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.
When I edit the ISKCON page to add the Hare krishna Society, a registered california 501 c tax exempt Vaisnava origanzation with centers around the world, someone keeps deleting the information. The hare Krishna society is as large and as influential as the IRM. In fact the Hare Krishna Society has more centers than the IRM and the Hare Krishna Society has published a book called "Srila Prabhupada Siddhanta" which is recognized by members of the IRM as an authoritative manifesto on the mission of His Divine Grace Srila prabhupada. To remove this information is dishonest and disgraceful and reeks of enviousness.
please do the right thing and stop removing the Hare Krishna Society from Wikipedia. you can find out more about the Hare Krishna Society at www.harekrishna society.org and www.prabhupadasiddhanta.com/index1.html.
while the IRM is only a handful of devotees at best, the Hare Krishna Society is a worldwide network of devotees.
I await your reply
You are directly affiliated with the Hare Krishna Society—you are the secretary—so there is a conflict of interest, and you are discouraged from editing articles relating to Hare Krishna. You will just have to live with the dishonest and disgraceful reek of envy that pervades Wikipedia. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it." PrimeHunter (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Justice on Wikipedia accrues to each participant in proportion to his or her knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That is, the more you know about how Wikipedia works, the more able you are to determine which of your goals are consistent with Wikipedia's goals, and then use the tools of Wikipedia to productively contribute in areas where your goals and Wikipedia's goals are the same. (This is directly analogous to learning how to work the levers of power in any organization. A person with little knowledge of an organization, and erroneous assumptions about it, is likely to feel victimized in his or her interactions with it, whereas someone who has expertise at dealing with the organization is able to get things done with a minimum of conflict.) However, Wikipedia differs from most organizations in that Wikipedia has no undocumented mysteries; everything you could need to know about Wikipedia is written down on Wikipedia (for example, see our Editor's index), and is straightforwardly available to anyone who is willing to read. A person's knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia are a function of two things:
His or her innate ability to acquire knowledge through study.
Thus Wikipedia, like most of real life, rewards two things: effort and innate ability. Wikipedia will often seem unjust to people who approach it with strong preconceptions about what it is, along with a sense of entitlement to a free lunch. That's because Wikipedia is unlike anything most people have experienced before - indeed, just ten years ago hardly anyone would have been able to believe Wikipedia could exist right now and be as successful as it is with its counterintuitive organizational model. (For more on this, see the work of Clay Shirky and Yochai Benkler.) For specific instructions on handling content disputes on Wikipedia, see the links under WP:EIW#Dispute. There you will find everything you need to know about how to solve the specific disagreement you are having. In an ordinary bidding war, the side with the most money to spend wins; on Wikipedia, the relevant currency is knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. See Wikipedia:There is no common sense. For almost every possible disagreement people can have on Wikipedia, there is some already-agreed-upon resolution for it, buried somewhere in Wikipedia's complex internal documents. There is little need to replay all the conflicts that have occurred in the past; we can study the accumulated wisdom of Wikipedia and fast-forward to the answers. Just be aware that Wikipedia is not a welfare state; every contributor is expected to pull his or her own weight, because we are all equally volunteers helping to build an encyclopedia. That means if you have a problem or complaint, the burden is primarily on you to study Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to see what they say about it, although lots of other users are willing to tell you where to start looking first (for example, under WP:EIW#Dispute). --Teratornis (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your ban on registering user names that are remotely similar to existing user names is plain dumb.
I tried to sign up as "dfal". But the registration process would not allow that user name because the user name "DFA1" is already being used. Apparently, the lowercase letter "L" is too similar to the digit "1" to be used.
With many thousands of registered users, do you people have any clue how many errors are going to be returned because names are vaguely similar to existing names?
