Help desk
< February 18	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 20 >

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 19

Can only administrators close deletion debates at Possibly unfree files?

NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text of WP:PUF implies, though does not state directly, that only administrators should, saying "Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days...." However, Wikipedia does not have hard and fast rules about most things. If you look at precedent, you can see that non-admins are expressly given the go ahead to close many discussions, though they are asked to limit themselves to certain types of closures. See, for example, Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed, requested moves closing instructions (caveat, I wrote most of it, including the part about who should close debates, but there was discussion); Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions. The upshot is that yes, I think you can close these using the pages I've cited as precedent, but you should follow the spirit of these instructive pages, which I would summarize as 1) only close discussions where the result of the close doesn't require administration tools (I know, duh, but I've seen people attempt to do just this, and more than once [though even for some of these a non-admin can close and then ask an admin to take the action needed]) 2) Restrict your closes to the uncontroversial; avoid closing contentious debates 3) Don't close any process debate before the full listing period has run; and 4) Never close any discussion in which you have participated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify Fughettaboutit's second point: as a general rule, avoid closing any discussions which have a mixture of !votes. If all of them say "keep", no worries. If there is a mixture of "keep" and "delete", then leave it (obviously, if there were 10 !votes saying to keep, and just the nominator and one other editor saying to delete, the concensus will probably be to keep - but even then it depends on the arguments used.) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion cleanup - template help and/or advice needed.

Hi. I'd like to clean up closed discussions at Wikipedia:Public domain status of official government works, but I'm not sure how best do do it. I'm thinking of using one of the Collapse or Hidden templates, but I can't figure out which one is best/appropriate. (And wonder if having so many is good; deprecate some?) Moving and hiding/collapsing the dormant discussions is what I want to do. I suppose I could also use an auto-archive tool + search tool instead, but I don't think they're a good fit. All the discussions save the PR one are closed, IMO. --Elvey (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} may work. – ukexpat (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good fit, but thanks for the suggestion. --Elvey (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help me to compute this problem.

50g of sugar dissolved to 450g of water.How many percentage of sugar in the solution?Agnesdelatorre (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Intelligentsium 03:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this sort of stuff was supposed to be asked on the Reference Desks... Chevymontecarlo (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Native Instrument fm8

Does anyone know how to get the program back to its default settings? I messed up the settings and now it sounds like hell knows what, problem is, I am yet very new to the interface and can't quite figure out what exactly it is I changed that effected the sound. And I can't find any reset button or any thing like this to default everything - uninstalling doesnt help, this thing keeps all the settings somewhere else than only in its work directory, so whenever I install back as new it loads all the present settings back. hope someone knows how to clean install it. thnks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.83.238.8 (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to clear saved Templates

In the edit box the templates are not there but on the page they are ? at this page User:Mlpearc/Sandbox. How do I clear the templates between "hope" and " 1.1 My Sandbox" ? Mlpearc (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one template producing the text, User:Mlpearc/Status. If you remove that from the page, it will clear all that content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, now if I could only get my status indicator to work, I've had 5 people try to help me but I think I'm following thier instructions but I'm still "LOST" as my "indicator" will tell you. Mlpearc (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Mobile

Hello all,

I use Wikipedia on my BlackBerry (mobile.wikipedia.org) almost every day. Recently the following message appears after every search is attempted: wikipedia export error. I am not computer savvy at all, I have no idea (nor do I want to)know what this means. But if you could kindly fix the issue, that would be most appreciated.

Thanks, Random Wiki user from Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.202.66 (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get this error to now...if you pick (select) the Mobil version this will not happen..hopefully someone can help more but i asked this question 2 weeks ago and did not really get the answer that helped ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes in Template: namespace

Please assist I believe that all userboxes are to be moved to the user namespace, but I have found the following (deprecated) templates that are still in the template namespace:

Can someone please "adopt" them? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the purpose of User:UBX? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably All I know is that I nominated them for deletion, as they were deprecated and the outcome was to move them to userspace. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

200 blogs

I heve more then 200 countries blogs.i want past my blogs link in External links in relevant Countries blogger pages at Wikipedia. How can i do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajad0335 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your blogs, and are discouraged in Wikipedia:External links. 203.115.29.234 (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user page does not exist

