Help desk
< August 31	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 2 >

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.

September 1

Forgot my email/password

Hi! I'm trying to unify my logins across wikipedia but when I input "lanika" and ask Wikipedia to send a new password nothing comes to my email account and I can't remember if I used a different email account to register at Wikipedia, it was some years ago... I created a second account, username "Lanika Moon", but would like to recover the user Lanika so I can have one login across pt.wikipedia, en.wikipedia, wikimedia etc. Is it possible? Can I at least know the email where the password is being sent? Lanika/Lanika Moon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.42.197.209 (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't remember all your email accounts and still have access? I guess not. Have you checked your spam/bulk folder? Many users who think they aren't getting Wikipedia email are, but it gets filtered as spam. There is no way to provide you the password other than for you to retrieve it on your end through email. In any event, you could try usurping your old account name. You meet some of the prerequisites: the old account has no edits nor are there any significant logs associated with it. However, usurpation is normally only granted for reasonably well-established users. You have 4 edits total so you will probably need to stick around for a while under this name and make some decent contributions before you'd be eligible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I made most contributions to Wikipedia in english while not logged in but am reasonably active in the portuguese Wikipedia. Unfortunately there's no emails going to spam/bulk folders in my active email accounts, but I've old email accounts at hotmail and other services that are not in use anymore, so if wikipedia is sending email to them I'm unable to retrieve it. Thus the reason I wish I knew what email account is linked to the Lanika username. I have normal access to the Lanika Moon user account, and will see that I stay logged in during future contributions. I think my case specifically is more of Changing username/SUL than Usurpation per se, can anyone confirm if this is the best path to follow? Lanika/Lanika Moon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.136.27.3 (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned signed edits

Many of my posts on Talk pages keep showing up with things like "--TCav 23:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCav (talk • contribs)" at the end. I sign my posts, yet your robot seems to pop up and add the 'unsigned' part.

What can I do to prevent this from happening? I'm using the four tildes. What am I not doing? --TCav 01:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The signature should link to your user page User:TCav and/or talk page User talk:TCav. One way to do that is to uncheck "Raw signature" at Special:Preferences and leave the signature field blank. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So a signature can't just be a signature? If it isn't a link to a user page, a 'bot comes along and labels it as inappropriate? It doesn't happen every time, but it does happen often. --TCav 00:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCav (talk • contribs)

It's not an official guideline/policy, but the bot (SineBot, operated by User:Slakr) assumes that a signature must have a.)a link the the user's userpage b.)a timestamp. You may want to change your signature so it includes the link to your userpage. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Signatures#Internal links has guideline status and says "At least one of those two pages must be linked from your signature, to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log." That makes sense to me. If you don't like the normal blue link color then you are allowed to change it. The large majority of SineBot signings (at least of those I see) are to edits with no ~~~~ signature at all and the message was probably formulated with that in mind. It's impossible to say whether ~~~~ was used and I don't think the message should be something complicated like "Preceding comment was either unsigned or signed in an unrecognized way ...". Note User:SineBot#Opting out is possible. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --TCav (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text overlaps picture box

I dont know how to fix this problem. I have a resolution of 1680pixels width and when its full screen the paragraph that starts "On September 22..." some of its text overlaps the picture box. I tried to use the br syntax but it doesnt solve the problem.

Link [[1]] http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Site_cleanup

Thank you ----Diensthuber (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check now. It overlapped for me, too, at 1440 width. I added the {{clear}} before the section, and now it looks fine on my monitor. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(силе) Helping the (рдин) encyclopedia wikipedia edit?

I am new to your encyclopedia wikipedia потому что for the editing for сиздерден ? (new article helping)

Я хочу учить английский.

