Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I'm working on the article for Victoria band Nomeansno. I'm trying to find a picture of the band that can be used for the article, but am concerned about fair use/copyright issues. Can I use promotional photos released by the band as part of a press kit? If not, do you have any suggestions as to how I could procure an acceptable image?
Thank you,
Stu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StuIsCool (talk • contribs) 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC).Reply
You should be able to use a photo released in a press kit under Fair Use rationale. Policy states (at Wikipedia:Fair Use#Images) that There are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith in Wikipedia articles involving critical commentary and analysis. Such general approval must be seen in the light of whether a free image could replace the copyright image instead. From that link, you will see that promotional material is included in this, providing that a free image cannot be used. If that is the case, you will want to use the tag {{Promotional}} for the image. Wikipedia:Publicity photos also gives you good information. Let me know if you have any other quesitons, -- Natalya02:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello - I am new to WIkipedia (listing an article that is) and I was trying to create one for our business. Our company is a second tier call center and online travel company (just below Orbitz, Priceline, Expedia etc many of our executive staff are from these companies). Our company has over 1 million customers in our database plus over 5 million visitors a year, it has been in existence for over 10 years and is present in over 152 countries.
During the creation of the article, I accidently hit save, before I could finish and resubmit it was already marked for deletion as spam (within 30 mins). I went ahead though and posted the new information (the new article was about 4x as long) and then went back and checked again a few hrs later. I saw that it was re-marked for speedy deletion, so (per your guidelines) I disputed the speedy deletion and requested a re-read. I went back expecting some information, some discussion, some suggestions, but instead there seemed to be no discussion and they did not seem to re-read, but instead the comments indicate the article was just deleted it because it had been deleted before. Maybe I am misreading something, but that is how it appears to me.
So I am confused, the new article was written in neutral language and in a similar method to others in our class. In addition, our financial backers are listed in Wiki, so added them as part of the article with links to their information. I might understand you not deeming us worthy if all of our competitors were not already in Wiki, but since they are I cannot help but wonder why they are approved and why our site is listed as spam while no discussion on its merit took place. What, if anything, can I do about getting our site listed? I appreciate any assistance you can offer as it took a lot of time to write up the article and I was trying to follow your guidelines.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Travelworm Marketing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelworm (talk • contribs)
Hi Travelworm Marketing, it is hard for someone working for a company to write an article that does not look like advertising or a press release. Perhaps you should ask someone to write the article for you, and you could get some practice writing on some other topics in wikipedia.
GB05:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
my citations are trashed
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
A senior user shamelessly removed all my info and no one says anything. But if I do slightest mistake I am flamed. How can we stop such losers from removing cited info? He always abuses my language citations.Vishu12319:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would discuss this as calmly and politely as possible on the article's talk page. You can maybe find out why the person removed the citations. If they don't respond soon, you can leave a note on the editor's talk page. People have removed citations I added because they felt that there were too many of them and it made reading the article difficult. If s/he was removing content, maybe there's a reason the content isn't encyclopedic. e.g. maybe they thought it was copyrighted content, or they felt it didn't meet WP:NPOV. The best way to find out is to ask. Hopefully the two of you can come to an agreement about what to do. There's no such thing as privilege from seniority here, so your opinion is as valid as theirs as long as it's in line with policies and guidelines. It's understandable that you're frustrated, but I'd strongly suggest being as friendly as possible during this process, since any rudeness is likely to be used against you later. I'm glad to help in any way I can. It'd be helpful if you can show me the diffs of the edits in question. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. delldot | talk21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think that's a terrible example of the problems of Wikipedia. You no doubt worked hard to put in your citations, and people shouldn't just take them down. And the idea that too many citations are not good because they make the article less readable is also poppycock. Citations add to the academic merit of an article--articles shouldn't just be somoeone's unsubstantiated opinion. Good luck, Vishu--Dr.michael.benjamin19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Would this be a reliable source?
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is there a way that I can search wiki by edit date? For example, I just noticed (in the Portugal article) a recent (Jan 1) addition "One curious fact is that Satanism is growing." I deleted it. I wonder if someone logged in January 1 and added a similar line to several national pages. To determine this, I'd like a utility (similar to SQL) along the lines of: search for the word "satanism" in article edits dating from Dec 31 to Jan 2
But wiki's "help search" shows me only pattern matching (e.g. searching for "satanism") with no references to metadata (e.g. "...with edit dates in this range..."). Is this possible?
You can probably tell I'm new at this.
Thanks Peter H. St.John, M.S.03:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
The only possibility I can think of, would be to download the datadumps, and set up your own copy of Wikipedia. This would require some time, not to mention disk space to do though... Another possibility, would be to look in the history of a page where you found vandalism, find out who inserted it, and have a look at the contributions of that user. For example, you can have a look at all my contributions, and see all the changes I've done to articles. Bjelleklang - talk03:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Lost Page
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I added a new page about a month ago Tree marriage and it disappeared. I cannot find the original text or history on this item. I also no longer see it in my contributions list. I don't think I was in violation of any of the deletion rules nor do I see history of it being deleted. Will you let me know what happened?