I just noticed an entry on this page (previous entry) where the user page is redlinked, yet the user's talk page is bluelinked. Can someone explain to me how a user's talk page can exist without the user page? What causes this to happen? hello (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually quite common, especially for users who were recently created. User pages are normally only created when the user concerned decides to do do. There are many users who have not created a user page, either by choice or simply not knowing that they may do so. User talk pages on the other hand, are often initiated by users other than their "owner", perhaps by the use of the {{welcome}} template. There is no requirement for one to exist before the other. Your own page hello was created by yourself on 29 November 2008 (and in response to the questions which you posed there, see WP:USERPAGE), whilst your own talk page hello was created on 29 November 2008 by User:E Wing. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Shouldn't there be a highly visible spot on a regularly visited page for new users? A paragraph that lets the user know their options? Highly visible, meaning some place that cannot be overlooked. Is that even possible? Users that have been here for many years probably know the best page(s) to put this information, and putting it on the top of the page seems logical to me. NewYorkeruser (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone answer questions in my previous post? NewYorkeruser (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highly visible spot? Such as? Kayau Voting IS evil 04:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, we already have more than enough people here who only come here to create their own user page. Moreover, red links in every signature are already highly visible. Once you click on it, you will read:

Editing User:(your-name)

Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:(your-name).

That seems good enough to me. — Sebastian 18:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

I would like to use this image from Google Earth in an article. Do we have a sharing protocol with Panoramio? I have used imaged from geography.org.uk in the past, e.g. this picture. Is there a similar set up with Panoramio? •• Fly by Night (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fly by Night. The image is being used by Google Earth but it is from Panoramio and we have to look there for its license; that is the key issue, is the license of any particular image you want to use compatible with the free license we require. Note that all images copyrighted by Google Earth itself are unfree (see their terms of use). There is no sharing protocol, rather we can use Geography.org photographs because they are are freely licensed under the GNU Public Licence and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (see here which is compatible with the free license Wikimedia sites use for their content. Such images can be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons and used on all Wikimedia projects and should not be uploaded here (the image you identified as an example is tagged to be moved there).

Unlike that site, Panoramio allows its users to choose an images license, from keeping all rights to various creative commons licenses, some of which are not compatible with ours, so each panoramio photograph has to be checked for its license. The particular image your question is about is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported license, which is not compatible with our free license. See Acceptable licenses ("Publication of derivative work must be allowed"). So the image cannot be used here unless you can claim fair use, which I don't think is possible here.

To clarify, we also allow use of unfree images to be uploaded locally (on Wikipedia; not to the Commons) under certain circumstances where we can claim fair use, but fair use requires a laundry list of criteria to apply, and images of landscapes such as this are usually said to be reproducible (a free equivalent could be created) and so do not qualify for fair use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is not about any specific vandalism.

I have noticed lots of reverts of vandalism that had been reported.

Why does the vandalism occur?
How many (or what percentage of) vandalized articles are marked as having been vandalized?
What can be done to eliminate the vandalism?
Could there be some kind of Bot that reverted vandalism as soon as it appeared, and reported it to administrators?

I am not really expecting much of a response. But I have noticed way too much vandalism. Wikipedia should be a safe site for everyone. No one has vandalized me (or anything I wrote, to my knowledge), but still it makes me feel less safe.
(would you continue to go to a local store if you heard that it was constantly vandalized, even if this never happened to you?) This last sentence is rhetorical. hello (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to answer you non-rhetorical questions:

Why does vandalism occur? Because this is the encyclopedia which anyone can edit. This fact is both Wikipedia's greatest strength and its greatest weakness. There will always be people who will vandalise pages. Sometimes this is because they are experimenting, and don't realise that what they edit will be visible immediately (I often see instances where the same editor quickly removes their vandalism, as they realise this). Sometimes it is the work of blocked or banned users, who just want to "get back" at Wikipedia. Sometimes it is for the same reason that people vandalise in the real world - it can be done, and they want to feel that they've done something.
I have no idea, but I would guess that a large %age are marked as vandalism pretty quickly. It would be hard to be sure, because if its not been marked, how would we know?
Well, there are various possibilities (such as [WP:FLR|Flagged Revisions]]) but at the moment, it is mainly a case of a combination of New Page Patrol/Recent Changes patrol and editors who look at an article, see vandalism, and remove it.
Some vandalism is automatically reverted by bots - but a lot of vandalism can be hard for a bot to recognise. For example, if I changed the entry for Michael Caine to say that he was born in Jamaica, then that would be vandalism - but saying that Bob Marley was born in Jamaica would not be vandalism - how would a bot know the difference? Obvious vandalism (like removing references, random characters being added, etc) can be identified by a bot, but most cannot.

Although I understand your concerns, the rate of vandalism is not as great as you seem to think. The vast majority of Wikipedia's 3 million+ articles do not contain vandalism.

