am doing wrong. How can I make the 'This article does not cite any references or sources.' designation go away?

Thank you,

Jayras 15:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the unreferenced tag was added one minute after you created the page by someone who really should have given you more time. I removed the tag. You did add a reference after he posted the unreferenced tag. You might see CITE for more information. Of course you may reach me at my page for help anytime. Keep up the good work! JodyB_talk 15:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The placement of the unreferenced tag did not seem to follow the patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log at new page partol. The tag poster probably was thinking of Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries. I think the John Wingate Thornton article could use a Genealogical entry clean-up tag, but I could not find one at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Any suggestions? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably just add the cleanup tag. There could be some notability issues here too, however, I wish we would give folks more than 60 seconds before tagging the article. JodyB_talk 18:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real name as username

I think I would like to use my real name for authoring and editing articles. Is there any significant downside to that that I should be aware of and how do I change my user ID other than delete my account and make a new one? Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyodysseus (talk • contribs)

There's a summary of points at WP:U#Choosing_a_username, but in brief it's just that your identity is an open secret online. Username changes are handled at Wikipedia:Changing username. Follow the instructions carefully.--Chaser - T 16:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the low number of edits so far, it would probably be better just to create a new account. You can always note your previous name on your userpage.--Chaser - T 16:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't understand why page was deleted.

Hello, I made an account on here like 3 weeks ago so I could help contribute. I knowticed there was an article on a rapper I liked, I also knowticed that his first album did not have a page on this site. There was already a link to his first album, just no article for it. So I took the track-listing from his own web-site, checked my copy of his CD, and checked Amazons listing. Then I post it up saying "this cd was released on ______ and was Necros first LP" and then the track-listing. I come back the following day and it has been deleted because "it doesn't assert signifance". An artists first full-length CD is released and thats not important, what kind of upside down logic is that. So I re-post it thinking it was just some sensitive mod who didn't appreciate the colorful language in the song titles. So now what excuse do I get, oh that it is a "nonsense" page. The Page in question is "I Need Drugs" a hip-hop record from Necro. I'll I was trying to do was help out people looking up information but instead I get shit-canned. I'll still use Wiki on a daily basis but screw trying to post anything on here. ~~ I really don't get it, what's the point of allowing people to edit or create any page you want when I get stuff deleted that isn't violating anything. I didn't put up copyrighted material or gave my opinion. All I did was post a release date and track-listing for an album and it gets deleted, what the fuckity fuck is that seriously. ~~ Thanks, oh wait, no thanks douche. sorry for trying to help-out. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambomb419 (talk • contribs)

Hi Adambomb419. This link lists why the article was deleted. I Need Drugs should be created from Wikipedia reliable sources such as from newspaper articles and books containing information about the album. You might be able to get some hip hop article development assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject hip hop. You also might want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Why was my article deleted?. Your mistake on Wikipedia was to assume you understand how the site works and what it is for. I don't know how your previous experience has been with unfamiliar things, but in my experience, whenever I try something different than anything I have tried before, there are usually some surprises, not all of them pleasant. Wikipedia is probably very different than anything you have experienced before, because it is very different than almost anything which ever existed before; it certainly has been different for me. I think everybody who edits here has had at least some of their work deleted. Wikipedia itself is somewhat to blame for having nothing in its design to make sure people have some minimal understanding of the site before they begin editing. It looks so simple to click and start typing away. But Wikipedia's policies are not simple, and certainly not intuitive for many people. If you are willing to spend many hours reading the manuals and learning how Wikipedia works, you may eventually come to enjoy editing here. But you might prefer to edit on another wiki which has less strict requirements for its articles. For example, see the music category on WikiIndex. --Teratornis 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formating in Wikipedia

Hi,

How do you create a format for a Wikipedia page? Specifically, how do you create a table of contents that links to specific parts of an article?

12.47.208.34 17:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Table of Contents is generated automatically for pages with more than three headings (sections, sub-sections, etc.). You can find more info about the TOC (including different options for moving it/removing it) at WP:TOC. tiZom_(2¢) 17:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need to change article title

I uploaded my article as an image. The title of the article is the title of the image, thought he image is Text with a picture. How I change the title of the page so that it does not end in .jpg? The page is now called reldra.jpg -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reldra (talk • contribs)

I don't think you can do what you're trying to do. Images are treated a bit differently. You must establish the article and then add text to it. It's really pretty simple. That way, others can easily edit your article. Actual images are uploaded either here or at Commons and then linked into the article.

