Help desk
< May 28	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 30 >

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.

May 29

Company Wiki

Hello how do you go about setting up a Wiki that is accessible only by internal employees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.71.162 (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we only answer questions about using Wikipedia, not wikis in general. If you want to set up a wiki with the MediaWiki software or need help with it, you must read the guides and manuals at the MediaWiki wiki. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And see WP:BFAQ#CORPWIKI. --Teratornis (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page # in citations

Working my way through the links about citations in the May 26 answers, but can't find how to add page numbers to turn up in {{reflist}} -- what I mean is, the citation method I'm using is the ref name= of the main reference or link giving the a,b,c,d effect in the template under "references" section; but does this ~~mean~~ work only if you're referencing the same page in the document? How do I include page numbers for different locations in the same text? Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, the <ref name="" /> only works for the same page. You either need to generate the reference tag each time you need a different page number, or look at one of the other formats. For example, you could use inline citations (Johnson, 2008, p 42) and not use the <ref> tag at all, or alternatively use the ref tags as footnotes, and then add the Harvard inline style references to the footnotes (as per Turing Test). That second option is possibly closer to what the ref tags actually are: I tend to think of them as footnote tags, that just happen to be misnamed. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Rp}} can be handy in some cases like this but should only be used for pages with a very large number of citations to a single work. It allows you to specify the page number next to the footnote in the text. For a working example of its use, see Glossary of cue sports terms. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Bilby and Fuhgettaboutit -- the problem arising from Harvard style intext citations is that the article tends to get those and no refs at the end except the bibliography, which is okay except when it cops a "no citations" tag, and there have been a few examples of this, so I worked my way through (eg Representation (arts) to wikify it at cost of big headache. Does that mean that the non-reftag example isn't widely recognised as wiki? Julia Rossi (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using Harvard intext you still need to manually add references in a reference section. Which works well enough, but while it is accepted here and there you're right in that it doesn't seem to be that common on the wiki. Or at least that's my experience - I might just hang out in the wrong parts. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it asks more work from the reader too, so I'll go on changing articles to the automatic style (when I'm feeling patient enough) because I guess Harvard tends to appear in essay-like articles, is sometimes not complete (eg, the name and page, no date, or the name, date, page and no footer), and it's nice to have the auto list plus the easy click to down and click to text ref amenity. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

66.244.103.145

Resolved

This user made an unnecessary edit to Rose Falcon, so someone SERIOUSLY should've warned that user! I mean, those vandals are actually getting away with their vandalism, nowadays, and this has to stop!Kitty53 (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really consider this vandalism. I will ASG and think the IP misunderstood the article. Comments? --RyRy5 (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely looks like a mistake or maybe a test to me. Don't see anything malicious here. Pretty photo. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(E/C) Agree with RyRy5. While it may have been vandalism, it certainly isn't clearly so, so I would err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt. Note also that this may have been intended as a small rose, but many users do not know our image markup, so not being placed as a thumb and thus overwhelming the page with a giant image could very easily have been unintended. However, I would warn for this, but not with a vandalism template. A tailored warning would work; something like "Hello. I reverted you recent edit to Rose Falcon as the image was not specific to the article just because "Rose" appears in the article name. By the way, images should typically be placed as thumbs..." You say that "someone ... should've warned that user". Well you reverted the edit; go ahead! Typically the person who reverts is the person who warns as they are the one who knows about the edit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the rose photo is gigormous, but it might not look that way if you look at the auto-shrunken version on the image page. A novice user might not know how big the photo really is and/or how to size it to something reasonable. In either case, the IP has only made the one edit, so this is really not a big deal. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Automatic payment program in fi/co

Resolved

Hi,

In Automatic Payment Program, i received ten invoices. In these ten invoices, i want to make payment for only five invoices. In APP how and where i can make payment for these five invoices. Please can anybody respond answer for this query as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.198.110 (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can only answer questions relating to how to use Wikipedia. You may want to contact a financial advisor or lawyer. You could try the reference desk, but I'm not sure they would answer your question. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 04:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italic gobblygook

Hello;

Recently, italic type on most, not all, Wikipedia pages display as gobblygook. I'm using MacOS 10.4.11 and Safari 3.1.1.

Any help is much appreciated.