I find that hard to understand because the only topic that was discussed was a description of a paragraph to a topic in The Golden Bough which happens to be listed in Wikipedia The author of the book also listed citations where he gathered his information from. Perhaps that book should be deleted as well? Another place on the web doesn't find it so hard to believe. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9073280/tree-marriageBruffner
I have informed Eagle 101 and asked him to comment here. It may have been done in error. But the best thing is always to cite some reliable sources so that the article becomes credible. The Britannica link looks good. I think you should not have a problem getting the article restored — Lost(talk)09:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I was surprised not to be able to find the deleted item in Bruffner's user contributions history page. I'd like to suggest that if he decides to rewrite it, or arrange for it to be restored from backup, that he submit it for peer review promptly. Is there a way I could make such a suggestion to multiple users (like, CC in email) instead of editting each user talk page? And FWIW, I commiserate with Eagle_101's deletion, the topic does appear patent nonsense, prima facie; however, there is real anthropology going on. One way to view Tree Marriage is the symbolic responsibility (husbanding) of an icon (a special sacred tree) practiced widely in antiquity (the Golden Bough is the famous original study) not unlike modern nuns referring to themselves as "married" to Christ. Unfortunately I can't explain this on the talk page of the deleted item. Peter H. St.John, M.S.15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the boost of support PeterStJohn, I found it a hilarious topic but an ultimately true one. This was my interest intially as I read that couple of paragraphs in The Golden Brough I couldn't believe my eyes and started to research further. The difficulty in being able to find the referenced documents that The Golden Brough citations left me with the ability to only cite and quote from that book. It was with the help of our local library I found one of the additional citations and was going to add it to the first I added when I found it missing. I hadn't thought to make a backup of what I wrote here so no way to resubmit. Anyways, have fun and try to avoid marriage to a tree (seems this goes on in some remote parts of india which im trying to find a "Real" reference to. HAHA) Bruffner
WP:DRV normally provides copies of deleted material on request (see the 'content review' section), if given a sufficiently good reason. --ais523 17:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I am more then glad to go ahead and put this in User:Bruffner/Tree marriage. If this is not nonsense, and is indeed a legit topic, I am willing to undelete. Just the article as given, looks and feels like nonsense. The topic certainly did not help! Anyway, if I did make an error, please explain that to me. You might also want to see our manual of style, for some ideas on how to write a good looking article. I am glad to be of help here, and if you have any questions Bruffner, feel free to ask me. —— Eagle 101(Need help?)22:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Eagle101. I only left the article so sparse while I tried to gather more information about this wierd subject since the references are all quite old they are requiring some research in very old, rare books and periodicals. Hopefully in a week or two I will have a more complete version that will be deemed more believable. Bruffner
new voice
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
i created a new voice about Sergio Castellitto but this voice may need to be wikified.Is there someone that can wikified this voice?Thanks.
fedra
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I'm not really new to Wikipedia, but I thought this would be a fast way to get input from editors more seasoned (and experienced with this kind of thing.) I've read the guidelines on writing about fiction, especially as it relates to this page I'm trying to clean up (in-universe and such.) But I'm having problems. I fully understand the whole 'sources beyond what (in this case) the player of the game sees, and no inferences from that' but frankly, I'm getting annoyed with it. Rewriting all the passages to make it 'out of universe' gives the writing a strained feel- not to mention repetitive. However, I do also want to know if providing references, I don't know, somewhat... absolves you of some of issues? Regardless, does anyone have some tips to make out of universe stuff sound better? Check out the article for what I mean, reference-wise and all. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
The main problem with the article is that it continues to be in-universe. Imagine the Flood had indeed existed fifty or sixty years ago, and you are doing a documental about it. Check Goldmoon or Riverwind for examples. Try making clear in every paragraph that you are talking about something fictional, and it should be fine. -- ReyBrujo02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
New Article
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
first off, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Secondly, for creating a new article, simply type in the article name in the search box to the left. When it tells you that the article doesn't exist, you can create it as prompted. Please note that not everthing is okay to put on WIkipedia, so check out WP:NOT to see if the rules apply. Otherwise, you'll wake up and your article will have been deleted. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 02:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm sorry. I'm sure it must be here somewhere in all your pages of text but I find no information on how to submit a writer's biography. I'm not interested in editing anything only submitting something. As I say it is here somewhere but after reading your site for the last half hour I cannot find it. But then I'm approaching 80 years of age so I am probably going too fast for things on this site. If you can tell me how in a handful of words I would be glad to follow your instructions.
thanks,
hunterb4
The easiest way is to type the name of the writer in the search box on the left and then hit Go. In big letters you will see "No page with that title exists." Below this will be a red colored link that says "create this page". You can follow that link to create the article. Please be aware of our inclusion guidelines for biographies. It is also not consider entirely kosher to write about yourself as this can create conflict of interest issues. I have left a note on the original poster's talk page. —WAvegetarian•(talk)15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Television channel
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I am from London, England, united Kingdom. I am very much interested in your site. I understand you are a television channel and I would very much like to watch you show live via the internet. I am particularly interested in watching 'The Oprah Show' since we are unable to view her show in London. Can you tell how I would go about this. Thanks my email details are as follows: commented out to prevent spamming I hope to hear from soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.115.253 (talk)
I assume the edit is this one. I don't think it's an appropriate link and there have been problems in the past, at least on Wikia, with many people spamming their own petitions on wikis in order to get more votes for them. An ongoing petition doesn't add anything useful to the article. Angela.19:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Editing page name
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have created an article on "Mackay Libraries". Somehow I have created it as 'User:Mackay Libraries' rather than just 'Mackay Libraries' & cannot locate the editing area to fix this.