In the search box on the left of this page, type the desired article name and click on "Go." If there is no article by that name the resulting page will give you the option to create the page. If I can help more, please let me know by coming to my discussion page. JodyB_talk 18:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reldra. I think you mean that you want to add that information to your user page rather than crate a Wikipedia article from the information. Instead of adding the information as a .PDF page, just post the actual text on Reldra's user page and save. Also, you might want to review Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site and Wikipedia:User page. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Font Displayed

The font displayed on my Wikipedia screens here at work is very hard to read. It is similar to Microsft's Impact font. At home I get an easy to read font (like Times New Roman). How can I change the font? == Headline text ==72.75.200.236 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may be down to your browser. Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 19:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had some typos there, I couldn't even understand myself, lol. However, I know this is not a social networking page. In that case should I have one of my assistant's make my Wikipedia page? I was trying to take a task for myself.

Trustable?

Is Wikipedia reliable for its information?

At the bottom of every page here is a link: Disclaimers. Click it and read. --Teratornis 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article information should come from Wikipedia reliable sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. However, the way the question is phrased is like asking whether people from Denver are more reliable than people from Washington, D.C. The information within each Wikipedia article should be reviewed and considered based on the Wikipedia reliable sources from which it is drawn. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And check out How can I trust that the information in Wikipedia is correct? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web search not working

Fmorris 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)How come my created page is not available when I'm on the web and search "wikipedia Cortiva Institute" like it is when I search "wikipedia Nike" or something along those lines.Fmorris 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That takes some time. It will probably be in google within a few weeks. ssepp^(talk) 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search engines don't just "know" that a page exists, they have to specifically find it first. Don't worry: it will indeed probably be available soon. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 21:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually already in Google [2] and their current version was cached June 15, the day after creation. Maybe you use another search engine which has not found the page yet. You probably know this but the quotation marks should not be entered in the search box. "wikipedia Nike" with quotation marks happens to work in Google but "wikipedia Cortiva Institute" does not. PrimeHunter 23:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to Articles

I was adding a paragraph to the industrial distillation section. I added references and all seemed to be ok but when I checked the page all of the references were gone. Not just mine but all of them. What did I do wrong and how do we get them back. The reference numbers still show up in the text but the reference section is gone. I did no work in the reference section I assumed that as they were added to the text that they would appear on the reference list.--Fri117336 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You used <ref/> instead of </ref> in the Packed Tower Distributors footnote in the Distillation. I fixed it. Also, please note that footnotes usually are located after a punctuation mark (such as a period or comma). See Wikipedia:Footnotes. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How Can I find my Wikipedia User Name???

I set up an account. I'm sure I'm know the password. And most likely the e-mail address that I used. But how can I find out the user name that I chose? 75.60.195.86 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that is possible. But if you can not remember the name, it sounds like the account was not very important? You can just create a new one. ssepp^(talk) 21:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about checkuser? Would that process be able to answer this question? Sancho 21:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. According to Help:CheckUser it could. But since it would involve the privacy issue of giving the information of which user account used a certain IP address, to an unidentified user, for no critical reason, it's probably out of the question. Using the same IP address is no proof of being the same person. ssepp^(talk) 22:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, certainly. Yeah, that wouldn't be a good idea then. Sancho 23:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you, at some point, logged in to that account and edited a page? If so, you can look through the page's history and try to find the username there. Confusing Manifestation 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading images

Although I have experience locating information online, for the life of me, I cannot find out how to upload images onto Wikipedia. Note that I have a Photobucket account and the links are available to me; so, if they are needed, I don't need an explanation on how to get them. So, I ask now, how do you upload images onto Wikipedia? Come to the dark side... We have cookies. 21:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: click on 'upload file' in the toolbox, on the left sidebar, under the search box. Other info: Special:Upload is a direct link. Note that images either need to have some free license, or it needs to qualify as 'fair use', and have a fair use rationale. I'm not sure with what you mean with an explanation on how to get them, but if you mean the html to show an image that I think photobucket gives you, you'll find it won't work in wikipedia. See WP:Image for wiki markup on showing images. ssepp^(talk) 21:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locked and missing Pages preventing editing