I wish to edit article please? --Danskovskiv (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only read the English parts of your post. See meta:List of Wikipedias if you want to find a Wikipedia in another language. If you want to edit here in English then write all of it in English and see for example Wikipedia:Tutorial and Wikipedia:Your first article. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can edit article --Danskovskiv (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking for permission to edit articles then it's not required. Go ahead and be bold, but try to satisfy rules like those at Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is god

hjlkhj otkhjokh tohtjh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.130.189 (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of different opinions about God. Have you tried the Humanities section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God is an imaginary being many people believe is real which is used to provide a non-explanation, explanation for the mysteries of life, and to provide comfort against and inject meaning into, death and other perceived "unfairnesses" of a capricious and indifferent universe.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is WP:POV if I ever heard it!! Some people do believe the above (they're atheists), whereas some people believe in God as the creator/supreme being of the universe (the theists, imaginably enough!). --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 14:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not have this discussion on the helpdesk? Algebraist 15:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically that is a POV but I believe in this case it still achieves the goal; this person simply speaks a different language, and the explanation will help him if he is sincere in the question.

On the other hand, if he is not sincere and is trying to insinuate a debate on the help desk, then the OP is wrong in the first place so it doesn't matter what responses are given to an invalid question, as long as someone somewhere says that it is invalid.Rayvn (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't 'Ethereal' be a better choice of a word than 'Imaginary'? Also, referring to the Universe as 'capricious' seems to me to be anthropomorphizing, which would imply that Fuhghettaboutit simply wants to replace one ethereal (imaginary?) being with another. --TCav 14:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCav (talk • contribs) [reply]

As Algebraist mentioned earlier, this isn't the best forum for this discussion. TN‑X-Man 14:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes I was referring to the way it's seen. I should have inserted "seemingly" just before capricious. Ethereal is not a synonym for imaginary, and imaginary is exactly what I intended.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Imaginary' would be WP:POV, wouldn't it? And the definition of capricious[[2]] uses the terms 'impulse' and 'whim', which are human attributes. You're anthropomorphizing the Universe, whether you preface it with 'seemingly' or not. You refer to the Universe as a deity, albeit an indifferent one, while in the same sentance calling someone else's deity 'imaginary'. --TCav (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my 1st posting for encyclopedia wikipedia (европейско)

Cacky Bird Legs бсудить for my first posting, review? --Danskovskiv (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that article was speedily deleted, which was probably not the sort of review you wanted ! Seriously, reading the English Wikipedia may be a good way to improve your English (which I believe is your objective here), but writing in poor English about non-notable subjects is likely only to cause frustration both to yourself and others - and any new vocabulary you learn may be of limited use in polite company ! Gandalf61 (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a New Userpage

I have changed my user name from Rich Guy to Genius101 Wizard. Am I allowed to create the User:Rich Guy userpage, and have it as a redirect to my page? Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You should probably also recreate the Rich Guy account (and not use it), to stop someone else taking the name and causing confusion (and getting annoyed that you've stolen their userpage). Algebraist 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pagenames in templates

I tried to edit Template:Infobox UK Legislation (attempt 1 attempt 2) to link automatically to TheyWorkForYou's search page (e.g. Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2008. First I tried using {{PAGENAME}}, which only linked to the first word, like this. Then I tried using {{PAGENAMEE}}, which linked to the whole thing with underscores, like this, which their search engine doesn't understand. I'm out of ideas - I can't see anything else on Help:Magic Words that would work, and I can't think of anything else. Does anyone have any ideas? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had managed to add it, the link would likely be removed by someone else per WP:ELNO "Links normally to be avoided ... #9 Links to the results pages of search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." When appropriate to create an external link, it's better to go to a specific article rather than a search results page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the sort of page WP:ELNO is designed to address. The link is to a search page, but it's to the search page of a specific database - it provides a link to the Hansard records of discussions relating to an act of parliament, rather than to a search of the whole web. It's a link that'll clearly be useful in every article about UK act of parliament. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the search text, spaces must be encoded as pluses. Use the magic word urlencode:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s={{urlencode:Statute+Law+(Repeals)+Act+2008}}

Which gives:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=Statute%2BLaw%2B%28Repeals%29%2BAct%2B2008

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you send this to me

Resolved

– No question was asked and no action required. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you place such a slur against my name and reputation.