You can create a new article by following a redlink (like this one) to it (edit one into an existing article first; if you type the new name into the Search box and click 'Go', you'll also get a temporary redlink to it near the top of the screen that you can use). See Wikipedia:Your first article for instructions. For more general information about creating articles, see Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial. --ais523 09:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
How do I (or you) remove the two flags on my contribution?
Hello,
I received a message that I hadn't tagged the appropriate copyright info on a picture that I uploaded. I think I've fixed that and all the other pictures I used.
But there are still two flags on the top of my article (and the article isn't found in the search window).
So how do I go about getting them removed and the article included in the search index?
Thanks,
Frank Tobe
The Glendon Association
The tags on top of the article you've been editing (Robert W. Firestone) are {{wikify}} and {{sources}}. These are maintenance tags, which will help in the improvement of the article. Wikify is a warning that the article doesn't contain enough internal links; this is an internal link, which links to the help page about linking. You can link a word by placing double-square-brackets around it: [[word]]. {{sources}} is a warning that you must provide your sources; if you don't, the article might not be verifiable and might be deleted. You can remove these tags by editing the article and removing the {{wikify}} or {{sources}} code that places them there, but don't do this unless you improve the article to solve the problem (especially with 'wikify', it's likely that someone else will solve it eventually, but you're the only person who knows your sources so please provide them yourself). As for the image's copyright info, it's correct, but I've converted it into a form that the image-copyright-checking bots can understand. --ais523 16:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
new words
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
how do I contribute new words.
the new word is "catbiscuit",It's the round blob made when a cat pee's in scoopable,or clumping cat litter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.79.167.106 (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC).Reply
See Help:Starting a new page for information on how to start an article. However, you really need to note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You also should note that Wikipedia does not allow original research, and terms you invented are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please take care to source your work and don't add things that are against policy. Welcome to Wikipedia, though, and we look forward to your contributions! —Keakealani·?·!·@05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Why do you say that, even if converted to png format, that all images are supposed to be as small as possible to keep low resolution. Ive seen the New Orleans Saints gold fleurdelis logo and that bigger image appears with better colors, not faded, not to mention transparency. And the uploader has obliged to the png format uploading since he got alerted of it. So why do you still prefer logos like the one now missing great RadicalBender that were 100 x 100 from June 2004? Thanks 71.99.87.24201:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Images aren't necessarily meant to be low-resolution (for instance, see Wikipedia:Featured pictures). However, fair use images have to be low-resolution to avoid infringing their owner's copyright. See the fair use criteria for more details. --ais523 09:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
images don't show up
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
umm hi. i was wondering why sometimes images listed on a page like in the format thumb|caption don't show up in the page, and instead of showing the picture, they show a link that redirects to the page Keops198808:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
It could be that the image was one commonly used for vandalism; in such cases, any use of the image must be approved by an administrator, or it appears as a link. --ais523 09:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
A cat What exactly do you mean? Using the syntax [[Image:Cat.jpg|thumb|A cat]] produced the image you see to the left. -- Natalya15:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure if the template you called existed. Either way, I swapped it with the CVG template and filled in the correct info, that appeared to have set things right. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Is it possible for me to edit a category? I tried to add Chipotle to the "Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange" category list but there's no way for me to edit it. If I don't have the privileges to do so, how could I go about having something added to a category? Any insight is appreciated. Thanks!! Lollipop0901:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, you can. Just type [[Categories:Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange]] at the end of the article, or whatever it's called. Xiner (talk, email) 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There is a featured article which generates reams of heated discussion. In my naive newbie innocence I think that I could improve it and perhaps clear up some of the heated disputes. I'd like to take it and do a whole rewrite. I certainly do NOT want to then delete the whole article and dump in my rewrite.I'd like to put it out there and let the community incorporate what (if anything) they wish. Is there any way to do that? I COULD make up some other head ("the common misconceptions about x") and then let somebody merge (or let people discuss merging).
I know a revert is easy but I'm sure that my work would disappear all at once. I won't be suprised if most or all of it disappears gradually but then it will have been looked at. I think appending a rewrite at the end would probably also not be well received.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I recently had a go at creating my first template, in response to a post at Requested templates, however when I click "What links here," it gives a bunch of links that, alas, don't actually link there. I thought this might be normal, but I'm not having that problem with a more recently created template. Any suggestions? thanks in advance, Danielfolsom18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I just read about doing a signature, and I wanted to try it out. I actually haven't seen what it looks like yet, but my real worry is the source code, could someone tell me if I should shorten it (or do anything else)--DanielfosomT|C|U20:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh thanks, yah I really like what you've done with your letters there, I think I should try to do something like that.
Ok I need to find some fonts, but for now I couldn't resist copying you (don't worry I will change it eventually, it's not so much stealing as temporary borrowing). --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U05:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
QUANTITY OF CARDS IN A DECK?
