Help desk
< November 27	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 29 >

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.

November 28

donation by BPay

Tried to donate, got Invalid Biller Code when I used the biller code supplied. Any ideas?

Cdb02 (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try again, could be a server problem (which we seem to have been experiencing over the last few hours). Alternately email info@wikimedia.org.uk who may be able to help. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solved -- contacted my bank, and they agreed they needed to update their biller codes with this one, which they did in a couple of hours. Cdb02 (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Padhavi

The film should be in wikipedia as it was a movie supposed to get released in 1993. Even its audio cassette was released. Even though the movie is unlikely to have a theatrical release, it might see the light in any Malayalam channels. I have placed that movie in unreleased films category, which is most appropriate. Rajeshbieee (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion is over there. Please post your comments there. Reach Out to the Truth 00:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

The actual page and the discussion pages on all of these pages were locked, so I couldn't think of any other page to post this, and I apologize if this is indeed in the wrong place. This is an edit request to fix the edits below:

include redirect WP:0 in a "Shortcuts" box at Portal:Contents;
include redirect WP:4 in the "Shortcuts" box at Portal:Featured content; and
include redirect WP:HI in a "Shortcuts" box at Wikipedia:Introduction.

71.146.20.62 (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although these redirects exist, I'm not convinced. Portal:Contents and Wikipedia:Introduction are high-visibility pages aimed squarely at readers, especially new readers; I think a shortcut box would be out of place on those pages. And Portal:Featured content already has several shortcuts that are easier to remember than WP:4. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your advice. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link icon on every link

I just got a new computer (Dell XPS15 running Windows 7). After installing Firefox 8, I've noticed that every single link on Wikipedia now has an icon after it. It looks like the icon that only USED to appear after links off-site, but now it appears after every link; it's also yellow instead of blue. It does not appear to happen on any other page. Is this a computer problem, a Firefox problem, or a Wikipedia problem? Is this a new Wikipedia "feature" for internal links, and if so, how can I turn it off? -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 03:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Help:External link icons have a yellow external link icon? Does http://# have a blue double arrow icon and is it the same as the one you are seeing except for the color? Does it happen if you log out? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the problem. I added a new Firefox extension called WikiTweak when I did this clean install. It's in there - it's a hover-to-preview icon, I guess for people who don't have that functionality turned on in Wikipedia itself. -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 12:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QuickiWiki Look Up

I want to suggest a historical research on a subject

Hi,

I was thinking and I want to know when the use of applications, especially job applications, first came about. I tried searching the site and you guys have not looked into this matter yet, but I think it's very important for historical accounts of so called progress of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.57.251 (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources you could develop the article yourself. If you don't want to do that, you can request that someone work on it at Wikipedia:Requested articles, but the backlog there is pretty deep; I wouldn't count on seeing anything tomorrow. The best course of action is to do it yourself. --Jayron32 04:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... but don't forget that Wikipedia is not the place for original research. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting code for a template

Let's imagine that I go to two pages with expired PRODs: one normal PROD and one BLP PROD. I click the "delete" tab at the top of the page (NOT the "delete" link on the PROD templates) on each of them; the resulting deletion screen for the normal PROD gives me a rationale, but the resulting deletion screen for the BLPPROD is as empty as it is when I click the same tab for a page that's not currently marked with any deletion-related templates. I'd like to see the BLPPROD template updated with code that will supply a deletion rationale as if it were a normal PROD template, but I'm not good enough with coding either to write the right code or to recognise the right code in the normal PROD template. Could someone please find that code and request the change at the template's talk page? Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is done by MediaWiki:Sysop.js. It doesn't work for me on PRODs in Vector but it works in MonoBook. You can make a request at MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cannot edit Reference page, only ...

Hi & good day,

Need to correct a link in the references, but all I get is:

==References== {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

nothing to edit / correct here. Please tell me what to do, thank you!

