December 12

I have experimented with browsing certain articles using other browsers, and looking at the Bear article in IE8, there seems to be a lot of whitespace. However, looking again with Safari, the whitespace is gone. My concern is not that specific article, but overall. We have received this kind of complaint continually. Is there a way to "fix" Wikipedia to be compatible with all browsers? Intelligentsium 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, IE8 doesn't have the best track record for "working". Second, I just tried out your example of Bear in IE8, both in normal and Beta, and found nothing out of the ordinary. About making pages work cross-browser: I hear there are ways to do it, but with IE8 the way it is, not very many people are willing to do it. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Does your monitor has an exceptionally high or low resolution by any chance? The white space is probably calibrated to the size screen most people use. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please how do I disable the search suggestions? I am referring to the AJAX thing that tries to predict what you are searching for and displays a drop down list of the predicted search strings. This is very, very annoying. I promise I will donate good money to Wikipedia, which I have very little of, if Wikipedia provides a way to disable this. Even if there is already a way to disable this, like in Google, and I am made aware of it by a response to this message I am typing, I pledge to donate $50 to Wikipedia. That is probably like a third of my Christmas gift budget this year. That is how annoying it is. I am not the only one who wants this. I have been googling, trying to find out how to disable this and all I find is many other people who hate these auto-suggestions as much as I do and with no answer to how to stop them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.251.112 (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Registered editors can disable these from their "My Preferences" menu, under the "Search Options" tab. That said, I don't know how an unregistered visitor can disable these. -- saberwyn 04:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They cannot. Unregisterred users don't have any preferences. If they want preferences, they can register an account. Membership has its privileges. --Jayron32 05:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out you can just disable Javascript. But I guess I will go ahead and donate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.251.112 (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to register an account, another option is to search Wikipedia with Google instead of using Wikipedia's search box. If you search Wikipedia often, bookmark the search and add it to your browser's bookmarks toolbar. --Teratornis (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While a donation is appreciated, his isn't American Expre$$. You don't have to pay to register. Heck, you don't even have to pay cash to serve as an administrator. Oh, but you will pay and pay and pay, in time, and frustration dealing with unhappy people, but that's true of a lot of public service jobs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, bug 13848. --rainman (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have created and edited a page "Economic integration effects", but have no idea how to fix a reference problem. please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdalimov (talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a references section and reflist list will correct this. I went ahead and set it up onto the page. Honestly, the citing is usually the more difficult portion to get down and you did quite well with that:) Kindly Calmer Waters 09:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where to Recommendations to Template:itn ?-58.152.253.54 (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed an error in the scientific classification of Acer platanoides but I'm unable to find a method of editing this section. Is it possible to do so? Poshmoog (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click the "edit this page" tab at top of Acer platanoides. The following code is currently there:

{{taxobox
|image = Spitz-Ahorn(mbo).jpg.JPG
|image_caption = Norway Maple leaves
|regnum = [[Plantae]]
|unranked_divisio = [[Angiosperms]]
|unranked_classis = [[Eudicots]]
|unranked_ordo = [[Rosids]]
|ordo = [[Sapindales]]
|familia = [[Sapindaceae]]
|genus = ''[[Maple|Acer]]''
|species = '''''A. platanoides'''''
|binomial = ''Acer platanoides''
|binomial_authority = [[Carolus Linnaeus|L.]]
|range_map = Acer platanoides.png
|range_map_caption = Distribution
|}}

You can change the things to the right of '=' but normally not to the left. See Template:Taxobox. What do you want to change? There are some rules, for example about following systems in Wikipedia and matching the name of Wikipedia articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I just wanted to change the family name. It's Aceraceae not Sapindaceae. Once again, thanks for your help, it's very much appreciated! Poshmoog (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be that simple. It's not my subject but have you read Sapindaceae and Aceraceae? It's good if Wikipedia has consistency between articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,
I am a 69 year old pensioner, if I refrain from donating will this limit my usage of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.59.135 (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donating is voluntary and has no effect on your usage of Wikipedia. Most users don't donate. The site has no advertisements (except asking for donations!) and is run by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation which needs donations for some things like servers and a small staff. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a photo in the article, "Ferdinand A. Brader" I own both the original drawing and the photo which I took. How do I get it OK'd Also, I do I get it to be larger in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katmaan (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you can search more easily, it's spelled "copyright". Just because you bought the drawing does not mean you bought the right to copy it. It would depend on the chain of transactions from the artist to you. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to upload the image as a file. Try clicking the Upload file link in the toolbox on the left side of your screen. Once the file is uploaded, then go back to the article and add [[File:whateverfilenameyougaveit.ext|thumb|caption text here]]. Assuming the original image is either a photo of Mr. Brader or a photo of one of his works, it is almost certainly in the public domain due to age. When you upload it, you should give it a license tag indicating as much, probably {{pd-old}} if the creator died more than 100 years ago but possibly {{pd-us}} if it was published before 1923 or {{pd-art}} if it is a photo that is just of 2-dimensional public domain art, not including any frames or other items.

By the way, I reverted your edits, they were causing layout problems on Ferdinand A. Brader. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put an image you uploaded, File:Gindelsberger1.jpg into the article. I also added public-domain copyright tags but I'm not sure if those are the right ones. They are good enough to keep the image from being deleted as a copyright violation but they may be more restrictive than necessary. Do you know the exact year this photo was published and the exact year the artist died? If not, can you say for sure that it was published "no later than ___" and the at the artist died "no later than ___"? This can help put the right public-domain tag on it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to use the template to appropriately cite this case: [1]. This is what I've got so far: {{cite court |litigants=Inouye v. Kemna |vol= |reporter= |opinion= |pinpoint=11889 |court=9th Cir. |date=7 September 2007 url=http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/09/07/0615474.pdf}}

I'm not at all certain how to find the volume and reporter, and I'm not sure what the difference between the opinion and the pinpoint is. Also curious to know if there is a list of abbreviations for the different courts? -- Scarpy (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find helpful information at Case citation and in the examples listed here. LeadSongDog come howl 18:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Template:Cite court/doc, which (briefly) explains the template's parameters and includes a few usage notes. Xenon54 / talk / 18:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be editors knowing more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite spending ages trying I then get message " Already Taken" Sign In When I do message says " Username or password incorrect !! What's going on ??

H Reast <--email--@--blanked--> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.170.137 (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like somebody else has already taken the name you wanted. You'll have to choose another username which has not been taken. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is that someone has a username very similar to yours and the software won't allow you to register it. You can check if a username is already registered by going to Special:ListUsers and searching for the name you want. If it's not taken, go to Wikipedia:Request an account. If it is taken, you will have to pick a new name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

Most people are confusing about the once respected "American Conservatory of Music."