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is a Legitimate question~ I really have never known! And I need this answer for a project I am doing for the Deaf And BLind. I have never played cards or any one in my family. I don't know where else to look for the answer! that is why I came to this page looking for some kind of infomation. How many cards total in a deack of playing cards? and how many of each kind?
I hope to get the Answer TODAY!! JAN13 2007~~
Can someone E Mail me the Answer? to TXANGEL4Real at aol com Thanks So much!! I know I sound like a looney bin!! But I am not!! I am a trainer for the Deaf Blind and need this for a project we are doing for them!
~~FingerJivinLadyFingerJivinLady
The primary deck of fifty-two playing cards in use today, called Anglo-American playing cards, includes thirteen ranks of each of the four French suits, spades (♠), hearts (♥), diamonds (♦) and clubs (♣), with reversible Rouennais court cards. Each suit includes an ace, depicting a single symbol of its suit; a king, queen, and jack, each depicted with a symbol of its suit; and ranks two through ten, with each card depicting that many symbols (pips) of its suit. Two (sometimes one or four) Jokers, often distinguishable with one being more colorful than the other, are included in commercial decks but many games require one or both to be removed before play.
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
hello i published an article called "tgup" it is supposed to describe the new unattended technology i developed for software applications on windows systems. but it seems not to be accepted by wikipedia. please inform me how i could change thist article to make it accepted. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ckislam (talk • contribs) 23:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC).Reply
For an article to be on Wikipedia, it needs to be considered "notable" enough. For information on the various notability guidelines, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Notability. Feel free to ask more questions. -- Natalya00:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
You shouldn't post articles about what you've done, unless you can make sure that all the information comes from sources and not original knowledge. So unless you've told someone about this article and you can cite it, it will be very dificult to keep up. --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Now that I've edited...
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Now that I've edited a page from Articles that need copyediting, what do I do? Should I remove the copyedit tag, or leave it so that someone will proofread it? It's my first one so I'm not sure if I've edited it enough. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drupelet (talk • contribs) 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC).Reply
If you think it might need more work, you can just leave the tag on the article. Improvement is a continuing process, so people will look at it later, and remove the tag if it is no longer needed. --Sopoforic04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Mark for clean up
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I've noticed the Jon Bon Jovi page requires clean up, and I don't have the required knowledge to do it myself. How do you go about marking a page for clean-up? I've looked through the help pages and can't find it. Thanks. Eastlygod03:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that it's possible, and I can't imagine when it'd be a good idea. Is there some particular effect that you were trying to achieve? --Sopoforic18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Kind of, I was thinking I could have on the background for a Illegal immigration template I'm creating. Hmmm... --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'd say that's a bad idea. Loading images takes a lot of time on slower connections (several seconds on a slower dial-up, at that size, and longer for larger images), and we want to be as accessible as possible. Plus, if there were text on top of that image it'd be impossible to read. It's only my own opinion, but I rather like the nice, simple templates we have now for most things: they're functional and load instantly. It's a nice change from some web pages (like this one). --Sopoforic19:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Link color for entirety
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I have this template, and I want the links to be a different color (all the same but different with regards to the standard color) - and I'm not sure how to do it, any suggestions? --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U21:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Can you please explain what you are trying to do? For example, by "all a different color," do you mean for all of the links to be "not blue?"
In that case, My take on that would be that it would be strange for an article to have a different color scheme than the other 1.5 million articles on Wikipedia, and that readers could be "taken aback" by your use of color. Please ask for more information if you need it! Root205:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, I should have clarified; now that I read it [ my response] it seems that not even I could understand it! Okay, my interpretation of what you wrote was that you wanted to create an article with links a different color; i.e. yellow for instance. Is this right? Root205:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
In order to do this you would need to override the Wikipedia CSS sheet, which AFAIK you can't do for individual bits of text. In general it's always best to leave Wikipedia to sort out colours and styles, and focus on content. — QuantumEleven14:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
new user trying to upload article.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Greetings,
When I try to upload the article I wrote I get an error message that says something along the lines of:
invalid file extensions "."
can anybody tell me how I can rectify this situation?
Upload the article? Can you clarify as to what you are trying to do; i.e. put a word document onto wikipedia? This will allow people to give more specific feedback, more on how to exactly carry out what you want to do, instead of general procedure. In the case that you are attempting to do what I said in my example, the solution would be as follows:
1. Use the search bar to find out if the article already exists.
2. Add a page with the title of the article, and then copy and paste your document in. (there should be an empty edit box that automatically pops up, and a notice that tells you that the article has not been created; which asks you if you want to "create the article."
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello I am new to wikipedia and I wanted to add this thing about the new DVD of the 24 tv series that came out yesterday but the page said that new members could not edit that page. Can someone please send me a comment about why I can't edit that page? I haven't edited any pages yet but I noticed it would let me on all the other pages I saw except 24 tv series. Thanks.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I stumbled on this article, which lacks any references and contains some confusing and perhaps inaccurate statements, and was tempted to edit it. However, it soon occurred to me that the article covers two issues that are not particularly related:
1) Construction of modern compasses and errors introduced thereby;
2) Making turns by compass as part of aviation instrument training.