TIA ChrisHAu (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I can think of to fix it is to switch to Firefox... all the other browsers have known formatting and CSS issues, especially Safari, because Safari messes with the fonts. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nazi wikipedia

why does a photograph of some nazi maniac appear when my child looks up the phrase "quizzing glass?"

is it just jewish people you hate or is it all minority groups?

i am not jewish but i'll make dam sure nobody in my family (or circle of friends) uses "wikipedia" again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.125.232 (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "quizzing glass" is another term for a monocle. When your child went to Quizzing glass, he was redirected to Monocle. Most articles have an image of their subject, and this one happened to have a "Nazi". Keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't censored... However, I will drop a line at the monocle talk page to see if the image can be replaced. But it most likely won't be, as seen below... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand your concern (given that you are from Israel -- Jewish or not). However, the article actually mentions why there is a picture of a German officer in the article:

Monocles were also stereotypical accessories of German military officers from this period, especially from the First World War, where the stereotypical German Oberst would plot the demise of enemy forces with monocle in place to examine attack charts. German officers who actually wore a monocle include Erich Ludendorff, Walter von Reichenau, Hans von Seeckt and Hugo Sperrle.

Given that monocles were often worn by German military officers during the World Wars, is it really all that outlandish that when looking for a photo of a person wearing a monocle, one was found amongst the group of people who actually wore them (i.e. Nazis)? -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 08:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't learn about the Nazis, how will we insure they do not come back? Nazis caused so much trouble the first time around because most people in the Western democracies preferred to ignore them, until the Nazis made themselves impossible to ignore. The Jewish people will certainly not forget. --Teratornis (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Solaris 10 is preffered over Windows and Linux

Please provide Server OS comparision Chart?
Pleas give the reason that why Solaris OS is preffered over Linux and Winows?
Give Some speciality of Solaris.which is not in other OSs.

Regds, Yogesh Aggarwal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogeshaggarwal (talk • contribs) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the Solaris being the "preferred" os would be a matter of opinion but if your looking for a comparison of different operating systems, have a look at Operating system comparison for a basic chart (could not find anything better), Solaris (operating system) for information about the OS itself and this forum post reasons why it is preferred. What I have found is that Solaris is a UNIX derived OS (much like Linux) and is supposed to be very reliable for Mission-critical servers and its specialties include "DTrace, Solaris Containers, ZFS filesystem, and a few other abilities." (from forum link). Atyndall93 | talk 06:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask this question over at the computing reference desk. Franamax (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question sounds like homework. Depending on how bold you are, you might tell the instructor to stop using the passive voice with missing actor - it's ambiguous. Who prefers Solaris 10 over Microsoft Windows and Linux? The second question seems especially odd, as "the reason" suggests there is only one. It seems unlikely that anything as complex as an operating system would only give rise to one reason why various people might prefer it. And by the way, as a general rule, computer users prefer software they know over any other software, even if other software is technically superior. The most expensive and difficult part of any software is learning it. --Teratornis (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solaris 10 is supported by Sun Computer Corporation, thus tech support is available. Some versions of Linux are not supported by a vendor. Also, Solaris offers more file space then windows and Linux. (Jk123 2099 (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Using Files To Learn Pronunciation

Hello! I have noticed that some articles in english and other languages have audio files attached. I even have found files which where the complete article read. What I would like to know is, say I'm learning a language, for example Dutch. Is there a way for me to browse articles only containing such files with which I can improve my pronunciation in Dutch, or any other language for that matter? I see a great potential there, but still can't figure out how to only search these articles. I don't think that the Commons project is the answer, since that's only the files without article.. Thanks a lot! (And by the way, is there somewhere I can give suggestions? Thnx) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.194.100 (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the English Wikipedia, check Category:Spoken articles. There is a list of other languages on the lower left pane. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 07:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And since you are interested in Dutch, you might be more interested in the Netherlands version of the same category -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 08:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what pages use a particular template

Resolved

--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know if there is any way to find out what pages use a particular template.Images have a what link to this image thing that allows you to see what articles use a particular image.Is there any thing that allows me to the same thing for templates.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To see where a template is used, browse to the template page and click on "What links here" in the toolbox on the left pane. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 08:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If you go o the page you want to see where it links, look to your left under the search bar. You should see "toolbox". Under "toolbox', you should see "what links here". Click on that and you can see where the page you clicked on is linked.--RyRy5 (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, if the template was substituted rather than transcluded, it will not show in the 'what links here' list. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 08:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Resolved

Can you tell me how to make a page on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playinpoker4alivin (talk • contribs) 10:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Your first article.