I would like to suggest that Wikipedia should have a seperate headword about the topic. I don't know how to make a new page (or make them seperate by 2 direction words):

1. American Conservatory of Music (in the State of Illinois: Accredited Period) Original Old school NOTE: Notable Almini should be listed here!

NEW PAGE!!! 2. American Conservatory of Music (in the State of Indiana: Non-accredied Status) Present NOTE: Please make sure the school is not accredited by Federal & State level. It's not internationally accredited either. No accreditation. they just want money by awarding the highest degree, masters, doctors, etc.

Some people are trying to deceive people by using the old image of this slippery conservatory. So don't let the public mix it up.

Before relocating to the Indiana, Chicago Sun Times had reported their activity in Illinois very well. The following is the typical fraud sctivity report:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4375260.html

Conservatory con man back with new scheme Chicago Sun-Times; Mar 20, 1997; Raymond R. Coffey "Remember Richard Schulze, the amazingly elusive, big ticket, coast-to-coast con man who used to run the once-respectable American Conservatory of Music in downtown Chicago? Apparently he still runs it - but with a new address, yet another corporation (this one chartered in Las Vegas) and another pitch to shake money out of alumni, students and friends of the conservatory. This time around, Schulze is trying to raise $60,000 via a "private" shareholder offering in a "limited liability" company named Conservatory Partners LLC. To anyone familiar with his past and the current status of the conservatory, the brochure and letter promoting the pitch reads like classic con-artist poetry. In ..."

Most people try to defend it by using religious status in connection with the ecclesiastical charter of the Orthodox Church in Belize. But the Schulze family is coast-to-coast con-artists. This is just a loophole of the state laws.

So, I strongly suggest to make a new page for non-accredited ACM in Indiana. I don't know how to make a new page. Please help the public with correct image.

This sham school is still insisting the founder of NASM (federal accreditation organization = NASM: National Association of Schools of Music). Regarding NASM status, please check NASM handbook:

http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/site/docs/Handbook/NASM_HANDBOOK_2009-10_DEC2009.pdf

Here's the quotation from the official handbook:

The National Association of Schools of Music was founded in 1924 for the purpose of securing a better understanding among institutions of higher education engaged in work in music; of establishing a more uniform method of granting credit; and of setting minimum standards for granting of degrees and other credentials. It is incorporated in the State of Ohio as a non-profit organization. The work of the Association during its early years was financed largely by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. In November of 1975, representatives of member institutions ratified proposals creating a category of membership for non-degree-granting institution.

They never mention the relation with American Conservatory of Music. The original ACM was one of the member in the beginning period.

Make a new page for the present non-accredited ACM. And wait and see. You will know who's trying to deceive.

This is for better the education in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelly099 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both incarnations of this school can be covered in the existing article American Conservatory of Music, on whose talk page discussion can continue.

I have blocked User:Shelly099 for sockpuppetry. --Orlady (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if there is a problem currently with the way wikipedia is placing red dot coordinates on maps? I have been updating articles in West Somerset and noticed that the red dot displayed on the maps for Brompton Regis, Exton, Somerset etc fall outside the county boundary on the map. I have checked the coords given on streetmap and they are correct so I wondered if it is a wider systemic problem related to wikipedia's software?— Rod ^talk 10:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which browser and version are you using, and which Wikipedia skin are you currently using ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Firefox (3.5.5) & default skin (whatever that is called).— Rod ^talk 12:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The red dot is in the right place when using IE8 & not logged in & in Firefox when not logged in - so it is something about the settings once logged in.— Rod ^talk 13:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been a problem with importScript('User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js') in monobook js - help being received thro IRC.— Rod ^talk 15:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I deal with a sock? Should I tag the sock and sockmaster, or is that for admins? If I should, then where do I find the tag templates? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 11:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Proving someone is a sock requires experience. It is probably a good idea to bring it to the attention of administrators. Also, if you were to tag them on your own, they're likely to accuse you of bad faith. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case is cut and dried. I have a lot of anti-vandal experience using huggle. A user kept posting spam links, and I kept reverting. Then an IP address popped up and put the same spam links on the same page. I put a template on the IP address' page, see here. What warning should be placed on the sockmaster's page? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 11:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would go to Wikipedia:Sock puppet investigations and let them check it out. If it is verified, the notice will be put on the user's pages when they are blocked. The case is only definitively cut-and-dried when a checkuser has confirmed that they are indeed sock/sockmaster. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point; then it's cut and drying :o) I'll post an ARV now. Thanks. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 17:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, I expanded an existing article about the author Patrick French as an unregistered user. that was last week. I would now like to upload a picture of the author on to his page but I can't figure out how. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandakinigahlot1984 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to add an existing image to an article, add [[Image:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information.
• If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must find out what the proper license of the image is. If you know the image is licensed under a free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure what license the image takes, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy. I hope this helps. --Mysdaao ^talk 14:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either my eyes have suddenly failed or every thing has shrunk to the edge of legibility. I use Foxfire, no other sites I use have reduced their font size (so it's not my setting). Have you shifted font, changed size, and announced it somewhere I didn't notice.

Dan Eaves 114.77.126.19 (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of, you may like to check that you haven't accidentally adjusted the zoom level on your browser. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try holding down Ctrl and then pressing + a couple of times. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 14:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The common reason for this is pressing control and rotating the mouse wheel. It took me ages to work out what happened the first few times! Isonomia (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I try to do a minor edit, I find I can't because the page is semi-protected and I don't yet have a ten-edit history. So how to achieve those ten edits? What proportion of pages is semi-protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpinehermit (talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page displays all semi-protected pages on the en Wikipedia. You can request to become "confirmed" here which will enable you to edit those pages. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Ironically, this was your tenth edit, and you're now autoconfirmed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+ ::Their user rights log says differently? [2] Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) I am from Germany and contributing to a atricle about a school in my country the Gymnasium (Germany). People from other countries sometimes wrongly assume that the Gymnasium is a school for the gifted and/or that it is the only way to college in Germany. Both assumptions however are wrong. There are 50 ways to college and Gymnasien are only one of those, what distinguishes them from other schools are college is that

• 1)nearly everybody attending a Gymnasium is college bound, while of the students attending other schools some are collegebound and some are not and
• 2)that a person graduating from a Gymnasium will by accepted by any college, while students graduating from other schools may not be accepted by some colleges

Is there a school in the english-speaking world this could be compared to? Would "prep school" be a good word? Also would it be possible to call a school like this "feeder school". The english article about feeder schools states "some college preparatory high schools and community colleges are designed to feed local universities". Gymnasien are not designed to feed local universities, but all of them. Thank you :) --Greatgreenwhale (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "academically selective" might be a useful phrase; I assume that Gymnasien are at least somewhat selective in admissions? Some sort of entrance test? Feeder schools are usually aligned with a particular school or set of schools; if a person who graduates from a Gymnasium might go to any university in the country, then that's probably not a helpful phrase. Offhand, I can't think of another current system that has a tier of schools like this, only examples of high-performing schools. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers. So, i won't call it feeder school. Actually admission procedures vary very much by Bundesland and Gymnasium (Gymnasium_(Germany)#Admittance_into_a_Gymnasium), but few Gymnasien do have real entrance exams. Many have interviews, but that's not really a test.

