Help desk
< February 17	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 19 >

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

February 18

How to delete slanderous information and update with correct information

I am requesting suppression and the ability to further edit comments and information about our company that are inaccurate and slanderous. I have made attempts to edit the information and have noticed that it appears to be automatically undone by an unknown IP address (see log below).

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Harris_ranch

The offensive statement is:

Known to travelers for a "ripe, tangy odor",[4] the ranch is nicknamed "Cowschwitz".[3][5][6][7][8]

We need this permanently removed and for us to have the ability to remove it should it appear again as well as the ability to change inaccurate and referenced information as they are outdated.

• (cur) (prev) 01:35, 10 February 2010 Wikidemon (talk | contribs) (6,281 bytes) (→Description and products: 3 more cites for this...) (undo) • (cur) (prev) 00:55, 10 February 2010 76.102.12.35 (talk) (5,581 bytes) (Undid revision 343052976 by Mbaust (talk)) (undo) • (cur) (prev) 00:54, 10 February 2010 Mbaust (talk | contribs) (4,936 bytes) (removed references that are offensive and slanderous.) (undo) (Tag: references removed) • (cur) (prev) 00:35, 10 February 2010 76.102.12.35 (talk) (5,581 bytes) (Undid revision 343049322 by Mbaust (talk)) (undo) • (cur) (prev) 00:35, 10 February 2010 Mbaust (talk | contribs) (5,530 bytes) (undo) • (cur) (prev) 00:27, 10 February 2010 76.102.12.35 (talk) (5,581 bytes) (Undid revision 343046201 by Mbaust (talk)) (undo)

Mbaust (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned, you need to take the issue up with the Los Angeles Times, which has used the phrases "[ripe, tangy odor" and "Cowschwitz". Wikipedia is merely using reliable sources to report on what they say. If the Los Angeles Times has printed a retraction of these statements, then could you indicate where it has done so, so that we can update the Wikipedia article? Otherwise, I don't see where Wikipedia should be found at fault for using an otherwise reliable source such as the Los Angeles Times. --Jayron32 18:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best to bring this up on the articles Talk:Harris Ranch ..however Jayron32 i see no problem removing "Known to travelers for a "ripe, tangy odor" as this is a POV statement (maybe i think in smells like mint etc.. not allowed) ..The references for this does come form a major news paper however..its a review from one person and not a news article!!...I take it you work there or something ..do people not call it "Cowschwitz" because there are a few references for that that are fine!!!...Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those statements are sourced to reliable sources so comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. You may not like them, but they are sourced. No one owns the article, and you cannot "demand" to have anything changed, or to have exclusive editing rights to the article. If you have issues with the article, please discuss them on the article's talk page as you have a conflict of interest. – ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See i read this and understand things a little different..I see that even if the source is verifiability does not mean its appropriate for the encyclopedia ...but i take it this is why there is always debate on this type of things...Wiki "how to articles" over lap alot!!...anyways best this is done on the article talk page.. Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most relevant here would be WP:UNDUE, I'm thinking. I've given the original querent the usual WP:OWN and COI warnings. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster could study the methods used by a group of editors to successfully censor all mention of Nadine Gordimer's robbery from her article. See Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 and the following archive pages. On Wikipedia, if enough determined editors don't want some well-sourced but problematic information to appear in an article about someone, they can outlast the people who want to include it. But this type of censorship generally has to be a group effort, and there needs to be an ideology of some sort behind it. Wikipedia probably has less sympathy for businesses that want to censor unflattering facts about their business. --Teratornis (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do even half of the bands here belong in this category?

Category:2010s music groups
205.189.194.250 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be worried about the fact that these bands were not created in 2010; or that these bands are not notable enough for being included on Wikipedia? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat my question. Just what is the criteria to be included in the category? I presume it's for when they were formed.70.54.181.70 (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your presumption, compare the similar categories used where the exact year of birth is unknown - Category:1960s births for example. – ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generation X's in there? Wasn't Billy Idol born in the 50's. :-D
70.54.181.70 (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the category page itself says it is for "Musical ensembles active (touring and/or recording) during the 2010s", and has since its creation. — Bility (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Me. This is the category I was thinking more of:
Category:Musical groups established in 2010
:D
70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user at 70.29.210.242, problems with...

I have a problem with an Anonymous user at 70.29.210.242 who is inserting flags into at least one article. Please see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Mission_of_Honor#Dear_70.29.210.242_: for a discussion on it.
Am I not correct that if you're going to insert a flag, then you should at least log in with an ID? This seems to me as totally inappropriate behavior.