To your other comment, this feature is not going to be disabled, as it plays an important role in preventing impersonation of users. If it creates many false positives, that's because a false negative has the potential to be much more disruptive. If you know a way to improve the algorithm, then note that Wikipedia's software is open-source and the code is here. Feel free to improve it. Algebraist01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I know some more information about an arrest of Jeffrey dahmer that isn't listed. My uncle arested him in 1984 due because he was called for a domestic dispute by one of his neighbors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowgirlatheartcg (talk • contribs) 01:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got a reliable source, put it in (verbal from your uncle is not a "reliable source" by our standards); but that's one of the most frequently vandalized articles I patrol, and folks tend to scrutinize edits to it pretty closely. --Orange Mike | Talk13:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need a wikibreak. I'm becoming addicted and my university work is suffering. Is there anyway I can block myself? P.s. I have an account but i'm too ashamed to reveal my true identity. Thanks. 79.75.220.40 (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a way to block yourself, but you can feel free to stop editing. Everyone here volunteers their time, so if you cannot contribute for a while, it's perfectly understandable. I believe there's more info at WP:BREAK. TN‑X-Man02:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will be nice when universities figure out that they should be codifying all their knowledge on wikis. For starters, that would eliminate the ridiculous costs of textbooks. Historically, science and scholarship have been about sharing knowledge. You didn't tell us your major, but almost any scholarly or technical discipline could benefit from applying the ideas of Clay Shirky and Yochai Benkler. Does your university or your department have its own wiki? If not, you could download MediaWiki and fill that inexcusable gap. Or maybe you could set up your courses on Wikiversity. Note: asking for help with wikiaddiction on the Help desk is like seeking a cure for alcoholism in a bar (establishment). --Teratornis (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This script only applies to registered users. If you edit anonymously, you are out of luck — unless you commit a bunch of vandalism to get your IP blocked (which I don't recommend). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, editing "anonymously" (without logging-in) is actually less anonymous then when you edit through an account, as your IP address is publicly visible when "anonymous". And short of using any tools, one can fight wiki-addiction the same way as one would combat an alcohol or nicotine addiction. As a matter of fact, that's the only way one can fight wiki-addiction, as there is always a way around the other methods. Calvin 1998(t-c)04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same way as linking to an article, but including "Talk:" beforehand - so to link to the talk page of the Orange article you'd insert [[Talk:Orange]]. GbT/c07:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I hope this can be seen, you can’t imagine how difficult it was for me to find this help desk. That is because I am a blind user using text to speech software to listen to articles. I have been listening to various articles on this site for some time so I understand what the site is all about i.e. that it is free anyone can edit it. Listening to articles I occasionally think of things I would like to add, but have so far been unable to do this. I was therefore wondering if you knew of any good tools or software which helps blind users to edit on wikipedia? The current software I am using is far from ideal as it reads everything on the screen, including what it just read, div style width… which I am guessing is some sort of programming code. I really like the internet as it is a lifeline for me even though I have some difficulties using it, and it would be great if I could start contributing to this encyclopaedia as a hobby as I know quite a lot about certain topics. If you reply to my question on this page then I will no doubt get to hear your answer! Thank you very much. Peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.184.62 (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What text-to-speech software are you using? You might find the keyboard shortcuts useful, though they sometimes take more than one go to work - alt+e is edit a whole page, alt+t takes you to the talk page, etc. To use Wikipedia effectively, you need a reasonably good way to navigate it - as a bare minimum, heading navigation is essential. If you are using Windows, I would recommend a free screen reader called NonVisual Desktop Access, the latest version, and a free web browser, Firefox 3. You can get the latest version of NVDA, which is designed to give very good accessibility with Firefox, at this page. In fact I didn't know that a new version of NVDA had just been released, so I thiknk I'll be downloading it now as well. Graham8708:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on an article in my user subpage in order to be able to revise it without having it deleted or speedily deleted. I was told that I could move the subpage to an actual article when I was finished. I was wondering how I would go about doing that. Do I just copy and paste my subpage into an article, or do I have to have an admin review and accept it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahf1286 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you are sure that the article complies with Wikipedia article policies and guidelines, you can move the article by clicking the move tab at the top of the page. This will bring you to a page where you should explain your reason for the move and insert the page you want to move the page to before clicking move. This will automatically move the page's history in compliance with GDFl. Please see Help:Moving a page for more information. Hope this helps. Ydale38 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.)