So, I am not sure if "academically selective" is the right word. They pick their students, but some say they don't pick on merit.

So, do you think "prep school" also would be the wrong word? Or may be "grammar school"?

--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if 'prep school' might be the right phrase for North American readers, but it is strongly misleading for British readers: in the UK a prep school is a private junior school (up to age 13 or so), whose pupils generally proceed to a public school (i.e. a private school). Grammar school would probably be better for UK readers, though it doesn't correspond exactly. --ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) --Greatgreenwhale (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/80

Wikipedia can be confusing or there can be little known features that an ordinary editor doesn't know about. Is the casting of a vote secret? I mean, besides Jimbo Wales, IT people, checkusers, ArbCom, oversighters, whom I presume have the technical means to peek and see how people vote, not that they necessarily would.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, a record of who voted is publicly accessible. You can go to Special:SecurePoll, hit List, and find out that I voted today. However, whether or not a record of how everyone voted is available to someone is unclear. In a perfect world, the results would be tallied by the software and no person besides the voter would ever see how they voted. The extension's page on the main MediaWiki wiki is incredibly unhelpful in this regard, so this would be an interesting village pump question for the developers. Xenon54 / talk / 20:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you make a page have a "header" before the editing box (like the "This page is only for questions about using Wikipedia" here)? I did it before and now I can't remember how... Mononomic (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Editnotice has everything you want to know, and perhaps a bit more. You'll need an admin to do this on any page except a user or user talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Mononomic (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a mistake in an article which didn't have an "Edit this Page" tab. Is it possible to make a correction? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyjohnsonkurts (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you haven't given us an article name, we can only give you generic advice. You are a new user (your first edit is to this page), so the most likely reason of a missing "edit this page" tab is that the page is protected. Semiprotected pages can be edited by any autoconfirmed user (any user whose account is 4 days old and has at least 10 edits), while fully protected pages can only be edited by an administrator. Xenon54 / talk / 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can, however, go to its 'Talk' page and add a comment there explaining the change you would make (and giving a source if appropriate). --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

Resolved

100 yard dash has something odd going on. The references appear above a table of runners of said dash; but the underlying code has the refs at the bottom of the page. What's going on? How to solve? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wikitable on that page was not closed, which historically leads to "funny stuff" happening on pages. I have closed it with the standard "|}". Intelligentsium 00:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted - thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowable to use Google Earth screenshots on Wikipedia? I'm trying to get my hands on images for a lot of streams that don't have images on Wikipedia, and there's very few places where I can find them, so is it allowed to just rip something off GE and upload it? Should it be under a fair use license? Thanks, Shannon^talk _contribs 01:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth images are copyrighted, and as such generally can't be used. I also don't think that it'd work as fair use, at least in my opinion, as it wouldn't usually be impossible to obtain a free image (like a photograph of a stream or whatever). AlexiusHoratius 01:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, Google states that Google Earth images are licensed for non-commercial use, and Wikipedia isn't a commercial endeavor; it is for non profit, so would that license apply to Wikipedia? Shannon^talk _contribs 02:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia is not commercial, when we're talking free images, it means that people should be able to reuse them outside of Wikipedia too. - 131.211.211.171 (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - Wikipedia's licence means that anyone can use any content for any purpose including commercial use - so although Wikipedia isn't commercial, end-users of Wikipedia's content could be, so we can't use the images. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, no. See File:BD-propagande-2 (en).jpg and Commons:COM:L#Acceptable licenses. What specifically are you trying to find images of? Did you try searching with {{Flickr free}}? Did you read the links under WP:EIW#Maps? --Teratornis (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth images do not come under a free license, so we can't use them here. However, there's a somewhat similar software, NASA World Wind, that we can use. Images created with this software are normally in the public domain and can be uploaded either here or at commons with {{PD-WorldWind}}. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see NASA's Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth. Examples: Commons:Category:Astronaut photography of Earth. --Teratornis (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I may try to find that World Wind you mentioned. Does World Wind also have topography? Shannon^talk _contribs 02:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh c&@#. World Wind is only for Microsoft as I suspected. Bleah. Is there by any chance a NASA Blue Marble overlay for Google Earth? Shannon^talk _contribs 02:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Wiki policy that all articles about CAM/Alternative Medicine should include reference to Fringe Theories and Pseudoscience? Or is there some distinction about when these reference are to be included? ThanksQuantummech (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what CAM is but the general term "alternative medicine" includes some very serious non-Western or non-MD-type forms of medicine and healing, including but not limited to chiropractic medicine and acupuncture. The term also includes things which are so far off the wall the fringe theorists think they are nuts. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cam (disambiguation) lists Complementary and Alternative Medicine; is that what you mean by "CAM"? You can ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine to get opinions from people who edit these articles, and read the archived talk pages there for prior discussion. Also see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. --Teratornis (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And see WP:FRINGE. --Teratornis (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance if I'm not in the right section, but is there like a tool or bot or something of that nature that can be used to determine if an article here is being linked to from a major news network page or newspaper site? I recall seeing templates about articles that have been the subject of news stories, but I am not sure if those templates are added manual or by some sort of script/bot/tool. I ask because the recent UAV that went public a few days ago has a caused an article within milhist's scope to garner over 150,000 hits in less than 7 days, which seems to imply that our article's been linked to somewhere, but I am unsure of where and would like to know if the capacity exists here to find out before rolling up my arms and net surfing to find the answer. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not aware of a WP tool that can do this, but you can use Google to do what you want. Just make sure that both possible URLs are tried. You have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Example either of which could've been linked. If I remember correctly, you need to use linkto:, but if you go into the advanced search of Google you're given the whole thing on a silver platter. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not aware of such a facility, but The Wikipedia Signpost regularly features an "In The News" section - and suggestions for the next issue can be left here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the "In the News" Section; I was hoping there was a tool for locating articles sited off wikipedia. As a practical matter, even the signpost notes that not every mention of wikipedia in the news will get a mention in the section, hence the question. At any rate, thanks for the replies. One last question: would it be possible to design a bot to this effect? Me thinks it could be useful here, but I have no programming skills and thus no idea about the bot policy here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google page under .ws (Domains) is out of date 10 years with Wikipedia.

