Help desk
< September 3	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

September 4

What's the difference between a Wikiproject and a Wikiportal?

Thanks.68.179.108.25 (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects are involved in actively maintaining and setting guidelines for their topic. For example, WikiProject U.S. Roads is in charge of articles about roads in the US, and as such have extensive guidelines on how articles should look and read. Portals (not Wikiportals) are rather passive introductions to a topic. Portal:Radio provides an introduction to the topic, links to relevant articles, and a featured picture. Xenon54 / talk / 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to look at it is that Wikiprojects are for editors and portals are for readers, primarily. Wikiprojects coordinate editors around a topic, where as portals provide readers with a way to navigate a topic. --Jayron32 03:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. :-D 68.179.108.25 (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any cute variations of the "User Alternate Acc" template

By the way, how would I refer to it without creating the template?

Thanks.68.179.108.25 (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at Category:Alternate Wikipedia account templates to see if that helps you. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 00:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you refer to it without creating the template two ways, depending on how you want it to look:

[[Template:User Alternate Acc]] produces Template:User Alternate Acc
{{tl|User Alternate Acc}} produces {{User Alternate Acc}}

--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the nowiki, thanks. :-D ,68.179.108.25 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

forgot to license image, now it is on commons, what can I do?

Hi, I made an image (here)and uploaded it on Wikipedia but I do not appear to have put on a license for that image, just for the software that created it. Can I add a license now? What are my choices for images? PDBailey (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty certain that, as the creator, you can add a licence tag now with no problems. If the image also exists at Commons, you should log in (or create an account) there and add the same licence to that page as well. --Jayron32 03:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll just want to be aware that wikipedia typically does not permit copyrighted material on the website. I'm not clear on what you're actual intention is. Perhaps it's just my own perspective, but simply using a graph application to visualize data that public domain isn't exactly something worth licensing. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per the image use policy, you are required to license all images uploaded to Wikipedia, or to tag images which have existing copyright (such as for use under the guise of fair use) or to tag them as Public domain should that apply. If it is an image created by the uploader, they are free to either license the image under a compatible free-use license such as CC-BY-SA or to formally release the image into the public domain. But the image page must still be tagged to indicate what its status is. --Jayron32 03:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what you mean—that Wikipedia doesn't normally allow non-free images, but note that much of our locally uploaded images are copyrighted images under no free license, displayed under fair use, and all material under free licenses such as CC-BY-SA and the GFDL is still copyrighted. Such free licenses remove restrictions on distributing copies and modified versions of a work for others but the copyright is preserved. We often call the combination of freely licensing copyrighted material in this manner, "copyleft". Thus, as far as I know the only material you will come across on Wikipedia that's isn't actually copyrighted is public domain material.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since (in this context) "public domain" is just another way of saying "uncopyrighted", that is trivially true. Algebraist 08:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was responding to Tiggerjay and when I edit conflicted with Jayron32, I carelessly increased the indentation level; it was very late for me. I think you'll see my post in a different light if you read it as directly underneath Tiggerjay's, as I meant it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... --Jayron32 19:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand this, "Perhaps it's just my own perspective, but simply using a graph application to visualize data that public domain isn't exactly something worth licensing." In what sense is graphing data not copyrightable? If this is true, why do I see so many "used with permission" tags on images in (academic) articles/books? PDBailey (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German Wikipedia

Not sure whether this is the right place to ask this question, but I've just discovered an account under my name on the German Wikipedia [1] This seems strange to me because firstly I activated my global account not long after registering and secondly I don't speak German so wouldn't attempt to edit something in the language. The edits appear to be good, but is it possible that someone has compromised my password? TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edits hopefully look familiar to you. ("Versionen" is history and "Unterschied" is diff. The edits were made in 5/09, 12/08, and 7/08.) It looks like a user on the German Wikipedia used Special:Export to grab a page you edited from the English Wikipedia, then Spezial:Import to import it to the German Wikipedia, then translated it into German. All previous edit history is preserved, which is why the edit summaries of those four edits are in English. I wouldn't worry about it. Xenon54 / talk / 12:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Must admit I was a bit worried about it, but I've checked them against the English versions and everything seems to be in order. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Sharpe