Ensure that you have an account and you are logged in. If you don't have an account, create one
Make sure the subject is notable enough to have their own article.
Find references
Make sure no article on the subject exists under a different title by typing the subject into the search box to the left (←) and clicking 'Search'
Type the page name in the search box to the left (←) and click 'Go'
Click 'Create this page'
Create the article, including all your references, making sure you adhere to the Manual of Style and our article layout guidelines
Be aware that Wikipedia deletes thousands of new articles for failing to adhere to our policies and guidelines. New articles by new users are at extra risk of deletion, due to new users' unfamiliarity with our rules. Consider gaining experience by editing existing articles before attempting to create new ones. Xenon 54 10:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Distortion

Resolved

I recently uploaded the image Image:NotAstrology.svg. For some reason the image on the summary page is really distorted, yet the full size image is fine. Does anyone know why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroMark (talk • contribs) 10:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are various issues with the Mediawiki (thats the software that powered Wikipedia) displaying .svg files. If you made the file in Inkscape, try saving it as a "plain svg" file and then reuploading. Atyndall93 | talk 11:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It did the same to me. I noticed that the dimensions changed radically from the first version to the second. I tried WP:BYPASS and it cleared it up. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! AstroMark (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page category sorting

Resolved

At Category:FA-Class biography (sports and games) articles, I noticed that Tyrone Wheatley's talk page does not sort on his last name. How can one make a talk page sort on last name? I tried looking for something at Talk:Michael Jordan and could not find indication of how.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be working now. ?. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the fix. I missed the technique on MJ's page because I was looking at the bottom of the page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I placed |listas=Wheatley, Tyrone to the end of the talk page templates, so it's fixed some of them. However some of the templates don't have this feature, so some of them don't work. I don't know how to fix this, but I'm sure someone else will come along and explain. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use {{DEFAULTSORT}} on the talk page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coaches

please give me phone no. or mobile no. of some good coaches —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.20.65.114 (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This area is for asking for help using Wikipedia. You might want to ask your question at the reference desk. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page about myself

Tell me, does the WP:COI rule mean that I cannot edit a page about myself. It states "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." By this, does it mean that I could edit an article about myself, to correct tour dates or album info that is wrong, so long as I do not attempt to promote myself or my band? Or am I forbidden from editing pages relating to me, no matter even if I was unbiased, provided a reputable third part citation and wrote it from a NPOV? Answer please. Plasticbounceman (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer's right there in the link you provided. Read specifically Wikipedia:COI#Editors who may have a conflict of interest, and the closely-related WP:AUTO (especially Wikipedia:AUTO#If Wikipedia already has an article about you). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had that link and still asked the question - that might suggest to you that I need this point clarified. Mind actually helping? Plasticbounceman (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plasticbounceman, this is the second time you have been uncivil on this page; please read this page thoroughly. And in answer, there are those that openly declare that they edit their pages (Talk:Jimmy Wales) but you shouldn't write pages about yourself, as it's very difficult to remain neutral. But you can edit and declare it on the talk page using {{wikipedian-bio}}. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let's calm down a bit. We're definitely here to help, but please remember to be civil. Secondly, reading OrangeMike's second link, I would think that you can only edit pages about yourself if there is clearly vandalism. Otherwise, suggest it on the talk page and let another editor make the edit. TN‑X-Man 16:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) WP:COI is a ~~policy, not a guideline~~ oops - I meant: guideline, not a policy. We also have WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. It's hard for us to issue a clear fatwa on a question such as this, because Wikipedia is too complex to reduce to a few compact rules. The practical test of what is allowable on Wikipedia is "whatever other editors do not change." Since there are so many editors (48,340,954 registered users, and a similar number of unregistereds), each with their own interests and opinions, it's very hard to give foolproof guidance on how a person can edit and avoid all conflicts with other editors. Here's how I prefer to think about conflict of interest: if you have one, it doesn't prevent you from editing, but you are taking a risk. If you rile up the other editors for some reason (for example, by persisting in your early habit of making snippy remarks toward experienced users who are sharing their expertise with you for free), then by editing an article in whose subject you have a personal association, you have given others a pretext for giving your work extra scrutiny. In other words, if you make a habit of rubbing people the wrong way, and handing them ammunition, it's not hard to predict where that habit is likely to lead. In general, the best approach is to read all the policies and guidelines, and try to follow them. Individual policies and guidelines do not exist in isolation. For example, if you feel you read and understood WP:NPOV, but you haven't yet understood WP:CIVIL, then I would argue that you haven't really understood WP:NPOV yet - and thus you may not be ready to edit an article where you might be prone to a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is very complex, and very different than anything most people have experienced before, so it takes a long time for things to make sense here. The best way to gain experience is to edit articles which are least likely to be controversial. E.g., don't start out editing highly controversial articles like Abortion, don't start out editing where you might have a conflict of interest, don't edit anything you get emotional about, and so on. Wait until you have more experience with comparatively safe edits before attempting edits you need to ask questions about. That's my advice, anyway. Every user selects his or her own approach, and deals with the consequences. Be as bold as you like, but bear in mind the Asian proverb: the nail which sticks up gets hammered down. --Teratornis (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