However, if only one user has edited a user subpage, the entire page is that one user's contribution. A copy and paste move would result in a new page that continues to be that one user's contribution, and no other user's record of contribution has been lost. Since the editor holds copyright on the entire content of the subpage, is there any problem with copying and pasting the content to a new page? The history of the new page would still correctly acknowledge all contributors, since there is only one. It seems to me the primary problem to avoid would be copying and pasting content in such a way as to obscure the history of someone else's contributions. If you think about it, suppose someone edits a document on their own computer, a little at a time, and then copies the whole thing to a page on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia page history will not reflect the actual chronological record of separate additions to the original document by the author, which occurred outside Wikipedia. But does the GFDL require that detailed record? As long as only one author wrote the whole document, he or she only needs to take credit for it once. In other words, it seems to me that preserving the detailed history becomes an issue only when more than one editor begins contributing to a document. Am I missing something here? --Teratornis (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that makes sense. So since i've been the only person editing the user subpage than I could copy and paste it because it was all my work. I completely understand. I might just use the move tab anyway just in case for any reason tehre is a problem, but that makes sense. Thank you very much. Ahf1286 (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, the image shown here is currently on Wikipedia, not Commons, and it appears in the article you linked. Are you sure that's the image you mean? PowersT15:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've got this now. The original Image:Eli Manning.jpg was moved to Commons last winter. In April, a new, completely different image with the same filename was uploaded to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it's impossible to include a Commons image if it has the same name as an image on Wikipedia. My suggestion is to move Wikipedia's image to Commons (under a different filename). Barring that, one or the other should be renamed (with a more descriptive filename, hopefully). Sorry for the confusion. PowersT15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But now how do I move the new Eli Manning.jpg pic to Commons? I don't mess with moving pics and such. Can someone do that for me?? --EndlessDan15:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While you could upload them somewhere else (like Flickr) and ask someone else to upload them to Wikipedia, it would probably be easier to wait four days, make ten pointless edits to your own userpage, and do it yourself. Algebraist19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any way round it, at least on English Wikipedia. You could upload them to Commons - I don't think Commons has account autoconfirmation requirements. Images on Commons can be used in Wikipedia articles. – ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ukexpat is correct, Wikimedia Commons doesn't have the autoconfirmation requirements. Or, if you really want to upload them here, you use the search bar to search for a common mispelling of a word and fix the spelling a few times, to get your 10 edits in a generally pain-free way. -- Natalya20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, of course you have. And you can upload to commons (I thought they had similar requirements there for some reason; I must be having a bad day). Algebraist20:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Owowow, so thats how that works? If I upload to wiki it wont be available to all projects? There should be a notice on the "Special:Upload" page about this. This is very important. I upload to commons and use the link from there then? I will read on it but I urge admin to think about putting a link to the Special:Upload page for commons as well. Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTrazom (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although hang on a mo and I'll see if I can userfy the two separate versions (the third is a two-liner that isn't worth keeping). GbT/c20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) : I don't see any overlapping images on Sean Paul, can you explain a little better what you mean? Also, to link to Eng WP articles just enclose the article name in double square brackets, for example [[Sean Paul]] renders as Sean Paul. And don't forget to sign your comments on talk pages and on the help pages by typing 4 tildes (~) at the end. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did it that before and if you like that way thats ok with me. What I meant is that its overlapping the trivia box which I dont know if thats ok. I dont know how to do the signature. Let me try WikiTrazom (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I see the image as overlapping the Trivia section (which is fine), but not overlapping the 'Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided' message box (which would be bad). If you're seeing that overlap, then your browser's doing something stupid. Algebraist21:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hello i like the article on Amelia Mary Earhart but i need the exact text but in french? is that possilbe to translate everthing but in french because when i click on it in french its no the same thing? we should be able to translate any text into any language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.194.174 (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good translation is, necessarily, a labor-intensive process. Automatic translations are rudimentary at best. The fr:Amelia Earhart article on the French Wikipedia may not be identical, but it should be sufficient for most purposes. For what do you need the text? PowersT00:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WP article Starting vortex has recently been edited by new user Hazebrouck (talk • contribs) to add a large tract in Spanish language. I suspect there is a much better way using Spanish Wikipedia. Could someone familiar with Spanish Wikipedia edit Starting vortex so that Hazebrouck's edits are available to Spanish readers, and Starting vortex is returned to English throughout. It would also be good if someone could start a User talk page for Hazebrouck and explain where to find information about Spanish Wikipedia. Many thanks. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
India and 
Iran... --Ŧħę௹ɛя㎥ 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- on the edit toolbar which is just above the edit box. – ukexpat (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