~~BTW, where do I go to see an these published guidelines I keep hearing about, and is there an abridged version of them?~~
I just re-found this link http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines.

LP-mn (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LP-mn (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is required to log in to add tags or for most other tasks. There is a short list of things that you must log in for, some of them are:

Create a new article
!vote in a request for adminship and other elections
Edit semi-protected articles

There may be others but those are the main one where you must be logged in. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm... OK, but I still find anonymous edits bothersome.
LP-mn (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments above appear to be an attack on another editor, I would recommend striking your comment. Comments should be about content not the person. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is completely correct, and calling them "sleazy" only further hurts your case. Wikipedia is not a plot guide - I have to say this is one of the longest plot sections I've ever seen. Plot sections that long can run into copyright issues. Plot sections should be short and should not be the focal point of the article; instead, the article should focus on covering real-world aspects of the work, such as reception. Xenon54 / talk / 01:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've modified it. BTW, I do agree about the length of the summary. I've even _partially_ agreed about the accuracy. It's the anonymity of some critiques that bothers me.
LP-mn (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FA nominations

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an article in my sites that I want to nominate for FA status. I've never edited it or added on it, so can I still nominate it? I remember reading somewhere that to nominate an FA article you need to be a major contributor. Renaissancee (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:FAC - I think it's all explained there. – ukexpat (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. – ukexpat (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blinking text

Is blinking text permitted on article talk pages? Gerardw (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on WP:MOSCOLOR, no. – ukexpat (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious user

I could find help files on reporting problematic entries, but not on problematic users. One user, who perhaps made no other contributions to any page, vandalized M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun. Is there a procedure or anything I should do to report the user, perhaps for banning? --Thatnewguy (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV is the place to report vandals, once appropriate user talk page warnings have been given. – ukexpat (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can report obvious and persistent vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Before posting there, a final warning in an escalating series should have been posted to the user's talk page (for example {{Uw-vandal4}}, {{Uw-spam4}} or {{Uw-speedy4}}), and the user must have vandalized within the last few hours, including after the final warning was given. Various warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Your block request is unlikely to be acted upon unless you follow these steps. Cases that are not simple vandalism can be reported at WP:AN/I. Of course, in conjunction with warning against and reporting vandalism, you have the ability, mandate and are encouraged to revert all instances of vandalism you find yourself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. uw-vandal4 and uw-vandal3 both seemed appropriate; I placed #4 in the user talk page. An interesting note, though: A different vandal from a few days earlier had some of the same odd style of vandalism, and at least one of the same changes; that earlier vandal has been blocked. I don't know if it's possible to see if the two users are really the same, or to put additional attention onto the page, or if any of those steps is even necessary. I confess I don't have as much time these days to watch pages. --Thatnewguy (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you suspect that editor #2 is the blocked user editing with a new account to evade the block, ie a sockpuppet, you can file a report at WP:SPI where users with check user rights will investigate. – ukexpat (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISP history

how do I get my isp removed from history. I did some editing before I created an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorls2 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except in very limited circumstances (see WP:OVERSIGHT), that is not possible. – ukexpat (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This link would help in understanding how to contact the oversight team. Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you make it very obvious that you are the same editor, no one will know! Just continue editing with your current account, and ignore the other edits. Although very rare, there have been occasions in the past few years (I'd guess a handful - and not for over a year or so!) but even if it was an article which I also edited when I signed in, I doubt that anyone would know which ones were the IP edits that I did. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LOGGEDOUT. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fake template "transcluding" categories on pages

Please help Bill Paxton, Frailty, and The Greatest Game Ever Played all have the following in them: {{Navbox |name = Bill Paxton |title = Films directed by [[Bill Paxton]] |state = {{{state|autocollapse}}} |list1 = ''[[Frailty]]'' (2001){{·w}} ''[[The Greatest Game Ever Played]]'' (2005) [[Category:American film director templates|Paxton, Bill]] [[Category:Film writer templates|Paxton, Bill]] [[Category:Films directed by Bill Paxton| ]]}} Can someone please fix this (I would, but I can't)? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong with them? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no categories added by {{Bill Paxton}}. The template is in Category:American film director templates but does not add that category to any articles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happened here was that 216.211.126.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in good faith added {{Bill Paxton}} to the three articles it was intended for, but substituted it. I replaced it with the transcluded template. The categories are no longer propagating through to the articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was gadget. Before I replace the substituted with the transcluded, the template categories were propagating into all three articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the colour of links to footnotes

Resolved

– Discussion ongoing on article talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:M25 motorway#Proposal re km and miles we are discussing ways of presenting clarifying information. I would like to introduce a link to a footnote in a couple of table cells that have white text on a black background. I cannot find any way to make the colour of the link to the footnote anything other than the standard blue, which does not show up very well. Is there a way to do this? Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied there. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph in article deletes remainder

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm trying to add a paragraph to the Moscow Monorail article that I translated from ru.wiki. When I add it, it appears, but the text about the stations, the see also and the references tag disappear from the page, even though they are still in wikitext when I click edit. Any Help?