What do I do to refer the issue of splitting the articles to whoever decides such things?
Best,
Jay Parsons
I suggest you look at the following: WP:SPLIT, for the actual splitting, and WP:SS, which discusses summary style and when to split pages. However, while the above article might be on two different subjects, perhaps it is better to just source and clean it up before merge, so you don't end up with bad stubs. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with David Fuchs, and further suggest that you utilize the talk page to tell other editors about your intentions. Root200:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Adding a new topic..
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Editing wikipedia with an editing program or something like it
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Wikipedia´s code is easy but isnt there something like an editor for it like "frontpage" is an editor for html?
I´ve searched for this in many faqs. Am I blind or is it bad organized? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leontolstoy2 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC).Reply
If you're looking for a WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia (which I think is what you're asking for), no, it doesn't exist. If you're interested in contributing, you'll have to learn the basics of Wikicode, which shouldn't take long as it's designed to be very easy. — QuantumEleven14:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sir,
I M Nikhil From India.I M a student of MBA First Year(Finance).As there are so many sectors in finance i m Quite Confuse Which is more Better For Me.So please Suggest me .
Plz Send Ur Views At
Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. --ais523 15:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
How to contact an author
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am looking for the author of an article. I would like to contact the person if possible. How can this be done?
Wikipedia articles (for the most part) aren't written by any one individual; lots of different people contribute. If you are looking for the person who contributed one specific fact or sentence to the article, then searching the history page for the contribution in question as Xiner suggests should suffice. If you elaborate on why you are looking for the author, we might be able to offer further advice. —PurpleRAIN20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Tracie Spencer
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hello,
I have been trying to update Tracie Spencer's information on the internet because a lot of sites have the wrong info. on her. She is going to be releasing new projects soon and I would like to know how I will be able to make these changes and not have them deleted everytime it is changed. The two sites that you have listed are wrong as well. I look forward to hearing a response from someone soon. Thanks for your time.
(edit-conflicted)Having a look at the article, I presume the wrong information on Tracie Spencer that you mentioned is her birth year. Well, currently in the article there're two different references [1][2] which specifically state that her birth year is 1976, not 1978. If you believe the sites are mistaken, you need to provide a reliable source for the material you added, as per WP:REF and WP:V. Otherwise your information could be regarded as original research and will be removed. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 14:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well since you do not have a reliable source for this 1978 birth, it had to be changed back. Besides, I already find it hard to believe she recorded Make the Difference when she was only 13-14. Jjmcspooh23:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have recently joined the Wikipedia community. I use Wikipedia all the time now to look up general knowledge and even have it as my homepage. A month or so ago, I found out about a certain religious group and decided to look them up here, but to my surprise there was no article on them yet. I negotiated the pages on how to request a new article, and since I had information to help start the article, I was directed to the Wikipedia Drawing Board. I made my request there with relevant information on the topic, and one editor had made a suggestion to verify the notability of the organization. I gave published articles on the organization for notability concerns but have not had any other editors comment on the feasibility of the article. In fact, I don't think that many experienced editors monitor the Drawing Board to help these new requestors/contributors. In looking at the Community Portal, I didn't see anything advising editors to monitor the Drawing Board to help newcomers to Wikipedia. I have already posted a request for experienced editors to help the Drawing Board on its discussion page. If experienced editors could be informed of their requested help in maintaining and monitoring the Drawing Board, then I think this will greatly aid Wikipedia in the creation of new quality content. Please let me know of any way to address this issue on my talk page--cgilbert14:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
What?!
Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I was told my article on the "American Cornhole Association" was nonsense by several users. Many of those users have no idea what cornhole is. For those who don't check out the article on cornhole. Cornhole is not nonsense!--Sportman203:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I was just thinking on your website you have many articles talking about bad slang terms. You even have one which refers the butt as a "cornhole". First off that term has nothing to do with the actual game of cornhole. I grew up in Cincinnati and I never ever have heard that term before now. Though most everybody I know (at least in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana) knows what the "American Cornhole Association" is. So basically Wikipedia is saying rude slang terms aren't nonsense but professional sports leagues are! What?!--Sportman203:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
You actually created an article "The American Cornhole Association" as indicated by deletion logs. I have looked at the website for the organization, and I sse that the Cornhole(game) article has refrences from three newspaper articles. If you can provide a reference specifically for the "American Cornhole Association" and not just the game itself, then it would be more difficult for editors to remove the article. A possible reference could be a newspaper, magazine, or journal article from a publisher other than the organization itself. This would verify the notability of the organization and hence, hopefully, that it is not nonsense. You can also discuss the article before creating it on the Wikipedia Drawing Board. I will copy this post to you user talk page as well. --cgilbert19:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Also, you might want to consider using the article title "American Cornhole Association" rather than "The American Cornhole Association". --cgilbert19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I just got done editing the article on Seth Swirsky and the spacing is off. I need each heading to be left aligned and below any pictures from the previous section and I need this to happen without a bunch of extra spaces in between each section. On my IE this looks right, but on my Firefox, it doesn't. How do I standardize the spacing so that it looks right on all browsers?