Website .ws was originally owned by the Samoan Government and was known as .ws (Western Samoa). Global Domains International (USA Company) purchased the name in 1999 and now are a Global company operating under .ws (websites)

The association of .ws with Samoa is totally incorrect and needs adjustment to provide accurate up to date information.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.175.75 (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

• Please read about Reliable sources. We can't update anything until we can prove the information you've provided is in fact correct. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Mysdaao ^talk 13:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the right place to put it, but here goes... whenever I sign by typing the four tidles, it appears as it should with my name as I want it (Douglas) and the date and time, however it's not a link to my Userpage like a lot of other peoples are. Is this because I'm logged in as me and hence I don't need to click my name, or is it because I am doing something wrong? Thanks muchly for any help! (and if this is the wrong spot, feel free to move it to the correct one) Douglas 12:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcarriso (talk • contribs)

It sounds like you have a custom signature that isn't working right. Click my preferences on the top right of the screen, and look under "Signature". Either edit the signature in the box, or uncheck "Sign my name exactly as shown". --Mysdaao ^talk 13:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Sign my name exactly as shown" box was unchecked, but I checked it and put the Wikicode in manually so now it should appear correctly (it does in the Sandbox at any rate) Thanks for your help :) Douglas 13:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --Mysdaao ^talk 13:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , I would like to donate wikipedia but i couldnt find INR Indian Rupees Option on the page. Regards, Anshul Sethiya <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.125.67 (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other ways to give listed at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give/en, such as by check. --Mysdaao ^talk 12:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 13:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This same question was posted here a couple of days ago. Please look through the archive of the appropriate day. I remember several people weighing in on the answer. - 131.211.211.171 (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually on 4th December, but the only suggestion was as above. It was also mentioned in November 2007 (here) which mentions sending a che(ck|que), but there are charges involved with that. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have for some time thought that some editors on climate articles are just too prolific and to coordinated to just be coincidental. It's like the old pick-pocket trick - one takes your purse, and though you know who took it, there's no proof, because they work as a team.

Having read the climategate emails, I wasn't aware that some of the key scientists themselves actively engaged on websites (e.g. Michael Mann seems to run RealClimate.com) and so this has put a whole new perspective on e.g. this article. If I had the opportunity, what I would like to do is to check the emails, IP posting sites of all the editors on the climate articles e.g. Global Warming, global warming controversy, and climategate (whatever it's been called) to see whether there was any pattern which would suggest certain editors or groups of editors are effectively commenting on their own "work".

I am also very suspicious of the insistence of some editors that all material should be "peer reviewed" - because as we see in the climategate emails, the peer review process in climate science has been manipulated by the climategate people to exclude those who might "make trouble" as another email puts it. This seems to be another strand of the orchestrated campaign that I've seen going on for many years.

So:

1. The evidential basis has been skewed at its root by the climategate people
2. Wikipedia articles have been prevented from using anything but this skewed "peer reviewed" material
3. I believe that many editors are either climategate "scientists" or people who work for these "scientists" - and many others are workers for the many green activist groups - again groups who aren't backward in using orchestrated campaigns of political action to achieve their goals.

So I think it is time that Wikipedia had a formal review of the editors on climate articles to see if Wikipedia is being manipulated by these groups (and let's not be coy it is possible that some skeptics are orchestrated - after all who am I?). The formal review should ask itself: is there evidence of collusion and if so, the worst culprits should be removed and clearly if collusion is proven, I think it is also right that those who have been banned trying to stop this POV push should receive an open amnesty. Let's have a clean slate, and really I can see why people like "scibaby" have had to go to such lengths - normally you can't condone sock puppets, but in light of the apparent misuse of Wikipedia I think there should be a general amnesty even though in the case of Scibaby it's likely (s)he will probably get themselves banned very quickly again, but at least it will this time be for breaking the rules, not for opposing the climategate editors. Isonomia (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course I'm going to be asked to produce evidence of POV. The clearest most simple evidence is that the climate hasn't warmed significantly since the turn of the century. It has definitely cooled since 1998, it has cooled since the IPCC report at the beginning of the century, and there is 0.03C/decade warming if your century starts in 2000 - "paused" is a NPOV view of the climate "real current warming" which is the impression you get on climate article is bogus POV. There are two possible explanations for the pause/cooling:

1. there is underlying warming which is being masked by larger natural cooling (which suggests it is temporary).
2. the theory of manmade global warming has been tested against real data and found wanting.

A neutral article would explore these possible explanations because both these are interesting subjects in themselves. But if you read all the climate articles, you get no sense at all that there is any debate about the current "pause" in the climate. But if you read the climategate emails, you find this a common theme of discussion. public "it's warming", private "we can't explain the decline". This is pure and simple POV ... pure and simple propaganda.

There is also much more, such as questions about the adjustment made to temperature data, the factual existence of the 1970s scare on cooling (I watched the BBC documentary - I know it was real!) - the point being that sincere scientists jumped to a conclusion and if it happened once why not again? I could also mention the way the reduction in atmosphere pollution is know to have raised the temperature of the climate, but you wouldn't pick up on this in the climate articles, (but again it is mentioned in the emails as being as large a contributor or larger than CO2). Isonomia (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no process to review editors like you describe. There is a place for voluntary reviews at Wikipedia:Editor review, but each user has to put himself or herself up for review there. And the Wikimedia Foundation is certainly not going to release the information you want (e-mails, IP addresses) of editors because that's a breach of their privacy policy (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy) which says that such information can only be released in very specific circumstances, and this wouldn't apply.

Besides, it doesn't matter if the editors involved are members of activist groups. All Wikipedia editors are treated the same and must abide by the same rules. The reason they are asking for peer-reviewed material is because it is part of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources says "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." and "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available." Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable sources says "In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."