The page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Akiti

bw, Omar K Neusser, 2011-11-28 ^{[details removed]}

You seem to want to edit one of the references used in that article. To do so, you'll have to find where that reference is used in the text of the article. The references section just gathers information from the ref tags used in the text of the article. You might want to check WP:References for beginners. Dismas|^(talk) 07:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the up arrow ^ link alongside the reference number (or the small blue a ^a link if the reference is used more than once), that will take you to where the reference is used. Click the edit link at the top of that section (or the edit tab at the top of the article if you are trying to edit the first section). - David Biddulph (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I have removed your email address to protect your privacy. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lost!

To whom it may concern, When I have searched for the list of schools in Lebanon on Wikipedia I felt encouraged to post information about Jesus and Mary School as I have seen other institutions posting infromation about themselves. And I have posted very simple information to introduce the school. I was asked to say why it is important and significant. However after reading about other schools, I did not find that they have mentioned why was their institution important or significant. so can anyone provide help? Thank you :)JMMULTIMEDIA (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a school should show how that school is notable per WP:ORG. Each subject on Wikipedia should be notable. A school has to live up to that particular notability standard in order to have an article. So far, you have not shown how Jesus and Mary School is notable. For instance, the article has no reliable secondary sources. Dismas|^(talk) 08:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it may be worth, User:Joannamoawad also attempted to create an article for the school at WT:Articles for creation/Jesus and mary school - Rabweh, Cornet Chehwan (a slightly different title from yours). That user had similar a problem with notability/independent reliable sources and also had a problem with the required neutrality. —teb728 t c 10:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dismay

I would just like to register my dismay at having to look at the faces of these too creepy men every time I or my children visit a Wikipedia page. It is not an effective strategy for fund raising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.58.76 (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics show that it is effective; see, for example, meta:Fundraising 2011, which shows how thoroughly this method is tested. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

retire

'hi, i,ve been talking to a captain in the american army for quite a while, but this morning he,s asked me to be his beneficary he wants me to email his superiour, for his release out of the army so he can retire sooner but if i,m going to do this it,l,ll cost me but he said its refundable before he comes out i,m quite wary of this because i,ve had scammers before and i would,nt send money through the internet he has given me the division his unit which is the falcon unit united states rescue team department /war zone section kabul afghanistan hope you could give me advice many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissyanna (talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another variation on the Advance-fee fraud, also called the 419 scam or Nigerian scam. Avoid at all costs! -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 12:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QuickiWiki Look Up

And also please note that Wikipedia is not the place to request for advice on these issues. It'll be better if you were to contact law enforcement agencies directly, who shall be in a better position to advice and help. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 12:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"QuickiWiki Look Up"

When I post to WP, I get a notice from an automated filter about Firefox adding unwanted text, along the lines of "QuickiWiki Look Up" - which is actually happening to me (see below). Does anyone know which FF extension causes this, and how to stop it? -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 12:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found it. It's the same damn WikiTweak that caused my other problem (see above). I think this one's history. -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 12:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entry on Diane Coyle

I am Diane Coyle. My entry has been edited a couple of times to paint me as madly pro-Euro and an unsuitable Vice Chair for the BBC Trust. It is both inaccurate and a slur on my integrity and that of the BBC that I cannot allow to stand. I have deleted the relevant section and will continue to do so if it is restored. I have also made a note to this effect on the talk page. I would ask you please to monitor activity on the page and to prevent further edits of my entry if this problem should recur. Thank you Diane1859 (talk)

You have today deleted material from the article, and the material you deleted apparently was sourced to what are regarded as reliable sources. In such circumstances you must NOT make such edits to the article; to do so is firmly against Wikipedia's rules of editing, and specifically against the rules on conflict of interest. If you continue to do so you are liable to be blocked from editing. Please read WP:COI and take note of its contents. If that does not resolve the problem, then read WP:FEFS. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier versions of the article were not up to Wikipedia's standards: it should have provided more trustworthy sources for some claims. Phrases such as "Coyle's pro European bias" appeared without clear reference (having "bias" is different to having "views"). Additionally, most of the references came from newspaper opinion pieces or personal websites: WP:BLP warns against using journalistic sources of uncertain truthfulness for contentious claims about living people. Certain sources such as http://www.kevindavis.org.uk are clearly inappropriate to use as a reference. Nonetheless it is fair to discuss the controversy, and the current version of the article seems reasonable to me. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old version at redirect

Hi,

I improve a page which was considered as a stub but this page has (or is) a redirection.