Unfortunately, theres no easy way to do this unless you have a lot of copy that acts as a buffer. My suggestion is to remove some of the images; do you really need pics of the albums, why not just refer them to that page? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Someone keeps erasing page info
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not very good at navigating this site yet,but a user keeps erasing vital information from a page. How can I stop this or contact the user directly? Can we send private messages to other users?
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Dear friends,
i have back pain nowadays.6 mons back i got fainted,and fell down.we consulteda doctor he told that the end of my spinal cord is little bent,and also he added that there was nothing to worry about.but now got that pain again.what should i do for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geeth168 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC).Reply
Did he say how long it would take for the pain to go away? If it takes longer than the doctor said, go back. If it's still worrying you, ask the doctor anyway. Wikipedians are not qualified to give medical advice. - Mgm|(talk)09:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. — Lost(talk)15:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I go to Wikipedia with my laptop and my home computer. On the God page, they show two different images and responces. And the amount of money Wikipedia has raised is different. Do different computers show different things?
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I cannot believe the run around from one webpage to another one has to endure,simply to point out a translation error.This must be on par with the Inland Revenue tax laws in volume and complications.
All I need to say that "Sturm und Drang"is not "Storm and Stress". I should be "Storm and Urge"!
That would most certainly result into Stress! Like trying to point out an error to Wikipedia.
Email: (removed to prevent spam)
User Name: ixora
You can correct it yourself, you know. That's what the 'edit this page' button at the top of the page is for (and incidentally why there's no place to report such things, as correcting it yourself would be easier than any reporting method). If someone disagrees with you, they'll change it back, and then you can discuss the change with them (probably on Talk:Sturm und Drang). --ais523 10:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a link in the menu to the left titled "Contact Wikipedia". If you click that, you can get to a page with relevant info within about 2 clicks. - Mgm|(talk)13:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Submitting to the directory
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'vve created a new page and would like to submit it the directory/catagories.
The page will automatically be included in the alphabetical index, and will be indexed in the search function within about a week. To add it to a category, use the [[Category:category to include the page in]] syntax at the bottom of the article. Note that the article, at the moment, reads a lot like an advert, and as such might be deleted unless you tone it down, and provide sources and evidence of notability. --ais523 14:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Zeratul, I'm on the job, but like with any WP space project, it tends to get backed up a little from time to time. I'm usually doing 1-2 reviews a day, so I should be done with the current crop within a week. As for where everyone else is, beats me. Maybe they have lives. ;) Dåvid Fuchs [talk • contribs] 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
How/Where do I download a template? Do I need a persons permission to write an article about them?
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
dear sir,
I have contributed an article on 'Malladihalli Raghavendrasvamiji' it is complete. i want to introduce the photo, which i have one or two.
Please help me to get the confidence,≈ to put it on your wikipedia main page. next time onwards i will read thoroughly and do the needful. the above article is of my revered guruji. please help.. ÷ 02:25, 28 January 2007 User:Radhatanaya
As for getting the article on the Wikipedia main page, it must become of such high quality as to rated as a featured article. In many cases that is impossible because the article is about someone or something that is notable, but not so notable as to be able to write a long article. You can find out more about featured articles here: Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. -- John Broughton☎☎18:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Missing Article
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I recently created a new article on wikipedia, and it does appear on "my contributions." However, when I do a search for my article by its title, it finds zero results. Is there a certain amount of time that must pass before it is "published" for everyone else to see? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filajoe (talk • contribs) 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC).Reply
Yes,it dosen`t happen right away, though I`m not sure exacly how long.Try again in a few days. If its on your contrbutions list, then the page is there and should be listed soon. By the way, external search engines often work better than Wikipedia`s.24.20.69.24005:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed someone has deleted a page called "Bline" because it contained nonsense posting about a presumably unrelated subject.
BLine [note different cases] is the name of a bus operator in my local area and currently does not have a page, how should I make such a page as the page has been deleted and protected.
Jobie2920:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Good evening ladies and genltemen. I would like to ask a quick question. There is an article known as "Tien len (VC)", which i have been working on since last year.
I would like to make sure this article is in tip top shape. If anyone can provide suggestions on improving the article, that would be greatly appreciated!
Taking a quick look, I'd suggest making a note of your references - at least quickly, at the bottom of the article, and ideally inline - see WP:REF. You could also improve it by linking some more key words, as currently only the very start and end of the article have links. In general, have a look at some other articles, to see how they are presented, for ideas on improving this one. Hope this helps, Warofdreamstalk03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Does the article seem to have too much bolded text? Or is it sufficient for the reader?
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
ASTRONOMY AND THE NATURAL PHYSICAL CONSTANTS
Astronomy is a very interesting science that leaves any interesting party with urge to know more and extra more all the time.
Talk about the sun, the galaxy, the asteroids, the comets, the black holes, the planets of the sun, and the planets of planets, the stars and every thing up there.
Notably we are in a thresh hold age of space exploration. All nations are looking up with passion of at least throwing something up there that can send back some information to earth.
When I hear of some giant scientific sites like the GALILEO, the NASA, the ESA, the JAXA, the ISAS and others reaching up there, am tempted to throw a stone up there by hand or sling to hit something and fall back with foreign materials on it to study. May be the former Iraq could have thrown a scud missile up there by now. These are great adventures.