I have forwarded your message to the approbate body who in turn replied it was no surprise from someone such as you.

Don't bother contacting me as I would never return to such a site under any circumstances. It is both amatuer and so unprofessional and most information on the site is inaccurate anyway.

This is the message you sent

User talk:Efexor1 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Mudcat Cafe, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop. Consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. ... discospinster talk 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efexor1 (talk • contribs) 15:30, September 1, 2008

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Efexor1 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 1 September 2008

The message you received seems to me to have been phrased politely, and the edits you made to Mudcat Cafe were very clearly vandalism. I can't see what you have to complain about. I'm sorry you're offended, but unless you plan to make edits of a different sort, I can't say I'm sorry you're leaving. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your two latest edits to Mudcat Cafe at the time you got the message were [3] which blanked the page and [4] which removed the references section that displayed 3 references (seen at [5]) with {{reflist}}. Deletion of content for no reason is usually considered vandalism. Your older contributions to the article did not look like vandalism to me (but looked inappropriate for other reasons per Wikipedia policies and guidelines like Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). Articles should give neutral verifiable encyclopedic information about the subject and not be written like a guide by the subject. Wikipedia receives a huge amount of vandalism and your two latest edits looked like frequent types of vandalism so I can understand somebody chose to give you a vandalism warning, but it looks possible that your removal of content was not intended like that. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since he isn't coming back, can't we just delete this?Rayvn (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People say a lot of things when they are upset. I linked it from User talk:Efexor1 and the link might be used. I see no harm in keeping the section but I have marked it resolved since no question was asked and no action required. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Resolved

Can someone please make the "language" field optional on Template:Infobox ESC entry? Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So does anyone know how to do this? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, looking at the template, "Language" does not have #Required next to it and looks like it's already optional. Does it tell you it's required? TN‑X-Man 16:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's use here does I think. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've done it - might have to purge for it to work though. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 16:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it looked promising, but now it doesn't show up at all. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all set, thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah - I thought I'd gotten rid of those pipes when I first did it. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 18:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I get paid yet?

I have made an edit, when do I get paid, and how much? Do I need to register my credit information? Many Thanks --Delta Proven (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. Wikipedia editors are volunteers. Xenon 54 16:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, all contributors on Wikipedia are volunteers and do not get paid. I have a feeling our list of users would grow exponentially if we did get paid for editing. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean Jimbo Wales makes profit? How does he make a profit? --Delta Proven (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Through the Wikimedia Foundation, if I am correct. jj137 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you didn't really expect to get paid for adding "very" to an article.[6] Wikipedia is run by the non-profit charitable organization Wikimedia Foundation. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales does not get paid for editing Wikipedia, if that's what you mean. I believe he does get a salary for the other duties he performs as part of the Wikimedia Foundation. TN‑X-Man 16:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh okay. What about Wikiversity? Can I get a diploma from Wikiversity? --Delta Proven (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, enough. Stop trolling or you'll be blocked. --barneca (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to tell me that Wikipedia is running an illegal University online that does not give qualifications? --Delta Proven (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye. --barneca (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouija-whatever again, no doubt... —Travis ^talk 17:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err. people do get paid for making edits in wikipedia m:Philip Greenspun illustration project as, for the "our list of users would grow exponentially", there are many paid variations of wikipedia, non of them succesfull as, the problem is, who is going to maintain 10 million articles ? The volunteers leave the project...Mion (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there's the bounty board. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 18:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I create a Page about....