In response to your other comments, the Help Desk is not the place to have long discussions on problems you see in specific articles. The first place to bring up these issues is the articles' talk pages, but I see you've already been doing that. If you don't feel that's enough, I suggest bringing up these issues at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to ask the community if the articles are compliant with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. --Mysdaao ^talk 15:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the difference between [rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)]?Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 14:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are features of Twinkle. The description of each link is on Twinkle's documentation page at Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Difference between revisions. --Mysdaao ^talk 14:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Mysdaao ^talk 13:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently been using Twinkle to do some recent changes patrolling (mainly for vandalism), and I'm just wondering how far AGF goes. I identified this edit, where someone has added jumbled letters to the middle of a word, as vandalism and reverted it. I could imagine, however, that someone may have done this as a test edit, and that a new user might be put off by having a test edit labeled as vandalism. Could a more experienced recent changes patroller give me some guidance here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lear's Fool (talk • contribs) 14:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well even if it is a test edit its still vandalism, and the user needs to know that.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 14:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But please remember, they may have intended to "revert it" and did not know how. Assume good faith - tell them that it is vandalism, but please be gentle because I remember being jumped on by editors when I started and it was a horrific experience! Isonomia (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, a test edit is not vandalism. Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism". If you aren't certain that the edit is deliberate vandalism, then assume good faith but still revert it. For the case given, since that was the very first edit made by the IP address, I would say there's no way to know for sure it's a bad faith edit, so it's better to assume it's not. --Mysdaao ^talk 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, using Twinkle, if I see an edit that may be a test edit, I use the AGF reversion and then post a warning on their talk page? Lear's Fool (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I'm wondering about edits like the one I'm talking about in my first post, which are probably vandalism, but might be accidents or test edits. Lear's Fool (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if you aren't certain that the edit is deliberate vandalism, then assume good faith. For edits like the one you gave in your first post, don't mark the edit as vandalism, and give a warning for test edits. From Wikipedia:Vandalism, "If you are not certain that an edit is vandalism, always start with {{subst:uw-test1}}." --Mysdaao ^talk 03:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Thanks. Lear's Fool (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --Mysdaao ^talk 13:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited some pages before and after creating an username from 2 different IP Addresses.. How can I link those changes from the IP Addresses to my Username?

--Coquidragon (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be possible, but hasn't been since 2005. Your IP edits cannot be assigned to your user name, I'm afraid. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But as the page says, you can list your contributions made with the IP addresses on your user page. --Mysdaao ^talk 15:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help! I moved the original template {{Parks in Quebec}} to {{Protected Areas of Quebec}}. I intend to create similar templates for all the provinces of Canada. Anyway, I then created categories for the Protected Areas template, and then edited Aigle-à-Tête-Blanche Ecological Reserve to show the Protected areas template directly. Now the article also shows up in the categories Category:Quebec navigational boxes and Category:Protected areas of Canada templates. Why is the article also being placed in those categories, when I did not specify those categories in the article itself? I don't know enough code to understand how this is happening. Is it due to the infobox at the top? How should I fix this? Thanks for any help. Jllm06 (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you added the category with this edit, you put the new category, along with the original category and the interlanguage link, outside the <noinclude></noinclude> tag. Any text within the noinclude tag is prevented from being transcluded onto the pages using the template. Because the category is not within the tag, it is added to the pages using it, like Aigle-à-Tête-Blanche Ecological Reserve. If you move the two categories and the interlanguage link between <noinclude> and </noinclude>, they won't be added to pages using the template. --Mysdaao ^talk 16:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template had two categories and an interwiki at the bottom:

• Protected Areas
• fr:Modèle:Palette Parcs nationaux du Québec
• Category:Protected areas of Canada templates

I moved them to a documentation subpage so that the articles will not show in them. The template still includes Category: Parks in Quebec, so articles will show in that category. if this is not desireable, the it should be discussed on the template talk. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my question is regarding the copyright status of the image I want to upload. Actually, I wish to upload an image of a notable person whose article is on wikipedia but his image is available on a state government website where no copyight information is to be found (anywhere in the website). So, what do I do? *Truth* (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can either assume it is under copyright and treat it as a WP:FAIRUSE image, which generally doesn't allow for images of living people. Or, you can find another image that you know is under a free license or in the public domain. If the person is or every has been a government employee or official, there may be a free image on a federal web site or in book printed by the feds. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DavidWR: just to clarify, creative works (including images) are automatically copyrighted, unless the creator actively specifies that they are not. So if you can't find licensing information pertaining to an image it's unlikely to be available for free use. (See WP:COPY for more.) Gonzonoir (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I just ask if the person in question is still alive? As a general rule, if the person is alive, then pictures found on websites which are under copyright (the basic rule of thumb here is if the site does not specifically state that the content is not under copyright, the contents will be copyrighted) cannot be used under the "fair use" provisions, as it would be possible for someone to take a picture of the individual in question. If you are referring to Shesh Paul Vaid, then it could be argued that with the level of protection around him, it is unlikely that you would be able to approach him and take a photo! My advice would be to contact the website with the photo, and (using the guidelines at WP:IOWN and the consent form at WP:CONSENT) get permission to use the specific picture. If you need help or advice on this, feel free to ask on my talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new page at User:Manderson.utsystem/Intercultural Communicative Competence in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning and then after it was edited by our team, moved the page to Intercultural Communicative Competence in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. A search for "Intercultural Communicative Competence in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning" brings up the correct page and URL but with the title User:Manderson.utsystem/Intercultural Communicative Competence in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. I'd rather the "User:Manderson.utsystem/" not be shown as it implies I was solely responsible for the content. Should I go through the "move A to C, delete A, move C to A" process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manderson.utsystem (talk • contribs) 17:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Manderson.utsystem, the page that was in your userspace (with the prefix User:Manderson.utsystem/) has now been moved to the mainname space, see Intercultural Communicative Competence in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Is this what you wanted?

On another note, you appear to be sharing your current account among a number of people. this is prohibited by policy, see WP:ROLE. You also appear to have a conflict of interest with the afore mentioned article, although you are not prohibited from editing articles with which you have a conflict of interest, it is strongly advised against. Please see WP:COI and WP:BFAQ.

If you have any more questions feel free to ask them here. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another point - the article reads to me like a term paper or journal paper and not an encyclopedia article, maybe with a bit of WP:SYNTH thrown in. So my question boils down to whether this is in fact a suitable article for an encyclopedia? – ukexpat (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing, but the article was too dense for me to make heads or tails of. TNXMan 19:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I found the exact text copied from a Wikipedia page on a website that does not appear to be part of Wikipedia. I don't know how to tell if the site uses the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License or the GNU Free Documentation License. It's a website of "training journals." I could not see a credit or link to Wikipedia or the author(s) of the Wiki page on the website in question. If this is a possible copyright violation, should I report it somewhere or post the link here?

Thanks. Manyhats (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly; are you sure that the Wikipedia article is not copy from their website, rather than the other way round?

I believe that Creative Commons allows for the reproduction of content on Wikipedia, so long as others share the content alike, and attribute it to Wikipedia, if you want, you can contact the website and request that they attribute their content to Wikipedia. I don't think the foundation bothers chasing these things up themselves, although I may be wrong.

Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original article on Wikipedia has been updated several times over the years, whereas the site in question just posted the latest version of the article, with a copyright date of 2009 (only). If Wikipedia doesn't care about having its content reproduced, "case closed." Thanks! Manyhats (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and the links to sites at the top. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I unblock my server it has been block because of a brute force attack How can I fix this?Peggycasteel (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. TNXMan 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying to ascertain when a phrase was added to then removed from the lead section of an article. I know about wikiblame, but I don’t see how to use that to search a particular section. Can it be done?SPhilbrickT 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I go about getting tested for Native American heritage, though your info is great it is too much for me to obtain the info I need to startin the right diection. Helo Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.49.113 (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. TNXMan 18:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some months ago a page was created on Wikipedia containing false information on me. It was deleted, but it continues to appear on a site called "Wikiwak.com" which claims to be a mirror of Wikipedia. Needless to say I would like the page permanently deleted, but don't seem able to do so. What is Wikiwak? Is it affiliated with Wikipedia? How can I delete this page permanently?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.57.222 (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the Wikiwak site is not affiliated with Wikipedia. You'll need to contact them directly in order to have the info removed. TNXMan 18:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't my pictures show up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara378 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to upload an image for use in an article, you must determine the copyright status of the image. If you know the image is in the public domain or bears a suitably free and compatible copyright license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the copyright status, see the file upload wizard for more information, but please be aware that most images you find on the internet are copyrighted, are assumed so unless you have affirmative evidence to the contrary, and do not need to display any copyright symbol. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
• If you want to add a free image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or to the Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that hot-linking to outside images is not allowed (and doesn't work anyway) - so all pictures must be uploaded first.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,4-Dioxane

The above link has a reference that is out of date, and although it links to an updated page, I would like to change the title of the link.

The reference I would like to change says: ^ "CHEC Chemical Summary: 1,4-dioxane". Children's Health Environmental Coalition. http://www.checnet.org/HealtheHouse/chemicals/chemicals-detail.asp?Main_ID=273. Retrieved 2006-02-02.

I would like to change it to: Chemical Encyclopedia: 1,4-dioxane". Healthy Child Healthy World. http://healthychild.org/issues/chemical-pop/1,4-dioxane/. Retrieved 2009-12-14.

However, when I click to edit the references, the references do not show up and I cannot change it. Am I blocked from editing this page? How can I access the references to make this small modification?

HealthychildLA (talk)healthychildLA —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, this is because you have tried to directly edit the "References" section. Because the article uses inline citations you will need to edit the "Uses" section and edit the citation that looks like ^[2] when viewing the page. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to fix it, does it look alright now? References are just footnotes really, the references section collects them all together via either; <refrences /> or {{reflist}}, if you want to change the wording of one of the foot notes you have to find where it the article it is used. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, if you want to find where the code is, just click on the ^ next to the reference, and that will take you to the section where the reference is defined. Then you can edit that section. If you look at the section, and you just see <ref name="xyz"/>, then the reference is "list-defined" rather than "in-line". In that case, you will see the reference in the References section, looking something like this: {{reflist|refs=
<ref name="xyz">{{cite .....}}</ref> - that will be where you can edit it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Thank you!

HealthychildLA (talk)healthychldLA —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

So http://healthychild.org is a reliable source? Or, if that reference is just a copy of text from somewhere else, shouldn't the reference be to the somewhere else? – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some months ago a page was created on Wikipedia containing false information on me. It was deleted, but it continues to appear on a site called "Wikiwak.com" which claims to be a mirror of Wikipedia. Needless to say I would like the page permanently deleted, but don't seem able to do so. What is Wikiwak? Is it affiliated with Wikipedia? How can I delete this page permanently?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.57.222 (talk • contribs)

See 3 posts above, in short you will have to contact Wikiwak. – ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A mirror is a site that copies content from other websites, in this case from Wikipedia. It has no affilliation with Wikipedia. The only way to have it removed is directly contacting them (or force them by contacting their ISP) - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a mirror, it should update and reflect the deletion eventually, though not immediately (I'm writing in general, do not know anything about this particular site). SPhilbrickT 21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is, or was, at least one site that purported to keep deleted articles around for the specific purpose of keeping deleted articles around. I don't know if it still does. Frankly, given BLP and ATTACK concerns, I don't know why their lawyers would let them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup it's still around. – ukexpat (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done with them? Nelson58 (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, just means a page hasn't yet been created or has been deleted.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 20:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can be useful as an indication of related articles which might require creating. Wikipedia:Red link gives guidelines on when (and when not) top create them, and advice on dealing with them. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely that's articles though, not categories? Nelson58 (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite correct, Nelson58. I should have referred you to Creating a category page - this shows what should be on it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be that someone made an error with the category, for example Category:Reggae Musical Groups instead of the correct Category:Reggae musical groups. – ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history of the articles in the category. Either re-categorize the articles in the case of typos or novelty categories, or turn the red cat blue by creating the category. If you create the category, be sure to add appropriate parent categories, and possibly make it a parent to other categories. Red categories still function as categories, albeit without parent categories. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the directions for redirecting pages within wiki, but what about directing similar search terms for pages? I.e. for the Optimer Pharmaceuticals page, if someone searched for "Optimer", they should be able to go directly to the Optimer Pharmaceuticals page. Thanks for your help. KDR 21:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdrichards (talk • contribs)

There are several companies named Optimer. Unless one and only one brand is famous, the proper thing to do is either create a disambiguation page, or if only one of the companies even qualifies for an article, either don't create a redirect i.e. leave the page red or, if the dominant company goes simply by "Optimer," create a redirect or move the page. For technical help, read Wikipedia:Redirect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But at the moment there is only one company named Optimer that has an article on Wikipedia so Optimer could be a redirect to Optimer Pharmaceuticals. When and if there are other Optimer articles, the redirect can be converted into a disambiguation page. – ukexpat (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is where good judgment comes in. If more people think of something else than the Pharmaceutical company when you say "Optimer" then redirecting it is worse than leaving it red. Of course, if more people think of something else that should be your next article :). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

What can I do when editors in an article behave in a callous and inconsiderate way, constantly promoting their view points and forcefully editing out other people? This happens A LOT here.

Case in point the David Letterman article. Based on the opinions of 2-3 individuals I am unable to classify Letterman in the Sex Scandal figures category as he rightly deserves to be for his concealed sexual relations with his subordinates, as widely reported and verified in the news all over the world.

This seems to be racially motivated as in similar (and arguably less severe) situation Tiger Woods has gone without question in the said category.