I was horrified to find that an article has been protected by another user. Many of us have attempted to edit the article because certain important information has been erased or omitted by this user but have been unable to do so due to this lock. I need to understand why this person was allowed sole access to this article. I need to know why we must submit changes to this individual when they consistently omit true information we are attempting to add to the piece. Furthermore, another related page which was started by a friend has been deleted and redirected to this locked page. I need to know why this has happened. The dictator that holds the key to the original page did not start the second related page. This is a major deal to those of us who simply wish for an ACCURATE REPRESENTATION AND ACCOUNT of what has transpired on this topic. So if someone can please clue me in on how an article can be hijacked, deleted and valuable information erased and what can be done to undue this error, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorceress06 (talk • contribs)

The article is only semi-protected, any account that is over 4 days old can edit it. Only administrators can protect pages, Evangeline Williamson was protected a month ago by Cbrown1023. Since it has been a month it is likely to be ok to unprotect the article, which I have done. Your friend's page was probably deleted as a duplicate, you will need to give us the exact title if you want more info. Prodego ^talk 21:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you edited your own post to remove the article names but I found them in the page history. The article once at Tangeline was deleted [3] after the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangeline. Then the title was redirected to One Life to Live and shortly after to Evangeline Williamson [4]. PrimeHunter 23:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now editing access

I was asked to update ACORN's Wikipedia Web page. When I tried to do so, the edits wouldn't save.

There seems to have been a lot of disagreement between the original author in 2004 and the then-editors. So I wonder if I don't have the ability to edit?

I agree the content needs to be more objective. I could try to tone it down and update. Please let me know.

Mary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webcampaign (talk • contribs)

It looks like what happened was that you got "edit conflicted". When you're editing a page, and someone else edits it too, you can't save your version. It's a real pain, but it doesn't happen that often. In order to lessen the chances, if you're doing a major re-write, put {{inuse}} at the top of the article -- just remember to remove it when you're done. --Haemo 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to reduce the risk of edit conflict (see Help:Edit conflict) is to edit the article one section at a time - click the little [edit] button after a section title to edit just that section, and if someone else is working on another section you won't get edit conflicted. Confusing Manifestation 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Rename

I have looked around plenty and read quite a bit about this issue, or rather these issues, but I think it'll just be easier to have someone else do it. The 2 pages entitled Bhardwajs and Bhardwaj should be MERGED and placed into a new article entitled Bharadwaj. The latter is the more proper spelling and also having 2 pages is redundant. I know there is a separate page specifically for merge suggestions, and I have placed this suggestion there but nothing has been done. I have been editing for years now but I don't have an account. It's just a personal thing - I don't want one. If someone could either do the above or tell me how to do it without creating an account that would be great.

I sort of split the difference, actually - your point is a good one, but the existing Bhardwaj is a disambiguation page that seems to make sense to have, as there are four possible articles that might be sought by searchers. So, I took the specific information out of that article, and added a link to Bhardwajs, where there's more information on the family. Now, since I'm actually reading your request properly, I'm going to move Bhardwajs to Bharadwaj, as you request, and fix the dab page again. Note to self: read things twice before editing. =P Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooookay, so I'm not going to move it, since Bharadwaj is a redirect to Bharadwaja. Might take a bit more time to figure this one out... Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this might be more of an issue of which descents of Bharadwaja spell their last name correctly. I posted a help request here. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I'll leave it to the experts, then. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks good now. The titles and the re-directions are right. Thanks guys. :)

Captioning image in {{Infobox MLB player}}

How can I caption an image in {{Infobox MLB player}}. At Chris Young (baseball pitcher), I was able add an image from a lucky shot I took of a four seam fastball at 7 megapixels. I want to be able to send the reader to the fastball page to appreciate the picture. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the template supports that, at present. You could write a new template, or try using the image in a different way. Wonderful picture, though. --Haemo 22:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered my own question. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I enclosed the caption in <small> tags to differentiate it from the other infobox text. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Caknuck 00:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need permission for using references in my book

I wondered how I can get "the ok" for my book I am writing. I used some references for my book from Wikipedia. Do I need to submit my book to someone or the parts I am using as references from WIkipedia? ellyhancsak

Information on the license agreement on the contents of Wikipedia is here. How to cite Wikipedia in your book is contained at Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. If you look on the left of your screen under toolbox when viewing an article, there should be a Cite this article link that gives examples of how to cite the article you presently are viewing. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]