How ever, one scaring adventure to be solved by these gigantic scientific organizations is the physical constant of the earth in its orbit. Logically the earth maintains its orbit due to the centripetal force of its mass being held by the sun’s gravitational pull.
Recently, I was determined to hurl a stone at the moon when my little kid piped near me, “dad that stone will not come back!” I looked at the kid with dismay and reluctantly gave up the mission.
The major scientific and social questions that came to my mind were:
Is there any system of control as to how many satellites, rockets, space stations etc is the earth loosing to the universe and at what rate and value is the earth loosing its mass to these space adventures???
In this avalanche of space age if every country is competing in releasing a rocket to space from its launching pad, will the mass of the planet earth still be the same in the near future years to keep it in its constant orbit?
Incase the earth loses its orbit due to change in mass and comes closer to a neighboring planet will they repel shooting themselves to other heavenly bodies or attract to crash into one another?
In either case no life will remain on earth but what will become of earth after then?
Is there any leakage of gases between the earth’s atmosphere and the universe as these rockets puncture the ozone on their way up there?
In any case there is such leakage is it environmentally friendly?
After knowing what is beyond the earth what will the people and earth benefit from these launchers?
Are these viable projects?
Could these funds be deviated to improve living conditions on earth?
Could somebody comfort the world by answering these questions?
Hi there John! The best place to ask this kind of question is at the Science reference desk, that's where you'll find all the experts on such subjects. I've also taken the liberty of reformatting your question to make it easier to read, hope you don't mind! — QuantumEleven12:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Adding an article to wiki
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am the webmaster for OUTLOOKSTRAVEL.CA and i'd like to know how to create an article about this site in wiki.
Now we'd like to create an article for OUTLOOKS TRAVEL
Now, Id like to think that with years of experience online and in media dev, that id be able to work this out.
But for the life of me, I cant figure out how to CREATE a listing, only edit one.
Please advise!
Thank You
AJ
(e-mail and phone number removed)
Please first check WP:WEB to see if it meets notability standards. If it doesn't, you may want to create a section on Outlooks, the article for the mother company. To create an article, go here: WP:CREATE. bibliomaniac1501:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I have noticed that some articels are being deleted such as couter stike maps of game descriptions. This seem distincly unecycopedic. The more minute the better. I have wished that some topics would have so much more inoframtion on certain topics!!! isn't that the point of an encylopedia, the more compeduious it is the more people will use it the better the stoer of knoweldge it represents.JUBALCAIN09:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Articles on Counter Strike maps are considered unencyclopedic because they usually can't be verified with reliable sources (verification of information is a key policy). Also, including most of them would pretty much mean allowing map creators to advertise their work - something specifically forbidden in WP:NOT. And then, I haven't even talked about the maps that have such a small amount of players, they're not notable. - Mgm|(talk)09:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
True, verifiable is an issue, but apart from that, isn't everyting a advert for something???? Every theory/fact/paper is pushing something. As far as notable goes, would not be best to leave that to the reader to decide simply because its no big deal to u or me...it may be important to someone?
Theories and papers push a certain POV, but facts are facts. They push the truth. As for notability. That has been established to stop everyone and their uncle to make entries for themselves and their own ideas in Wikipedia. If it is important to someone (for example Counter Strike players) there's nothing keeping you from posting to Counter Strike websites where people who find it important can find the material. There's always someone who will find something important. But we're writing an encyclopedia. Not a compendium of every bit of info in the world. Anyway, verifiability is enough of an issue to not allow it. Verifiability is key. -0 Mgm|(talk)10:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I am obviously not a famous person (at least not yet). Is there any restriction on starting a autobiography of someone not famous though?
Bleung2bleung09:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)BillyReply
Yes, relevant policies and guidelines are WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. If you hang around and edit other articles, people won't object if you put your own autobiography on your userpage, but remember that being here just for the userpage violates the rule that "Wikipedia is not a free webhost". People who work on the project are given a little more leeway on what they're allowed to have on their userpage. - Mgm|(talk)09:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
How to publish first person unpublished accounts
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I am interested in contributing to an entry that would shine light on a topic, based on personal unpublished experience.
I know Wikipedia wants everything cited; how do I do this?
For example, suppose I was the first person to start a certain popular trend. And, suppose the trend is interesting, but not interesting enough for someone to have ever investigated or published my account. However, I think my anecdote would be very interesting for people to know. What is the proper way to enter this into Wikipedia? (How do I make this verifiable?)
If it is interesting enough, you can convince reporters to write about it. Then you have material for a new Wikipedia article. If you cannot convince reporters, then your experience does not belong in an encyclopedia. Maybe later but not now. Hevesli21:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
It is interesting that you would rely on journalists as reference for Wikipedia articles. From that point of view, we might believe Judy Miller that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction." Anyway, I appreciate the response.