Adriana Sharpe is a self-taught, expressionistic painter that works predominately with oils and acrylics. Sharpe translates her passions and emotions through her artwork. She was born in Manbi, Ecuador and lived throughout South America until she moved to the United States at the age of 20. In her early years, Sharpe was mentored by Oswaldo Guayasamin. While still in Ecuador, she attended Universidad San Gregorio de Manabi for Graphic Design and Universidad tecnica de Manbi for Agriculture and Agronomics, which influences can be seen in many of her landscape paintings. Sharpe is identified by her ability to draw on raw human emotions and translating them through vivid colors and clean lines.

Speedy deletion & edit counts

I have recently been doing new page patrolling to increase my number of mainspace edits, but I noticed that my tagging pages for speedy deletion doesn't show up in my contributions. Does this mean that any edits I make to a deleted article don't count towards my edit count or show up in my contributions? Ks0stm ^(T•C) 14:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... It theoretically should show up. I do see the notifications showing up in contributions, but not the actual tagging.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 14:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Once a page is speedily deleted, the edits to that page disappear from your contributions. Deleted edits are only accessible to administrators. However, the edits are still reflected in your edit count, as displayed in your preferences. Whether or not deleted edits show up when using an edit counter depends on which one you use. Xenon54 / talk / 14:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Only administrators can see your edits to deleted articles. There are different edit counters and it varies whether they include edits to deleted articles. The count at Special:Preferences includes them. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It will show up under your deleted contributions. Some edit counters display this total and some do not. For example, my edit count here shows about 5,000 deleted edits. TN X Man 14:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmk, thanks, that's what I needed to know. Ks0stm ^(T•C) 23:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an extra point - your speedy tagging of an article vanishes from your edit history when the article is deleted, but your tagging notification to the page's author does not. If you notify an author that their page has been tagged, cutting and pasting the handy script generated automatically within the speedy deletion template, then you'll have an easy record of your speedy tagging activities, particularly if you namecheck the article itself in the notification's edit summary. Ka renjc 18:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing a redirect

What's the best place to discuss the target of a redirect? The redirect's talk page is also a redirect and so can't be used as a discussion forum. Powers ^T 14:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent, it depends on the specific case. The target's talk page, a "parent" article's talk page, a Wikiproject's talk page, or un-redirecting the talk page of the redirect and doing it there are all possible solutions, depending on what page you're talking about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Redirects for discussion. It's sort of like Articles for deletion. Redirects are discussed for a week, and consensus can be built to either keep, delete, or retarget the redirect. Xenon54 / talk / 14:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I forgot that RfD was "for discussion" and not "for deletion". Thanks. Powers ^T 15:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are sockpuppets permitted if they are, like, blatantly obvious?

Would it be as bad as an 8 year-old attempting to rob a bank with a plastic transparent squirt-gun, an old coot cat-calling a group of women--any one of which could kick his ass in seconds, or a drunk driving his riding lawnmover to the liquor store? Username—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.108.25 (talk)