Buggie111 (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buggie111: It's a broken set of ref tags, as the "cite error" message at the end of the page suggests: you are using </ ref> instead of the correct </ref> to close your reference. Substitute the latter in the two places where the former occurs and the problem will be solved. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone has already done so. I was too lazy to check my watchlist

Buggie111 (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of heads of state

Should a list of heads of state of a country be splited in many sections by national periods, or should it be an uninterrupted line and notice such things at an "observations" field? MBelgrano (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My gut reaction is it should be split into sections by national periods, assuming those periods are of significance. Sections usually make things much more legible.--212.183.140.51 (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, see List of Presidents of the French Republic for example. – ukexpat (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook full?

I am using the Monobook skin and lately when I add a userscript to the Custom JS subpage (?) it does not work as it should. After adding the script and saving that edit my entire screen fills up with code—covering even the Wikipedia logo—I then either reload that page or purge the cache and that code is not longer there on my screen as it was, but it is also no longer in my Monobook page hwere I cut and pasted it. What to do?--Supertouch (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any edits from you to any .js files in your userspace - which page, exactly, were you working on? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be on my Monobook.JS subpage, I just checked the history and it showed no new edits even though I have edited since Feb 8?!?--Supertouch (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it's the document.write part. Try replacing

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' + 'http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Dschwen/highlightredirects.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

with

importScript('User:Dschwen/highlightredirects.js');

— Bility (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further inspection, I see there are two more instances of document.write near the bottom, which, if added more recently, might be the problems. I had the same situation one time with the JavaScript writing to the body of the document instead of the head. — Bility (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the scripts having write in them and everything else works fine. Thanks for the tip. Regarding other scripts, I suppose will work and others won't, especially considering that I use a Mac.--Supertouch (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tested your monobook.js on my (Windows) computer, and changing all the document.write stuff to importScript() worked for me as well. — Bility (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did so as well, and it resolved my problems but now I can't find the scripts I was trying to install...--Supertouch (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing a non free image with a free image

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a problem: I think that this non free image can be replaced with this free image in this page, but I don't know which is the right template to request its deletion, after replacing it. (since the image in question is used only in the aforementioned page)--Super Secret 21:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{di-orphaned fair use}} would be the right one - don't forget to subst it! – ukexpat (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, Thank you.--Super Secret 23:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects on watchlist

I've looked high and low through the FAQ but I haven't found an answer for my question. Does anyone know how I can tell whether a page on my watchlist is a redirect or not? For instance, having the redirects show up in italics or anything like that. The reason is, some of the changes I track are page moves themselves. Many thanks! Please post a note on my talk page if you supply and answer so I know when to come back :-) Seven Letters 22:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects in the watchlist don't have any special markup in their tags, so there's no way to tell them apart for the purposes of adding a special style to them in your user CSS page. It could probably be done with JavaScript, but it would take a while to execute, especially if you have your watchlist set to show a lot of changes. — Bility (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia search list

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I type a letter in the search box, it gives a list of results.
But why I am limited ONLY to wikipedia articles (I mean, those that start with 'Wikipedia') when I am signed in?
I have been using wikipedia since well before I became a member and have always been able to find things (to some extent).
If I am NOT signed in, I can find the items for which I am searching.

For example, if I search for Altamont and type in the letters alta, I only get the result 'Wikipedia:ALTACC' while signed in.
I do not even get Dinosaur as a possibility when I type in dino, yet this page exists.
If I search for Altamont and type in the letters alta, I come up with many possibilities, including Altamont, New York while NOT signed in.

This is NOT about the search results; this is about the search possibilities before actually clicking 'go' or 'search'.