access a page

yes id like to access the dallas official site can you help me please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.22.137 (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know about the Dallas official site, but you may want to try Dallas, Texas, the Dallas Cowboys, or possibly the Dallas Mavericks. Let me know if that helps! TN‑X-Man 15:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making categories understant listas parameter

Based on an issue with Category:FA-Class biography (sports and games) articles above I am adding listas= parameters to a lot of my articles. Most categories are not receptive to the listas parameter. Can someone help make subcategories of Category:WikiProject Chicago accept the parameter or fix {{ChicagoWikiProject}} to do so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Wistert, Al}} does not seem to be working either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several of these templates, including the metatemplate {{WPBannerMeta}} lack listas parameters and are configured to override DEFAULTSORT. I assume this is deliberate, though I don't know why. Algebraist 21:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Private communication with administrators?

Resolved

– Use Special:EmailUser

I wish to discuss a sensitive matter with Wikipedia's administration and I'm wondering if there is a non-public way to do this?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's email. If you wish to discuss this with me (as just one admin) then here's the link: Special:EmailUser/PeterSymonds. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TY sir, I will take you up on that offer in the next couple of days. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, that's fine. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do a major editing overhaul of an article?

Hi,

This is my first time as a wikipedia editor, and I'd like to know if one can perform a major edit like a total overhaul of an article by simply doing it through the 'edit this page' page, or if something more complicated is necessary. The article in question is Brecht's poetry, and I've posted some of the problems with it on the discussion page. Can I simply rewrite the article? Sindinero (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, be bold and edit the article! It is important, however, to build consensus. It sounds like you've already discussed it on the article's talk page, which is a good first step. If there are no objections on the talk page, go for it. Good luck! TN‑X-Man 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, but realize that everything you see on Wikipedia came from people who were bold before you. If you are bold enough to overhaul their work, someone else could be bold enough to overhaul yours. As you edit on Wikipedia, be as receptive to correction as you expect other users to be. If it would bother you to write an article and have someone else completely rewrite it later, then it is reasonable to suppose that when you rewrite someone else's work, they might feel the same way. On Wikipedia, nobody owns their work, so everything we write is subject to editing, but still it helps to hear from the person whose work you want to change before you change it. Some observations:

You posted your suggestions on Talk:Brecht's poetry, but nobody replied yet. Sometimes the people who might have an interest in an article are not actively monitoring its talk page. I suggest looking at the article history and leaving comments on the talk pages of other contributors, asking them to see your comments in Talk:Brecht's poetry#Editing suggestions.
When you leave a new comment on a talk page, not in reply to an existing comment, make a new section heading for it. (I added one for you at Talk:Brecht's poetry#Editing suggestions.) This keeps a talk page organized. See: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.
If this is your first time as a Wikipedia editor, I strongly advise you not to start right out with "a major edit." That rarely goes smoothly, unless a new user has a remarkable ability to grasp Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - something we don't see often, given how different Wikipedia is than anything most people have experienced before. A more prudent approach is to gain experience by making smaller edits to existing articles, in cooperation with more-experienced editors who have identified articles that need specific work. On Wikipedia, there is no deadline, so you can afford to ease into the major editing.
The article title: Brecht's poetry seems a bit odd. I'd like it better with a full name: Bertolt Brecht's poetry, since "Brecht" might not exactly be a household word for all Wikipedia readers.