That's like a totally righteous question!! Gee, you are one smart cookie! I don't see why not. I think everyone should have a blatantly obvious sockpuppet. Username's sockpuppet 68.179.108.25 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you've done isn't really socking, since both edits are attributed to the same IP address. For more details on sockpuppeting and legitimate alternatives, see this page. TN X Man 16:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets, as such, are not against the rules. Or maybe I should say "alternate accounts". It's the fraudulent use of such accounts that's against the rules - such as aiding in edit-warring, vote-stacking, and other rules violations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An admin will normally block a Sockpuppet if it passes the duck test. (aka, is blatantly obvious). In this case, you guys aren't socking, as it's the same IP, and not alternate accounts intended on disruption.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 17:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←)IP has apparently asked another question about alternate account templates above...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 18:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. I've asked 2 other questions here today. :-D
But as for my question, if the action is obvious, but not at all malicious; but used, uncommonly, for, say, examples, or even, in a rare case, humour, would it be wrong to create a sockpuppet account, that would be blatant, even using the word, and giving itself its own sock puppet template?68.179.108.25 (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are appropriate uses for alternate accounts. See WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Powers ^T 00:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Page Doesn't Show Up When I Search for It

I made a new wiki page and I can't find it when I do a regular search. Have I missed a step? The title of the page is Curtis J. Milhaupt. Thank you! 17:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustynyfeathers (talk • contribs)

It works now. Sometimes the search engine takes a while to index a new article. Frankly, Wikipedia's search engine is terrible, and if you would like you can use Google to search Wikipedia. Simply type in site:wiki.riteme.site after your search term. Xenon54 / talk / 17:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help

I dont KNOW WHERE TO GO ANYMORE IVE TRIED EVERYTHING I KNOW AND KEEP GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES I CANT GET IN TO MY FACE BOOK ACCOUNT I FORGOT MY PASSWORD AND EMAIL BUT MY NAME IS cHRISTINE SMITH BARTLEY AND IM ASKING ANYONE TO HELP ME GET BACK IN THERE IT HAS BEEN ABOUT 1 MONTH IVE BEEN GOING ROUNDS WITH THIS PLEASE HELP ME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.27.233 (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. TN X Man 17:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing A Protected Page

Hi,

I want to make a small addition to the article on Saturn, but the page is protected and has no Edit tab, just a View Source tab. How can I make or suggest an addition? Thanks in advance.Djcouture (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been semi protected, i.e, you can only edit it if you have an autoconfirmed account (been here for 4 days, with at least 10 edits). I know this is inconvenient, but it is necessary to prevent vandalism. You may discuss changes on the talk page, if you wish, or you could wait for 4 days. ƒ(Δ)² 17:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss on the talk page, or, make 9 more contributions, and wait 4 days.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 18:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "been here for 4 days, with at least 10 edits". Is that "4 days AND 10 edits" or "4 days OR 10 edits"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcouture (talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both, 4 days old and 10 edits. – ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I re-read your post and understand. I went to the Talk page and suggested my addition. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcouture (talk • contribs) 18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Title

I work for a non-profit organization and we recently posted information about our organization on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the person who posted this information did not list our name correctly in the title. How can I change the title?

MarnieKatzman (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you let us know what the article is, and what it needs to be called (and why), then it is possible to MOVE the article to the new name. I would recommend you post on the article's talk page first, explaining why the article name should be changed. Also, if you are associated with the organisation, I would suggest you read the conflict of interest policy. It shouldn't be a major issue, provided you are upfront on the talk page about your connections to the organisation. Stephen! ^Coming... 18:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be The Long Island Arts Council At freeport, but I have tagged it for speedy as not indicating importance or significance. – ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia accounts should only be used by one person. – ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Information

Resolved

– Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the name of a band to a page that described a well-known song and the names of bands that had duplicated it. The link of the band-name that I added links to something else that happens to share its name with the band. How do I fix the link so that it links to the correct page, the one about the band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupisluna (talk • contribs) 18:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I corrected the internal link for you, as you can see here. If you ever have this problem again all you need to do is add the destination before the actual text link you want displayed, like this for example - [[Jeff Beck|Jeff]] would show up like this: Jeff, as you can see although it displays "Jeff" only it will actually lead you to the Jeff Beck page. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 18:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am disgusted with Wikipedia and Wikicommons and I want my account and all contributions removed and deleted.