Why does this happen? Is this a temporary and/or recent problem? Is there something that I need to do when signed in to get to the pages easily? (It is not easy to get to a page if you do not know the exact page name and it does not come up in the list.) hello (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your "my preferences", in the "search options" tab, do you have the correct namespaces checked? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think. I did not see that page. However, when I made changes there, I made it even worse. I find zero possibilities when I type in a. I have marked (put an X) to article, talk, wikipedia, template, and template talk. If the above links to Altamont and Dinosaur are articles, then why do they not show up in results? hello (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm. This may not be the problem after all. But at least for now, put an X in all namespaces, including the "search all namespaces" box, so you're back to only one problem. ~~Have you recently added anything to your Special:MyPage/monobook.js page?~~ (you don't have one). Did you install WP:Beta? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out the problem. It is the 'disable AJAX suggestions'. I did not know what AJAX was so it was disabled. I enabled it, with only the five marked areas as shown above. I now get all the suggestions that I expect to get. I find several Altamont possibilities and Dinosaur is there as well. hello (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is AJAX? It seems to be an acronym. For what? Also, when I had AJAX disbled (until minutes ago), I was able to find some suggestions, particularly the wikipedia stuff? If suggestions is disabled then I should get nothing, right? hello (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can do is give you a link: Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Guide/Ajax. Now you know as much as me. Glad it worked out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! hello (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetized lists

In a table in which you can alphabetize the columns, how do you get it to ignore the words "the" or "a" at the beginning of table text? 2J Bäkkvire Maestro ^{Test UR Skill!} _{What I've Done} 22:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could put an invisible sort key before the text like:

<span style="display:none">table item, the<span>the table item

Wikipedia may even have a template for that type of thing, as I imagine it could be used in lots of sortable tables. — Bility (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Sorting and Category:Sorting templates. You might want {{sort}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AJAX in wikipedia searches

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what AJAX really is? The link provided for me under the heading "Wikipedia search list" above seems NOT at all like what I wanted to know. It talks about programming (of which I know NOTHING); it does not mention anything about searching. Wikipedia allows users to disable AJAX suggestions. What is being disabled? Or maybe it would be easier for someone literate to paraphrase this sentence "AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML) is a popular name for a web programming technique that queries the server or fetches content without reloading the entire page." The 'fetches content' part seems interesting. What is that? hello (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, it simply means your browser can request and receive information from a server without navigating away from the page you're currently on. In this case, as you type into the search box, an AJAX request asks Wikipedia which results what you're typing matches, and displays them as the suggested terms list. That's a non-technical explanation, and might not be 100% accurate, but it sounded like you were asking for. — Bility (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thanks! That sounds right. Your explanation is easy-to-understand. The AJAX suggestions was turned off in my account until today simply because I did not know what it was. Now, I know and understand. It seems that other web sites use AJAX. I have seen the same kind of thing elsewhere. hello (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax interactions are one of the defining characteristics of Web 2.0, so you see them all over the place. People who didn't program web pages before the advent of Ajax probably don't realise how earth-shattering an advance it was to be able to go and get some more information without loading a new page. --ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable Sources

What can I do, when a page has informations based on a blatantly biased source, which in turn does not cite it's own sources? I am specifically talking about Beneš Decrees and Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia pages, which abundantly cite Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen, which however is absolutely not a neutral source, uses weasel words in it's explanation of history, and does not cite where does it get informations from. What can I do about this situation?

There are absolutely unsourced claims being thrown around, and it seems to me that "citation needed" does not cut it, and a complete re-write is in order. On both pages the talk section has grown terribly quiet, however, and so it seems the interest of the community is minimal, and therefore it's unlikely I may ever get community's consent. --147.228.209.170 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might try posting at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard which is a centralized discussion areas dedicated to discussing such issues.--SPhilbrick T 01:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New word coined

Hi All,

I have coined a new word; Povernment - A government that taxes people into poverty.

I was wondering how I would go about publishing that in your Dictionary section.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

sincerely,

Hope Eternal Reigns —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope Eternal Reigns (talk • contribs) 23:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be included in Wikipedia there must be discussion of the word in reliable sources If you just coined the word it probably is not notable enough for inclusion. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Sorry, but Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a place for things made up one day. Typically, for a word to merit a Wikipedia article the word must already be widely used and documented by reliable, third-party sources. The article may then discuss the emergence, popularity, and meaning of the word. Thus, "povernment" is not yet ready for Wikipedia. If, in the future, the word becomes a common term, it may merit an article then.

If you are thinking about creating a page on the Wikitionary, read their criteria for inclusion first. Thanks, Liquidluck✽talk 00:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Although we might need to coin one for people who take a brief glance at Wikipedia and misunderstand what Wikipedia is for. --Teratornis (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that the suggested neologism isn't likely to get much support from reliable sources, as the more poverty a nation has, the less effective its tax-collecting agencies usually are. I heard from an economics professor once that one of the major challenges facing developing nations is that many of them cannot reliably collect taxes. This suggests that one way to get tax relief is to move to a poor country. A failed state like Somalia might be even better, although you'd probably have to pay bribes to the local warlord. TANSTAAFL. --Teratornis (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]