The name of the page is "LREC". There is another name called "International_Conference_on_Language_Resources_and_Evaluation".

There is something strange:

when I read LREC, I find the old version.
when I login as editor, I find the new (i.e. the correct) one.

Do you see what I mean ?

Francopoulo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francopoulo (talk • contribs) 14:05, 28 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered users sometimes see a cached version of a redirect. I have purged the redirect LREC. Do you see the current version now? If not then try to bypass your cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

help

Hello

. I need help How do I use the International Phonetic Alphabet on Wikipedia The reason is I want to add James Blunt in an article in English.

Thank you very much I apologize for any inconvenience Please reply as soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.234.146 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 28 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IPA. Dismas|^(talk) 14:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I need help How do I use the International Phonetic Alphabet on Wikipedia

please expline in youre lang

i dont need links

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.234.146 (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia edit pages on the second line under the save button there is a dropdown list. Two of the items in the list are “IPA (English)” and “IPA”. If you select one of those items, it will display a set of links. If you click on one of those links, it will insert an IPA symbol at the current location in the edit box. The “IPA (English)” item selects symbols appropriate to English phonemes; the “IPA” item selects a general list of IPA symbols. Is that what you want to know? —teb728 t c 21:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

meaning of geographic coordinates listed on Wikipedia

I'm searching for coordinates for Japanese prefectures. I'm finding them listed on Wikipedia, but I don't know what specific location within the prefecture they refer to. Is the coordinate for a prefecture the centroid of the prefecture?

Carolynbeans (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is little consensus on this question; better to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the larger the target, the less accurate the coordinates should be. So Tokyo as linked from the Japan article is only accurate to 1/60th of a degree (~2 km on the ground), while the Tokyo article itself places the marker with an ludicrous accuracy of 1/360000th of a degree (~30 cm on the ground) right on the Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building; such accuracy could be justified by someone in this case, but why not choose a lower accuracy for the city and leave the accurate coordinate for the article about that particular building. Astronaut (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to donate to wikipedia but unable to

Dear Sir,

I want to donate to wikipedia but unable to. I am from India. I want to donate using credit card but I am not getting that option. Credit card option is for US residents only.

Please let me know how can I donate.

Thanks, Abhishek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The donation page links to foundation:Fundraising; if you have problems, look in the green box at the right for a link to "Other ways to give", and an email link if you are still having problems. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Want to have the school I work at listed on wikipedia- Alexander Montessori School in Miami, FL

I would like to have my school listed on wikipedia. We have a website: AlexanderMontessoriSchool.com I cannot figure out how to have it added to the wikipedia. Please help. Thank you. Stacey Shoer ^{[details removed]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staceyshoer (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas —71.146.20.62 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly uncalled for 71.146. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I have removed your email address to protect your privacy) Wikipedia does not aim to have a page on all schools, only those that are been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources such as books and newspapers. I suggest you look at the FAQ page for organisations before taking this any further. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Stacey, but I can't find any coverage of it in reliable third party sources. There might be some, but the Miami Herald's archives are notoriously unsearchable, and are behind a paywall, so unless the school itself saves press clippings and you can send them to someone, there's nothing we can do. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donation requests

What's with these "personal" messages from your programmer & founder?

Run ads, it's normal. It doesn't mean advertisers gain control over what appears on your site. All they're interested in is the number of people who see their ad, who might purchase their product.