I'm a member of a site called WrestlingRevealed.com and was wondering if it's against the rules for me to make a page about it. I've read the FAQ's and rules and it states that these pages can be done but from a neutral point of view and not to be promoting said website/ business. Is this OK for me to make? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWC 12 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can indeed create an article for the website, but remember, it needs to be neutral and supported by reliable sources. You may want to create a sandbox to work on the article first. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 16:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the website is probably noteworthy, but if it is a large-scale website with thousands of members and millions of hits per day, then you can make an article about it, as long as you are not the owner.Rayvn (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of members and millions of hits per day do not on their own make the subject notable. If those statistics are the subject of coverage in reliable sources, then it might be notable. – ukexpat (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. "the subject of coverage in reliable sources" does not make sense. We are talking about a website, not a human being, and if a human being had "millions of hits" (i.e. millions of people who send him a question in the mail per day or something like that), they would also be listed here, whether they are "reliable" or not. By your logic, we should delete the articles on YouTube, MySpace, Nick Nolte, Jack the Ripper, The Associated Press, John McCain, Gaia Online, George Bush and World of Warcraft, none of which are reliable sources of information, with the exception that there are some places on YouTube and MySpace that do reliable information of some sort.Rayvn (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hi, I use another Wiki but this one is different for uploading images, how do you do so?SirusG (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait four days and make ten edits (to get autoconfirmed status) and then go to WP:Upload. Or if the image is freely licensed, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons instead. Create an account here and then upload here. Algebraist 17:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing conflicts (technical)

Resolved

So, if I edit a page because there is a typo and some formatting errors, and while I am doing that, User Joe X adds a pargraph about geography and turns several "citation needed" notes into refrences and hits submit, and then I hit submit after that... aren't his edits going to be nullified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You get an edit conflict. Algebraist 17:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or your edits are added to his if they are in different paragraphs not causing an edit conflict. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Within how much time will the edit conflict page alert you? (For example, if Joe hits "submit" 15 minutes after I do on the same section, or an hour after, etc.) Or is the page good enough to track when the "edit" button was hit as well as the "submit" button so that the time frame is infinite? Reason i ask is, it may take me an hour - or a day - to complete a task on the internet. Right now I have 40 or so pages open - most Wikipedia, though the only edit open is this and my user page and the userbox template I'm making. When I have to alt-tab, I can't always find my way back right away.Rayvn (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear, when I said "your edits are added to his" it means that his edits will still be visible. The software will "merge" your edit into his version so the result becomes different from the contens of your edit box when you saved. I have not heard of any time limit on an edit conflict, but I have heard that edit windows which are open for very long may not save (regardless of whether the page has been edited in the meantime). PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by that was if he hits the 'submit' button, how short of a time do I have to hit the 'submit' button before Wikipedia will no longer say there is an edit conflict? In any case, I somehow (don't remember how) figured out that the actual answer to this question has nothing to do with time, and rather that Wikipedia is somehow able to compare the original text of the page to my edits and his edits and can tell whether or not the same sentence was edited, or something. As for your theory about time, I certianly hope that's not true, because it will usually take more then 15 minutes or so to write something on Wikipedia - even if you're just correct spelling errors since it doesn't use any sort of regular text or manageable coding that people know how to use.Rayvn (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

would you please delete www.tvdata.ru from black list / spam. we never posted spam and I wanted to list it as a stock footage sourse ? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.243.166.230 (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals and make your case. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long does a db-move take?

I've done this before when radio stations changed their call letters and I took the responsibility for moving the article to the new letters. The problem was that an old article was still there and had to be moved, and I became familiar with the procedure.

I'm doing something similar now. Because WQOK (AM) had more contributors, it seemed like a better idea to move the information from the shorter WGVL article. I've detailed everything I wanted to do on the WQOK talk page, and no objections were raised there. On another site my plan was supported, and now I've moved the information from the WGVL page, making sure to list contributors, and replaced the text with {{db-move}}.