The only way to make totally sure that no vandalism is ever present in articles is to either restrict editing to certain people, or to not allow edits to be instantly seen.

The former would mean that Wikipedia is no longer the encyclopedia which anyone can edit. The latter would mean that people who notice something wrong or missing in an article will not bother to make changes, as they will not see the change appear. As everyone here is a volunteer, it may be a while before verified changes are added to an article - this would prevent vandalism being seen, but it would also mean that articles would not be up-to-date (for example, if someone dies, their article can reflect this fact within seconds of the press reporting it - if that change had to be held until approved, this fact may not be seen for a few days).

Using your analogy: you can prevent vandalism to a shop if you only allow people near a shop if they can prove that they will not cause damage - which means that a lot of your customers won't bother, as they won't want to be strip-searched or scanned just to buy a bag of sugar!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, I notice that most of the article that you work on are about places. These have a higher-than-average vandalism, as people will think "this place I live in is shit" and then vandalise the article about that place. The other main target for vandalism is high-profile people, where people think "oh, lots of people will look at this article, let's do something that they will notice." If you look at articles about (chosen at random) 2007 Legg Mason Tennis Classic, which many people would not have heard about, or Woolly Dormouse or Ferdinando Castagnoli or George Edmondstone, then you will not see vandalism. The highest targets for vandalism are articles about well-known people, articles about places, and articles about schools/colleges. Most other subjects have relatively little vandalism - for example, of the 27 articles about the Gliridae (Dormice) family, hardly any of them have had any vandalism, despite having been on Wikipedia for more than 2-1/2 years. Why? Because it's not a subject which a vandal would think about, and so any vandalism which they would do would not be seen by many people - the exception here is the 'edible dormouse', which has been vandalised a couple of times. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Id just like to add to steves response; The best way to cut down vandalsim is for editors like you, myself and as many as possible to be familliar with what is vandalsim (see Wikipedia:Vandalism ) and to particiapte in reverting it. One approach I use is I 'watch' the pages that i think are targets of persistant vandals. When i start editing on wp i check 'my watchlist' at the start of each editing session. If I see any vandalism i revert it. Its a small contribution, but at least some pages which would be trageted for vandalism alot are more safe for viewing for the average user. Anyway if your interested in learning more about how to help with fighting vanadalism feel free to post here. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see below, I was, and to an extent still am, at my wits end about it. For the time and effort I put into this, I might as well set up my own site and make my own articles, with no one editting them--save perhaps some hacker, though I suppose that's far rarer (I'm guessing). You might try another wiki--the less they are used, the less likely you are vanadalized. One thing that can be said about Wikipedia is the feedback you get when your stuff is editted, though that happens rarely--save for some points about notability. Btw, I don't think it's a safety issue as much as an annoyance, time-killing, one. Have a nice weekend.;-)70.54.181.70 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your explanations. I have already helped out a little. I make (have made) changes to pages that have inaccurate or missing information, mostly to the pages pertaining to New York state. Also, I notified other users about a certain vandalism that had occurred to The Most Extreme by posting at the talk page. I undid an obvious bit of vandalism on the page List of towns in New York where Hudson Falls was said to be a town. That is all that I have seen for myself. I would have difficulty recognizing vandalism, simply because I visit so few pages, and do not know the facts to any of them, except certain pages local to my area of New York. hello (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nice thing about crowd-sourcing vandalism removal is that there is someone sitting at their computer screen now, three thousand miles away from you, who only feels comfortable reverting vandalism to articles about Western Oregon. And another one who knows all about Eastern Queensland. And another who edits and patrols plumbing-related articles. It's not perfect, by any means, but it isn't as hopeless as it sometimes feels either. Thanks for doing "your share" here, it's appreciated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This topic can be marked as 'Resolved'. I am happy with the resolution. NewYorkeruser (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing in Search

Hi there -

I'm editing the page for "Oedipus (DJ)." We (Oedipus and I) were wondering why his page doesn't show up as a dropdown when you type "Oedipus" in the search box. There are a LOT of "Oedipus" listings, just not his.

Alternately - what designates which entries show up there?

Thanks for any help!

--Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkleeboy (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It only shows 10 listings at a time, so that is why it Oedipus (DJ) doesn't show up if you only type "Oedipus". If you type "Oedipus (D", then it will show up. I believe it sorts pages based on how many other Wikipedia pages are linked to it, in order from highest to lowest. --Mysdaao ^talk 15:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On another topic, the subject of the article should not be editing it. That is a conflict of interest, and this is strongly discouraged. For non-minor changes, he should instead make recommendations on the article's talk page and let other users decide whether to make the edits or not. --Mysdaao ^talk 15:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and the hagiography needs to be dialled right down. Phrases such as "countless awards" (bet I could count them), "acclaimed" (by whom ??), and "most provocative" do not belong in Wikipedia articles - see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major Unexplained Deletions in Flash Animation Article

I keep tabs on the article for Flash Animation and today I noticed that on 2/12/10 the bulk of the article was deleted without explanation by an unidentified user. The bottom of the article now has what looks like un-parsed HTML code, so perhaps this is some kind of mistake. I left a note in the Talk section as well.

Xtasia (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looked like test edits to me. I have reverted them. Feel free to do so yourself next time - see the guidance here. Thanks for letting us know. Ka renjc 17:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, on closer inspection the test edits were only part of it. From the edit summary I think the mass deletions were done in order to remove external links embedded in the article. The words "baby" and "bathwater" spring to mind, and I'll have a good look at the deleted text and try to restore it. Ka renjc 17:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I deal with this edit fight?

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks ago, I added to the Richard Manitoba article. It was edited out. I edited it back in. It was edited out again. I edited back in then asked for help here. How do I prevent an edit fight?. This lead to me being told that I had to find better sources. I did. The editing out continued. This person seems to do little more than editing out my content. Here’s his/her IP User talk:66.65.94.122. A few other Wikipedians, to their credit—God bless them, have warned him—last warning even; yet within 18 hours another account starts at the Dick Manitoba article. In less than 30 hours, this account, User talk:Richeye has done vandal edits—5 for Dick Manitoba, one for Caribou (musician). Now, if he wants an edit war—with lots of vandalism, I can give him one. I have about 10 IP addresses I can avail of. I live in Toronto, and for a few dollars, I can use an IP 30 km away. I’m already forking the content to both to other wikis (not related to WM). However, this could be averted, assuming my patience fails, with some consideration of blocking, SP tags, a protection (with my sourced edits—from CBC—included). What’s the process for getting the latter three started? Thank you.70.54.181.70 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HE DID IT AGAIN!!! NEXT EDITTING OUT HE DOES, THERE WILL BE SOME MAJOR VANDALISM!!!70.54.181.70 (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK first of all I understand your frustration but this comment by you is unacceptable. On the reverts, I have reported the IP user to WP:AIV. – ukexpat (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Now I suppose I'll have to tolerate this bullshit until he gets another sockpuppet. You haven't seem to report his current sockpuppet.

Understand my frustration? Conservapedia has the 90%/10% rule. I suppose this is the Wikipedia version. I have to source it, and then source again (so the Dickhead fans can salve their fragile egos) and fight, for something I heard a number of times on the CBC, 10x more than when I did originally sourced it, for some asshole--possibly Dickhead Manitoba himself--can remove with no explaination?

Unacceptable?!? Whattaya gonna do, block me? I'll be on another computer in a few hours.

Protect his version of Dickhead Manitoba? Through inaction WP already is. >:-( 70.54.181.70 (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK enough, if you are not prepared to interact appropriately with other editors, then no one will be inclined to help you. – ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he has another sockpuppet.
User talk:Urbanshocker
70.54.181.70 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah enough. Actually, User talk:66.65.94.122 has been blocked for 31 hours, by User:LessHeard vanU--bless him; but for only 31 hours. So 1/3 of this guys SP's is out until half the weekend. As for inappropriate, who have I insulted? The vandal and the subject of the article. I've been generally respectful to others.

You know what articles I should read, perhaps take a bit to heart:
Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks, Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals, Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism, Wikipedia:Drama, Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow

I need to relax. I think I'll listen to some Caribou right now. Thanks for your help--all of you.
:)
70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone an "asshole" is a personal attack no matter how you look at it. So, yes, your own advice re personal attacks is good to follow. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, the issue ain't resolved.
But you know what? What if I refrained from editting the two articles myself? Let you guys and others deal with it. I've wasted way too much time on this. I'll let the process take care of itself.70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate issue is resolved, the IP has been blocked. If the vandalism continues, the admins' noticeboard is here.. – ukexpat (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if, once this is in the archives, I'll be referring to it at a later date, as I did my earlier question in the first posting here.70.54.181.70 (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism continues.70.54.181.70 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ukexpat referred me to the WP:AIV, buy I can't seem to get it posted, so I'll put it in his/her page as well as a few others.

"I was referred to WP:AIV from the Help Desk in the event of continued vandalism.

The articles affected are:
Caribou (musician) and Richard Manitoba.