And it's not like you're publishing authoritive information, or saving the world or whatever. It's just that you do well on Google. As long as you do that, you'll have advertisers, so make hay while the sun shines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.118.161.229 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. We have enough problems with companies trying to promote their products on Wikipedia as it is.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no legitimate encyclopedias that run advertisements in their pages, I'd hate for Wikipedia to be the first. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that advertisers will not gain control over what appears on the site is false. Advertisers do gain control over content. So, allowing advertisers on Wikipedia will mean that advertisers will gain a veto right on all content, allowing them to change what they don't like. -- kainaw ™ 16:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just some comments:

Wikipedia is not a legitimate encyclopedia. What is? Something that contains content from learned (probably academic) sources, I suppose. Not something published by any Tom, Dick & Harry. For example, unless I'm mistaken, anyone can publish a complimentary biography of themselves, with little or no risk of contradiction.

Secondly: "The claim that advertisers will not gain control over what appears on the site is false."

On what is that claim based? Watching movies? How can an advertiser possibly gain control over a publication? Would anyone care to mention any examples where this has actually happened?

Run ads, Wikipedia. Drop the idealist image, it's not real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.117.16.178 (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are incorrect on many accounts. Wikipedia has policies in place which disallow everything you say. First, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Wikipedia requires articles to be verifiable and requires that information be cited to reliable sources. You are mistaken that people can write their own biographies of themselves. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which essentially disallows people to write about themselves or companies they work for, or that sort of thing. Finally, Wikipedia does not have to run ads. It makes enough money through the annual pledge drive to cover its operating expenses. There's no need to change what is working just fine. --Jayron32 18:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisers regularly force content changes in all forms of media. You need one example? Why was "Dog the Bounty Hunter" removed from television for a season? Advertisers pulled their advertising after news reports that made them want to separate themselves from the show. Why was the show reinstated? New advertisers appeared that weren't as worried about the show's actors. Put in a Wikipedia point of view. Suppose that it is dependent on advertisers. We'll say that ACME supplies a big chunk of advertising dollars to Wikipedia. Then, some nut group decides that since ACME supports Wikipedia and Wikipedia has an article on penis removal, ACME must support penis removal and everyone should boycott ACME. (Does this happen? Look at movements to boycott Disney because they distribute through Buena Vista, which is also used by Mirimax, which produces R-rated movies, so Disney must support sex.) In the end, ACME tells Wikipedia that it must remove the penis removal article or they will stop advertising. -- kainaw ™ 18:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Disney owns both Buena Vista and Miramax. Powers ^T 18:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you genuinely don't know that advertisers inevitably tend to control editorial content, you obviously have never worked for any kind of publishing or broadcasting medium, nor have you studied them and their history. --Orange Mike |Talk 18:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, I'd wager he's one of the advertisers itching to get a slice of the pie that isn't sold. He's not the first to come here "suggesting" we get ads, as if people actually loved having ads shoved in their faces (no they don't, even the donation banners have gotten pretty negative reactions and they're not even real ads, imagine if they were). Considering that the millions of articles of Wikipedia were written entirely and maintained by unpaid volunteers (an impossible task with a paid staff), I'd say idealism is alive and well.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'd lose the wager. Actually I'm some guy in Africa who'd rather spend his hard-earned money on something worthwhile. Rather than have some rich American, providing some peripheral service, begging me for money which they could just as well make legitemately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.118.240.39 (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm some guy from the jungles of the Philippines, a country where most people can't even afford non-fiction books, much less encyclopedias. I guess you probably also fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works. It's one of the few things on the internet that are completely free (you can even print it and sell it if you want, provided you give proper credit) and unfettered by commercial interests. And the fact that you feel so strongly about this that you had to post here belies your pooh-poohing of Wikipedia's actual impact in (albeit informal) education. If you're also using Wikipedia for authoritative research, you're doing it wrong. There's one advice that applies universally - be it to "non-fiction" books, Wikipedia, or paper encyclopedias - learn to check your sources. WP:Verifiability might help you with that. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem...you're trying to equate some obscure US tv show to this website. How, in any way, can an ad that runs on Wikipedia possibly control what T,D&H posts on the site? It can not. Wikipedia will (as long as Google ranks it), continue to get visitors, and will continue to have value to advertisers for that reason. And those advertisers can not possibly have any influence on what appears on the site, simply because of the way it operates. If their target market stops using Wikipedia, then of course it will not be worth their while to advertise on it. But that's just so normal.