Thank you Palmisano007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From both accounts, Wikipedia and Wikicommons. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put simply, you cannot have your contributions deleted, you do however have the right to vanish. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Sorry that cannot be done, but you can exercise your right to vanish. – ukexpat (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like they said, can't be done, but, unless you think someone's going to search for you, you're unlikely to be found if you just stop editing. You can go a step farther by requesting a username change. see right to vanish for a more complete guide.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that you are annoyed at Wikipedia because you feel that the article Thomas A. Edson should not be deleted? The way to prevent this happening is to show that he is notable. I am not going into arguments on this issue (the correct place for that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas A. Edson), but I would point out that as the AfD was opened about 24 hours ago, there are still about 6 days left to raise different arguments. AfD isn't a vote - how many "deletes" and "keeps" there are isn't the criteria... it is the quality of the arguments. It is possible for there to be a lot of delete !votes and then there have been a couple of very strong arguments for keeping the article, and for the editors to change their recommendation. Not getting an article into Wikipedia is not a reason to leave, in my opinion. I'm not sure what your beef with Wikicommons is (I can't see anything obvious, just a file missing its sourcing). If you are intent on stopping your contributions to Wikipedia, follow the advice given above - your contributions cannot be removed in their entirety, and the histories of your account and the pages you have edited (even if they have been deleted) will remain on Wikipedia, but no one is forcing you to stay here. ps you might also want to heed AustralianRupert's advice on your talk page, under the heading of Home of Heroes. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that it's an excellent first effort at an article, and a moving tribute to the man portrayed. The layout and writing quality are strong, as well as the overall composition of the article. Please don't be discouraged if it turns out that he is simply not a suitable subject for the encycloepdia because editors have decided that merely winning a silver star does not automatically confer notability. There are some ironies about that, because winning nearly any contest that is national in scope (e.g. battle of the bands, a writing contest, a sports competition) often is, and we also have the much maligned "Pokemon Principle", by which everything that ever happens in that Japanese content franchise seems to be covere in Wikipedia. But they are innocent ironies, just the result of tens of thousands of volunteer editors. If I can read between the lines, it may be true that this indicates that the editors here have less desire than you would like to pay tribute to former American servicemen, but if that's your complaint I think you can put your indignation to more constructive use. Surely, you know there is a place for everything and Wikipedia may just not be the place for biographies of this sort. There are plenty of articles to write, and wrongs to be righted here on Wikipedia that are within reach, and we could use a good writer such as yourself. Also, if you can find any printed third party sources that mention him that could easily win the argument. Was his service record, or anything else specifically about him, mentioned in a book, a hometown newspaper, a military newspaper, etc? That's all people are asking for, third party sources that help establish that professional writers felt he was worth discussing. Wikidemon (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors With Agendas

What do you do when an article's editor is making edits based on a personal political point of view to improve the image of a controversial subject? Is there a process for requesting that editors be removed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.95 (talk)

All edits out here should adhere to WP:NPOV Biased edits which do not adhere to NPOV should be removed --Notedgrant (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Know of any cutey pie templates?

Know of any cutey pie templates? 68.179.108.25 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? hmwith t 21:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see some users have photo galleries. Are nekkid ladies permitted?

Resolved

– Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's a Friday. :-D Should it be on the user page or sub-page? Thanks, and have a nice weekend folks. :-D 68.179.108.25 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. As an IP user, you cannot have a userpage, though - it's one of the perks of getting an account. Xenon54 / talk / 22:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, see also WP:NOTMYSPACE. Wikipedia is not a webhost, and does not exist merely to host a bunch of pictures on your userspace. Also, WP:NOTCENSORED is not the same as WP:OFFENSIVEJUSTTOBESENSATIONALISTIC. Insofar as swear words or nudity is necessary for the content of an article (for example, a picture of a penis in the article on penis, or a dispassionate article on the word fuck), then we don't censor. However, that doesn't extend to turning your userpage into a TGP porn site. --Jayron32 01:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics regarding the creation of a Nassim Haramein article

Hello to any contributor - I hope I am posting this correctly because I am not that familiar with Wikipedia's debate or question-asking process. I hope you can all extend a bit of patience for any mistakes I make or any policies I may have missed.