Can you advice me as to how to open this up for a vote or arbitration?

Thanks.

And please consider hiring professional editors.

94.71.212.239 (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we don't hire editors... it's a volunteer-based community here. However, many editors are professionals in certain areas.  fetchcomms☛ 22:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But this was not my query. You answered to an aside at the end.

Any way here again my edit in the talk pages has been deleted in the Letterman article, someone please intervene.

94.71.212.239 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this IPs edits to the article talk page consists of calling other editors dishonest racists, rantings against Wales, declaring an intent to edit war and continue to add these vile comments, and calling the removal of such talk page invective "censorship". All of these lovely things can be seen in the revert I just performed here. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dare you to quote my "rant" against Wales, come one quote it here. Because again, as per your policy you are being dishonest. The vile things is racism in practice at Wikipedia and censorship. But don't worry you are not going to get your way in whitewashing this article. 94.71.212.239 (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The passage in question was "And Wales has the guts to ask for funds on top of every article. What a parody" as seen in the linked diff above. Granted it isn't as egregious as your blasting of other editors as racists and such, but it was still a piece in your overall soapbox-ish tirade. Tarc (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you post/file a complaint. I saw an interesting page about Administrators and the rules that they must live by, such as fairness, not using their power in abusive ways, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADMIN Maybe this page will help you? I'm honestly shocked by the rude, grumpy, and infuriating admins who rule the roost here on Wikipedia. Where do they find them? Why can't they find volunteers who are helpful and reasonable people, and are not so adversarial and grumpy? Good luck, Wikipedia, trying to get donations. If you're asking for our money, you must institute a policy of quick accountability for admins who are grumpy, rude and adversarial and who abuse their power. Eric Scubeesnax (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question "Where do they find them?" - admins are chosen by the community (see Requests for adminship) - by which I mean all of the community: editors, admins, bureaucrats, stewards (if we had any on Wikipedia, which we don't) - the only exceptions is that blocked users and IP users can't vote. If the original poster has a complaint about a specific admin (or admins), then the first place to discuss this would be on their talk pages. Further complaints can be taken to the Admin's Noticeboard Incidents Board.

For what it's worth, many of the admins that I have come across are helpful and reasonable people - just like most editors that I have come across. Yes, some of them can be adversarial at times, and grumpy (hell, they are humans you know) - but I have also come across a lot of editors who are like that! I think if we banned all users who are adversarial or grumpy at times, we would have very few users left! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) To the original poster: the pages linked under WP:EIW#Dispute detail Wikipedia's procedures for handling content disputes. Note that in most disputes, the side which spends the most time reading and following the friendly manuals tends to win. In particular, the rules are heavily stacked against people who believe they do not need to read the rules. So, on Wikipedia you have the power to select your fate. If you don't like Wikipedia's rules or don't want to read them, you can start your own wiki. Thousands of people have done this. Wikipedia cannot be all things to all people. --Teratornis (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) To Scubeesnax: the best way to avoid making the admins grumpy is to read and follow Wikipedia's instructions. Wikipedia's user interface is very permissive - it lets you do almost anything you want - and this encourages some people to hastily conclude that if something is possible, it is therefore allowed. Unfortunately, wikis like Wikipedia don't work that way. The software is very permissive, but then hours or days later, other users will see what you did, and quite possibly change it. Thus the key to successful editing on Wikipedia or any wiki is learning to predict how other users will react to whatever we want to do. That's just the reality here. I'm not saying everybody will want to work this way. Only a small percentage of Wikipedia's 47,692,891 registered user accounts have a lot of edits. Most people seem to poke around a little and then leave. Only a few will put in the effort it takes to learn the rules and work in harmony with the other people who learned the rules. But it is possible. Even people who strongly disagree with each other on various issues are able to edit harmoniously together on Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 15

I have two questions to ask you:

1. Is it possible to get rid of, destroy, or remove your user account in Wikipedia after once you've created it? If so, then how can you do it?

2. Is it possible to change the username of your user account in Wikipedia after once you've created it? If so, then how can you do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.166.182 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A1: If the account has any edits, including deleted edits, no. But if the only edits are to the account's user page and user-talk page, and there are no other substantial edits to the talk page, the pages can be deleted. If it has no edits then deleting it is moot, but it can be renamed to another name if someone else wants to use this name.

A2:Yes, see Wikipedia:Usernames#Changing your username.

If you have major privacy issues, you can email Special:EmailUser/Oversight for assistance. Sometimes they can help, sometimes they can't. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, once an account is created, it cannot be deleted, but it can be renamed. User pages and user talk pages can be deleted (and thereby turned into red links) by an admin and users can blank their own user pages and user talk pages as they see fit (in which case they will remain blue links and their history visible unless oversighted). Users can also exercise their right to vanish. – ukexpat (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User talk pages are sometimes preserved due to special circumstances. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the fact that Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL, all edits must be kept for attribution purposes, and so your account cannot be deleted. You do, however, have the right to vanish, which you can exercise by (1) requesting your user page (found at Special:Mypage) and/or user talk page (found at Special:Mytalk) be deleted, by adding the {{db-userreq}} template to them; (2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers); (3) never logging in to your account again. The "right to vanish" does not mean anyone has the right to a fresh start under a new identity. Anyone who wants to continue editing should request a change of username instead so edits can be reattributed. --Mysdaao ^talk 02:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk pages ARE NOT eligible for speedy deletion, and even in "right to vanish" will not normally be deleted. See Wikipedia:Right to vanish#How to leave. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I donate to the foundation, will they send me tons of junk mail or share my contact with a mailing list for other orgs to send me tons of junk mail? Also, is the system set up so that CheckFree online bill payment would send donations directly into their bank account electronically, or would they have to mail a check? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The place to start is this page, where there are links to FAQ etc. – ukexpat (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can I find out how to post a video/movie? There are zillions of them on Wiki, for example on Barack Obama's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama (near the bottom, just above the references) where he posts a weekly address. Also, I'd like to upload an audio file and make it playable. But I have no idea how to do it properly. Who can I ask? My best for the Holidays! Eric Scubeesnax (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Videos are posted the same way images are. Through the uploading page linked on the left and using the same formatting as images to put them in a page (using File: instead of Image: in the link). Like images, the copyright rules also apply to videos: they need to be free or have a particular good fair use rationale. The file needs to be in an OggVorbis format. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Sir,

My name is Manish Indian National, I married to a Yemeni national girl while I was working in yemen I had one son from her, now I need to bring my wife & son to India what should I so, as Indian Embassy refused to give Visa to my wife & passport to my son, I have submitted my marriage certificate, birth certificate of my son, even after all this they are delaying the matter and my family is in problem without me.