I just don't like this begging attitude of theirs. It seems false, especially as I see a link saying business proposals or similar somewhere or other on the site. I'm certainly not giving money to a site that publishes dodgey information, and which I basically only use when I'm reading some non-fiction book & want to see photographs of the characters involved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.117.16.178 (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does having more business proposals help anything? Because the pool has some drops of mud in it, you get a dump truck and turn it into a landfill? If you see business proposals somewhere, report it. It's certainly not condoned and such activities are bannable revert-on-sight offenses. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One factor that needs to be taken into account is that Wikipedia contributors are unpaid, and many might object to providing free content to a site being used to advertise products - I know I would, and would almost certainly stop contributing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The day I see an advert on WP is the day I quit using or contributing to it. I suspect that many other editors have similar sentiments. If the site experiences a mass exodus of contributors its "Google rank" would go into free-fall anyway as the content succumbs to entropy. BTW have you heard that Google Knol is about to have its life support turned off. One of the mightiest Uber-corporations on the web couldn't do with their billions of dollars what we "nobodies" here on WP do for free. Roger (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation which can and does control certain things. See Wikipedia:Office actions. If the Foundation becomes dependant on advertising and the advertisers request removal of negative "poorly sourced" claims about their products then it may not matter what any Tom, Dick & Harry thinks of the sources versus the statements of the advertiser. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather endure ads every single day of the year, or just click an X once a year? I know which one I prefer. Reach Out to the Truth 23:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My gut says he would rather try to argue here just to see how long he can keep the argument going. -- kainaw ™ 23:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of screenshots of Wikipedia pages

Hello, I want to take a screenshot of a portion of a Wikipedia page and upload it under a free licence. Can anyone advise me whether this is okay from a copyright perspective, and if so, what the appropriate licence might be? Skomorokh 18:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical elements of the web browser in which you are viewing the page -- scroll bars, icons, etc. -- are the property of the browser's copyright owner and will likely be copyrighted. The content itself is nominally free content, but there are some caveats. Text and most images are licensed under a Creative Commons license that requires attribution; for text, this can be done in the form of links to the page history, but for images, they will have to be credited separately. The Wikipedia logo is also a special case; it is copyrighted and is not free content, just like the browser icons, but it is possible to use a screenshot image with the logo in it (you just have to be careful with the licensing). See commons:Category:Wikimedia screenshots containing works copyrighted by Wikimedia for examples. Powers ^T 18:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LT, very helpful. Skomorokh 19:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

character encoding

My browser (OffByOne) does not support utf-8. How can I view webpages in latin1 format?174.137.78.26 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider getting a better browser? Roger (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OffByOne was last updated in 2006.[1] You really need to update for security and standards compliance. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Leo Mcglynn attended Mount Saint Mary's College/ now mms university in Maryland. Not California .

The college attend is Mount Saint Mary's in Maryland not California. This info from his daughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.160.167 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have confirmed your correction and fixed his biography.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

concern about windows

have a question..on this computer i'm on right now..on the lower right corner of the screen it says "this copy of windows is not genuine".i'm not all that good or know alot about computers..i had a lap top but it crashed on me and so i got this one from my daughter and she got it from her mother ( my ex-wife ) wich i just found out about..what does that mean and what do i need to do to get it off the screen..and i also paid her for this computer (desk top computer )..thank you for your time and help..donny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southomaha (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a message from Windows Genuine Advantage.

Have you tried the Computing 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) 22:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to revert this vandalism?

On Template:Infobox mtgset some vandalism "a;lrjggggggggggg sdg bf gn sfgndfg sfghsgfb dfgnbhcnghn cghn c gh nc ghn c n cghn c g hn c ghncghnc gh ncghnc gh ncghn c ghn cg hn cgh ncg hnc gh gh ncg hn" gets transcluded. Where does it come from? Can someone fix it? Wasbeer 22:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I purged the page and that seems to have fixed it. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John! Wasbeer 23:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]