This question is about writing a Nassim Haramein article WITHOUT having it deleted. While Wikipedia policies are available here, I had a hard time decifering, from the original Nassim Haramein article, what was "legit" or not.

Since Terrance McKenna and Deepak Chopra have a page, I feel it is only fair that Nassim Haramein be granted his own. It is unfair to blast Haramein with claims of "Pseudoscience" as grounds to remove an article about him as there are many others we could shoot down with this guideline alone.

I am aware that there were other violations inside the page posted, and I would like to know how they can be avoided. I would personally write a brief description of the man and his research, try to keep it as accurate as possible and even keep a Word version of it so it can be passed around and pre-approved before frustratingly going through another deletion debate.

again, I stress that using claims of "Pseudoscience" as grounds to remove an article about Nassim Haramein is completly perposterous. Should the rest of the issues be addressed, the article should be allowed to remain available.

Not to mention, Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher should also not be deleted on such loose grounds that are purely based on opinion. I mean, she's a real PhD! a little word about her could not hurt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Budwheizzah (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to use a user subpage to draft your proposed article and then seek come constructive criticism before attempting to move it into mainspace. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use the links posted on your talk page to read up the various criteria for inclusion, in order to be sure that they are met. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there someone who could help round up precisely what mostly blocked his article? It's a little difficult to gather everything from that deletion discussion. If anyone was involved in that debate, I'll welcome your help. Meanwhile I'll start producing a draft outside of Wikipedia and pre-review it as much as possible even before posting it ANYWHERE here. I want a "speedy addition" ;-) Green light on first try. If it means omitting elements where Nassim refers himself as the source (No Original Research, right?), than so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Budwheizzah (talk • contribs) 21:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nassim Haramein (2nd nomination), there was consensus that notability had not been established. Take a look at WP:N to see the criteria we apply, and see WP:RS for the appropriate sources to cite. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll revert yours if you revert mine."

As much as I luv Wikipedia, I have other commitments. Days might pass before I get online. During such time intervals, vandals, or those, with good intentions (keep in mind folks I was intending to ask this question hours ago), might "damage" if you will, my userpage (once I get around to creating an account) and articles.

Chances are others are in the same situation. Is there a process or means in which several users can keep check on each other's pages and articles for such puposes? Thanks.68.179.108.25 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all user page vandalism are noticed by recent changes patrollers, because it is pretty obvious there (few users have legit reasons to edit other users userpages). Failing that, there is always clue bot or other anti vandalism bots. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, users don't have articles. In other words, nobody owns any of the articles. Therefore, nobody is in charge of deciding who can and cannot edit any particular article. -- kainaw ™ 20:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's actually not a bad idea.. set up a WikiProject or something like Wikipedia:Watch my userpage where editors can sign up either as volunteers to watch others' pages and/or list their own userpages to be watched. But then again it could be a target for vandals. Interesting idea though. -- œ ^™ 01:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article

I have an article that I'd like to submit. It doesn't really fit into any of the existing categories, but most closely relates to Virtual Worlds. What should I do? I'd be happy to send the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TamiGriffith (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AFC Tiggerjay (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article vandalized

Resolved

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/50_Cent has been vandalized. all it says is "gay" Plase fix this issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.229.78 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalized. It's since been fixed. hmwith t 21:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalized version was only there for a few seconds before a bot reverted it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Submissions

Resolved

Why are all WP:AfC submissions within the Wikipedia talk namespace? Shouldn't they be in the Project namespace? Intelligentsium 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered users can only create pages in the talk namespaces. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Interesting. I did not know that before. Intelligentsium 00:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User access levels has more information about what different user groups can do. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]