That was two hours ago.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting. I got a pink box here but not there. I went back and tried again and now I have pink boxes on the article and its talk page.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You had created the template originally by closing it with )) instead of }}

But, why not convert the page into a redirect instead of deleting it? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the page should be a redirect so that people who search for the old call letters will be taken to the newer ones. Scotty dude _review 18:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new call letters are WGVL. But the WQOK article, which I was unaware of until several weeks ago, is longer and has many more contributors.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do US radio stations use those dodgy letters anyway? We get Viking FM and BBC Radio 1 - they have names! Much more civilised =P Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Call sign article explains the history. --Teratornis (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have names too, but the call sign is the licensed name of the station. Like Kiss 108 and Mike FM. We usually don't refer to stations by their letters. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss this. Why can I still not make the move?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should probably not move the article. The page should be about the history of the call sign, not the station. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I've already moved the information. It gets confusing if you have a different article for every set of call letters. and besides that, nearly every article I've seen has been about the radio station from its first sign-on.

There has been no objection until now. It doesn't work to have a redirect to an outdated set of call letters. I'm leaving now, and no one can find an article on WGVL because I'm not getting any help on this.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administration Access

I am just curious, but can admin. get into other members' limited accounts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale S. Satre (talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Algebraist 18:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EIW#Admin. --Teratornis (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who gets to decline speedies?

Do rollbackers get that privilege, or only Admins? ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone put a speedy tag on say, United States, then anyone can remove it. If the speedy was placed by a banned user or is obviously not in good-faith (such as just tagging articles created by one person because they don't like that person) then anyone can remove it. Other than that, only admins should make the decision to delete the page or remove the speedy. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for vandlism

Hi all,

I would like to know how i can report a user for warning who are constantly vandalizing the page with unsourced and information that is very much not true i have left them a message on there talk page but there ignoring it. The edits they seem to be doing are the ones they might have been doing as a ip user but have now registered. I really do not like having to use the rollback feature to undo the work as it makes me seem like a dictator :( but i am actively trying to prevent the article form being ruined--Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Vandalism, good-faith addition of unsourced information is not vandalism. Also, Wikipedia:Rollback feature states that rollback should only be used in articles for reverting blatant vandalism, which looking at the edits in question this seems not to be. Therefore, you should not use rollback at all in this case. Instead, discuss it with the editor making the changes rather than reverting everything he/she does. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said the person is ignoring any attempts to talk to them, and although it is unsoruced i am siting watching the episode so i know it is untrue, and the final episode has not aired anywhere, the users is just guessing wanting it to happen. There is really no point to rollback then as blanet vandalism is usual done in one edit and undoing one edit is easily done without rollback--Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

k a s designs

our information/page has been flagged, please see the complaint below:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/K_A_S_Designs

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since July 2008.

Its tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Tagged since July 2008.

It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since July 2008.

The external links in this article may not comply with Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links. Tagged since July 2008.

Many of our accounts have clients that use your service to learn about the line and reference your pages to understand the products we offer, we dont intend to use this for anything more than an informative tool. therefore please let us know how we can edit the pages so the complaints are removed.

Please send your comments to <email removed>

Regards,

KAS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.53.119 (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you are specifically using Wikipedia as a marketing tool. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, I have nominated the article for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. Corvus cornix_talk 21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has now been speedily deleted per criterion G11. – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Macdonald Music section

Hi there I manage an scotish musician called Graeme Macdonald. Hey attempted to add a section to wikipedia himself sometime ago and add himself to the page about his hometown of Alyth. Unfortunatly this inforamtion was removed. No fault of his own though.

I was just wondering what can be done to add a section about this emering artist, I have read the guidelines and am still unsure as the only information which was given about the section graeme add himself was said to "not explain importance".

Any Help would be great

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graememac (talk • contribs) 22:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:COI. There are notability requirements for biographies, information about musicians, and conflict of interest. If your client meets those guidelines, then surely someone else will find him worth posting about. Corvus cornix_talk 22:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

A vandalizing editor, MoHasanie, has moved the page Dania Ramirez to Majja Ramirez. I have no idea how to move it back. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Copana2002 (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation was given, and the original name is that used on the subject's website, so I've moved it back (you could have done this yourself, btw: just click the 'move' tab at the top of the page). Algebraist 23:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]