I believe there is one person using 4, possibly 5 accounts for vandalism.

The one with the oldest record is Special:Contributions/Urbanshocker.
It has a record of 29 edits, most of Manitoba (disambiguation), as well as Caribou (musician), and Richard Manitoba.
It’s been blocked for 1 week.

The account with the most recent activity is: Special:Contributions/User:66.65.94.122.
13 out of its 15 edits where of Caribou and Richard Manitoba.
A few days ago, it was blocked for 31 hours.

After it was given its last warning a few days before that, Special:Contributions/Richeye came into existence. It made 6 edits: 5 of Richard Manitoba, 1 of Caribou (musician).

After the blocking of User talk:66.65.94.122, and within minutes after User:Urbanshocker was blocked came Special:Contributions/User:69.115.14.50, and Special:Contributions/Bxbmber‎ less than 5 hours after that. Each have only one edit: Richard Manitoba, same vandalism.

All remove my edits to Richard Manitoba, which has been sourced and supported by others; or add a non-sourced superfluous line in Caribou (musician)about Richard Manitoba being his legal and stage name.

I admit I lost my temper over this, and vented here Wikipedia:Help desk#How do I deal with this edit fight.3F, Though I’m feeling a bit better.

I request the following:
(1) that all of these accounts be blocked
(2) at the very least, be marked as sockpuppets—I suppose of the account with the earliest history (though I’m unsure what WP policy is of this)
(3) and mostly the 2 articles (with my edit) be protected. One might also include Manitoba (disambiguation) which he vandalized in the past.

Thank you."
70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

people editing my page

I need to be the only person who can edit MY page as people are adding untrue notes to it. Someone please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butcherfan (talk • contribs) 17:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OWN – it's not "your" page. If you have a problem with the content being added, air your concerns on the article's talk page and be ready to discuss them civilly. — Bility (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Butcher is not your page. See WP:OWN. It is an article on Wikipedia, and anyone can edit it. If you have a difference of opinion with another editor over what should be included in the article, the first place to discuss it is the article's talk page. Ka renjc 17:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the aritcle I am adding -- Wiki says its vandalism

I am trying to add an article about myself with references/citations to LinkedIn etc ... but my article was removed and states its vandalsim.

I am totally confused, lost and disgusted by Wiki. I spent the last hour trying to make it work.

Please help

Yves <blanked> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yveslk (talk • contribs) 17:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your page has been deleted because it does not indicate why it is notable enough to warrant inclusion and looks like advertising as well. Please see our info on conflict of interest and our guide to writing your first article. TN X Man 17:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your user page looks like a resume fishing for employment, and that's not acceptable either. Tagged for deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are other outlets. Take a look at Wikipopuli and Wikibios. – ukexpat (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tag for needing more references, especially inline

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the tag for saying that an article needs more references, especially inline citations? (I think Chess tactics needs it.) Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 19:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is {{inline}}, which I have added for you. Intelligentsium 19:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a redirect to {{No footnotes}}. – ukexpat (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. In fact, as the article already has one footnote, {{more footnotes}} would probably be better; I have changed it, though with a strange edit summary due to an autocomplete malfunction. Intelligentsium 19:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I knew I had seen tags like that, but I couldn't remember them. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 19:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall County image

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Kendall County, Illinois article, there is an image in the demographics section regarding the 2000 census showing an age pyramid. The image in the article looks like someone scribbled all over the ages in the middle of the picture, yet if you click on the actual image, it looks fine. Is something wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.246.1 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a problem with the svg rendering at small image sizes. – ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new version of the file and it appears to be scaling well now. In the future, you can also make a request at the Graphic Lab. — Bility (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Some day I'll figure out svgs. – ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to Wiki

How do I post a new word with a definition?Protein123 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See #New word coined above. — Bility (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It's best that you don't. New words are generally considered neologisms, which are inappropriate for listing on Wikipedia. TN X Man 19:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erb Institute

Need clean-up. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 21:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, er, maybe try to fix it yourself? – ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Want to do it but couldn't find the time. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 21:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag it with clean up tags (if you haven't done so already) or perhaps add a request at the Wikipedia:Reward board. The help desk is more for specific problems than for general improvement requests. Liquidluck✽talk 23:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cluebot an ex-bot?

Anyone know what's up with Cluebot? It hasn't archived WP:RFF for a number of days. Has it shuffled off this digital coil? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered asking at user talk:Cluebot? — Sebastian 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong info

there is wrong information in an article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.235.84 (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the article's name? Liquidluck✽talk 23:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]