--Teratornis (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that a usually less-officious way to edit someone else's contributions is to add to them, or rearrange them, rather than delete them. People tend to get more upset at seeing their contributions vanishing completely than to see them moving around a bit. Of course on Wikipedia, nobody has a right to get upset when their contributions vanish, but the reality of human nature is that sometimes people do get upset, and in the long run, upsetting people on Wikipedia tends to be less productive than finding ways to avoid upsetting them. That's why you should make sure everybody who might get upset understands and agrees with what you want to do, before you do it. Your comments in Talk:Brecht's poetry#Editing suggestions sound reasonable (although I have no knowledge of the subject so I cannot comment on their factual merits), but you'd really like to hear from the other users who may have an interest in the article before you implement the destructive changes. Your suggestions to add new content sound uncontroversial to me; so I suggest you start with the additions before the removals. See WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FOOT, WP:CITE, WP:CITET, and WP:LAYOUT for instructions on how we handle references. --Teratornis (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One good way to get consensus on a rewrite is to build the new version of the page in a sandbox - generally a subpage of your userpage (e.g. User:Sindinero/Brecht article rewrite). Then, if you get it to a stage where people agree it's better than the existing version, pop over to Wikipedia:Requested moves and get an admin to merge the histories together. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whistling Woods International

Resolved

Please correct the following:

The full name is Whistling Woods International Institute for Films, Media, Animationa and Media Arts. CEO- Ravi gupta Executive Director- Rahul Puri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.100.186 (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved page to new name. Redirect created. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whistling Woods International

Resolved

Name Whistling Woods International Institute for Films, Media, Animationa and Media Arts. CEO- Ravi gupta Executive Director- Rahul Puri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.100.186 (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dup request. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Header

Resolved

– Reverted

Do you like the new help desk header I designed. StewieGriffin! • Talk 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should have been discussed first. I'm not sure about it, and the original was fully-protected. Please discuss major changes before implementing them; WP:BOLD is great but this is a very highly visible page. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, this is the format for the archives. Why not the main help desk? StewieGriffin! • Talk 19:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the Help Desk heading, because I visited it yesterday only to post a note about the resolved template. However from the little I do remember, there were several templates transcluded into several other templates, and the way it was done looked quite complex. I've fully protected the current heading, but I presume the other one was agreed on by consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could certainly take some of the better parts and incorporate them into the old one, but I'm not a big fan of this in its entirety, sorry. I'm putting the old one back for now...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the huge THIS IS ABOUT WIKIPEDIA ONLY was totally unnecessary. People still asked normal questions. StewieGriffin! • Talk 19:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this discussion to the talk page (I copied the discussion there). Thank you. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x2)No I'm not, it's been fully protected. Could we get this changed back and only redone with consensus please?...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is better. The old one was very large. I know this one still is, but a huge WIKIPEDIA ONLY message wasn't needed. Maybe this should be made smaller. StewieGriffin! • Talk 19:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted back and restored the full protection per WP:Bold, revert, discuss. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think the current is way to big!!! StewieGriffin! • Talk 21:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about copyvios in articles

Otto Lummer was created originally as a copyvio of http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Lummer,+Otto+Richard (© Research Machines plc 2004. All rights reserved) I then attemplate to rewrite it (diff). I would like to know if the is rewrite enough to avoid copyright infringement? Also, should the copyvio revesions be deleted by an admin. Thanks, Anonymous101 (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Usually a rewrite is enough, but if the page history is all copyright, then it might be deleted from the history. An admin has the tool to delete the page and its history, but any editor can remove copyright violations, either by rewrite or backspace removal. I'll take a look. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of tweaking. Unfortunately I can't see the original article because it's for subscribers, but take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, this leads me to ask: when a revision or a set of revesions is removed from Wikipedia, how would we prevent them from showing up in Wikipedia mirrors or in the Internet Web Archive Wayback machine? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 22:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... that's a good question - I suppose most Wikipedia mirrors update regularly to the most recent revision, but for the ones that don't... I suppose it's just too bad for them then... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about making a disambiguation page

I don't know how to create a disambiguation page or change a redirect so I'm looking for some help.

CISAC needs a disambiguation page or, preferably, should redirect to the Stanford University Center for International Security article as the Confédération Internationale des Sociétés d´Auteurs et Compositeurs is not a US-EN organization. CISAC should still be the redirect for Confédération Internationale des Sociétés d´Auteurs et Compositeurs on fr.wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.242.6 (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To create a page you have to have an account. The standard format is to have the title with no qualifier (CISAC) or the title CISAC (disambiguation). The header begins "CISAC could refer to..." and then the articles are bulleted. The page is then marked with the {{disambiguation}} template and Category:Disambiguation. See Queen Anne for one of many, many examples. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because this is the English Wikipedia does not mean that it only focuses on articles from the US - in fact, this is one of the biases that we have to work on countering. However, if both organizations are referred to as "CISAC", and one of them is not a primary topic, which seems to be true in this case, we can make CISAC a disambiguation page a link to both articles, which I'll go ahead and do. -- Natalya 23:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]