Kindly suggest me the way out from this problem.

my email id is <email redacted>

With Best Regards

MANISH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.73.172.245 (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this looks like you would require legal advice which we cannot give. Pedro :  Chat  08:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created a link to 'computer telephony integration' on a page by using the double [] notation, but the link doesn't work; when clicked an error messages suggests the page doesn't exist. However, if I put 'computer telephony integration' into the search box I find the 'computer telephony integration page' (albeit it has a note stating redirected from 'computer telephony'). If I use 'computer telephony' for the link, I get a similar result. I can also search on 'computer telephony' and get the same page I get when I search on 'computer telephony integration'. How can I fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKIPICT (talk • contribs) 09:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link to computer telephony that you put in Aculab works, so I assume you mean the category Category:Computer telephony integration which is redlinked? Redlinked categories are not a problem if they are left (it just means that there's currently no category page created). I will try to sort out the category page though. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the category page, and added a few other articles to it as a starting point. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently looking at the Noumea article, I am using beta and realised it needs a cleanup in the placement of images and sections. It is not something I am familiar with and am sure there is a tag I can put there that will direct an experienced editor to the page Matt (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've put the ones that weren't in the infobox in a gallery format near the bottom. It's not a permanent solution, but it should work until the article is expanded and has more space for images. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the first page which I browser every day always auto-reload? Only this Wikipedia has such a problem. --百楽兎 (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never experienced this or seen it reported. I guess it is something on your end. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but only occurred in English Wikipedia. I am using Google Chrome. I guess there can be something unsuitable in Mediawiki:common.js.--百楽兎 (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where is urdu lanjaue n vikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.24.163 (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The URL of the main page of the Urdu Wikipedia is http://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Conflicting line removed and other edits made. Article still needs improvement. If you are not associated with the school you can edit it yourself. If you are, please suggest changes on Talk:Howe Military School. Even if you are associated with the school you can remove incorrect information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Michael Reed. I am a teacher/webmaster for Howe Military School in Howe, IN. I noticed that when bringing up information about our school on wikipedia, it says that that school was founded by Elias Howe, inventor of the sewing machine. This information is incorrect. The correct information has already been added below the article by someone else. However, can the first paragraph at the top be removed that references Elias Howe, since he had nothing to do with Howe Military School?

Thanks,

Michael Reed

Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howe_Military_School —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmubronco81 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using the prefix search but many of the results are redirects. Is there a way to search for lists, or any other article with a prefix, without having to see all the redirects? 90.219.50.135 (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get redirects in prefix searches, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=prefix%3AList&go=Go. Are you referring to Special:PrefixIndex? That includes redirects but they are easy to identify because they are in italics. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calmer_Waters#stupid where he writes "However, I prefer using the tool in the edit screen for setup when possible"

Question 1: How does one do this? Where is the clickable "button"?

Question 2: Can you fix reference 25 and 29 so that I can see how you do it. 25 and 29 are the same reference. One shouldn't repeat it twice but use 25 twice.

Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A1: One uses the named reference approach. See the tag <ref name="Idestam"> before the {{cite}} in the first example at Calmer Waters' talk. The clickable button is the {{ CITE }} button in the WikiEd plug-in, enabled (or not) in your preferences. Click that, click the button for the type of source, and then see the "Name" field.

A2: I'd be glad to try if you'll identify the page in question! --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found and fixed it.[3] The reference was used three times. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's why I asked that it be fixed twice and I was going to do it to fixed the 3rd time. See, I'm not lazy! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone see the following revisions? [4] [5] [6] If not, what happened to them ? --Drogonov 22:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, something is broken in the wiki. It looks like all edits between http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Elephant_Man_%28film%29&oldid=9292943 (21:01, 11 January 2005) and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Elephant_Man_%28film%29&direction=next&oldid=12776317 (02:37, 25 April 2005) got fubared. They show up as blank versions, which isn't logical. They should either be there, be missing entirely and not in the edit history if they were deleted but not restored, or have strike-throughs if they've been rev-deleted or oversighted. Well, probably not worth fixing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can someone direct me to a page or area that lists Wikipedia editors who are willing to email authors with questions. Thanks! Manyhats (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt such a page exists. Why would special people be needed to send emails? Algebraist 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a registered user, go to Special:Preferences and fill in your email address, then go to the user or talk page of the person you want to talk to, and click "Email this user" in the toolbox on the left side of your screen. If you don't see the "Email this user" link then the user has not enabled incoming emails, and nobody can mail him unless they know his email address. You can, however, leave a note on his talk page asking him to mail you. He'll have to set up his preferences, and he may choose not to for privacy or other reasons. When you email a user, they get your email address so they can reply off-wiki. Some editors don't like using email for that very reason. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that anyone can edit any article. If you are talking about the author of an article, this can be thousands of people. If you have a question or comment about the article itself (not the article's subject), then go to the article's talk page by clicking the "discussion" tab at the top of the page and leave a note. If you have a general question about how Wikipedia works, then this is the page to do it. Xenon54 / talk / 22:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me and several other editors are trying to edit our article on the Climategate controversy to follow WP:NPOV and we're encountering stiff resistence from editors who refuse to follow WP:NPOV. The dispute was brought up at the WP:NPOVN we won the dispute. An uninvolved editor examined the issues and confirmed that the article is isn't following WP:NPOV just as we were saying. You can read his/her post here[7] But there's a group of 5 or 6 editors who still refuse to follow WP:NPOV. Are there any experienced users who are willing to help me deal with this WP:CABAL? Basically, I'm looking for a mentor. Someone who's already dealt with a WP:CABAL before (hopefully about a different topic) and can give me advice on how to go about resolving the issues. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to link to a particular version of a page on someone's talk page. I found Help:Page history#Linking to a specific version of a page, but that doesn't actually tell you how to do it! It has a link to a non-existent section Help:URL#Old_versions_of_pages, but that page doesn't quite tell you how to do it either. It only says "However if you want to link to ... certain specially generated Wikimedia pages (such as a past version of an article), it is necessary to provide the full URL. This is done using external link syntax." Both pages are confusing because it's not clear if they're talking about links within wikipedia pages (where several syntaxes are possible) or linking to them from outside wikipedia (where you must use a full external URL). On a Wikipedia page, is there a template or trick to link to a particular version? If not, that first section should simply say something like

You must use a full external URL, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carbon_footprint&oldid=331849271 to refer to a specific page version from a Wikipedia page (you can't use a [[Page title]]-style link).

Thanks for all you do. -- Skierpage (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]