Wikipedia is not the place to publish original material. Material can only be on Wikipedia when it's already published elsewhere (in multiple publications that aren't related to you). Also see WP:AUTO, WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:N for starters. - Mgm|(talk)10:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
The most relevant policy - one of three core policies in Wikipedia, is Wikipedia:No original research. You may think that what you experienced is absolutely fascinating to everyone, or that you've invented a perpetual motion machine that really works, or any number of things that no newspaper has ever reported on. But Wikipedia isn't the total repository for all knowledge and thoughts (see WP:NOT); we've chosen to limit ourselves to verifiable information. You may think that's a mistake; perhaps it is, but Wikipedia is so fundamentally based on WP:NOR that there is essentially no likelihood that it will ever change. You're free to publish your thoughts on a blog or social networking site or personal website or a discussion forum elsewhere, but Wikipedia, perhaps to our loss, is not an acceptable place. -- John Broughton(☎☎)02:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
OutLook Skateboards
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I am the owner of OutLook Skateboards and we have been online for over 7 years. We are all over the net as well as my name is. I was wondering what I need to do to get my name/compnay on Wikipedia?
Hi there! Wikipedia is not a company or website directory, in order for a company or website to have an article on Wikipedia it needs to be notable, for more details on these criteria, see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) and Wikipedia:Notability (web). In general, you are strongly discouraged to write about yourself or your company, the way it works is if you or your company are notable enough, someone else will write an article about you. Please remember that Wikipedia is not an advertising service, and that articles should be written from a neutral point of view.
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I wish to add a technical reference to an article. I have this material (it's from Standards Australia) as printed matter but it's not available online (as least not for free). Am I able to use this as a reference even though I cannot link to it?
Yes, you pretty much need to use WP:CITE (see also WP:FOOT) when you have an offline reference. For online references, although using a cite isn't mandatory, it's still highly desirable - it's not mandatory because other editors can check the source, and because (hopefully) some other editor will (later) convert it from an embedded link to a cite. But with an offline source, anything less than full cite info is going to be highly problematical. -- John Broughton(☎☎)02:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
two novels, two articles, one name
Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Collier734414:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)I've looked through the faqs, but can't seem to find the specific advice I need.
I wish to contribute an article about a novel. There already exists an article about a different novel with the same title. What should I use as the link?
If it helps, the novel is a part of a series. Could I use the series name as part of the link name?Reply
Collier734421:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)The name is Amsterdam. I had a look at disambiguation. The only idea I could come up with is a double disambiguation, calving off novels named Amsterdam.Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have just written a new page, Solidarity (South Africa), my first contribution. When I tried to paste an external link at the end of the article, the page disappeared and I was redirected to the tutorial page.
Had you clicked the Save button after writing the article? If not, then it never made it into the Wikipedia database. My guess is that when you were pasting in the link, you accidentally hit the wrong key, and directed your browser to go back a page instead. If that's the case, then there's really no choice but to re-type the article (assuming that you've visited another page since then, and can no longer click the forward arrow to get back to the page you were on). If you're writing a very long article, it might be worthwhile to click Save periodically, and then go back and edit the article to add more. That way you can be sure that the article is being saved. —PurpleRAIN16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Stardock has a knowledge base article on this. To fix it, add a bookmark to your bookmark bar. Removing the bar altogether or moving it somewhere else may also work. (Right click a blank space on the menu or navigation bar, and uncheck Bookmarks Toolbar or click Customize to move it). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Is there any special protocl for linking to other pages?
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am new here, and am working on an article about a Buddhist organization that is mainly based in the US and Canada. I wanted to link my article to the Buddhism in United States and Buddhism in Canada pages, and I was wondering if I had to get permission first. Also, what is the protocol for getting other pages to link back to your article? Thanks for the help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amaranthxx (talk • contribs) 23:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC).Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello,
1. In the French Wikipedia I recently created an article that is linked as a stub to another article. This article is in English. I have created the same article in the English Wikipedia. I wish to have the first article in the French Wikipedia deleted. How do I go about this?
2. In the aforementioned article, I submitted an image and attached the appropriate licensing message in the associated text field. However, the licensing message only appears to those who have logged in to Wikipedia. When someone is not logged in and clicks on the picture, a box appears that warns that, if the appropriate licensing is not declared within 7 days, the image will be deleted. How can I make the my appended licensing message appear to all users logged in or not? --3hierx00:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Who has won by the highest margin of votes in any kind of election in India & World so far & by how much & from which constituency? Which website can give me these information ?59.93.245.3703:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sir, I want to ask a question:-
If a fluid kept in a beaker with its mouth closed, if it is moved up and down in a rapid motion, bubbles will form in liquid. I want to ask that whether there be any change in physical or chemical properties of the fluid present in the beaker.
regards, sachin.
(-@yahoo.co.in) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.135.221.23 (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC).Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, my name is Amanda. I am enrolled at my local college and in my speech class we have to write about a specific speech. I picked out the one by Susan B. Anthony but I cant seem to find the date of this publication. If you could help me, I would highly appreciate it. Thanks 05:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)~~
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello.
I'm very new to wikipedia, and I've already made a mistake and got a message about it.
I saw a few fansites listed on some of the pages, and since my website is based on the same television characters/shows, I thought I could add my site's URL. I did so on three pages with the editing tool, and today I found my links deleted and I also recieved a message from someone who told me that I can't add a personal site. I'd added my site to what I gather is his or her wikipedia site section that features one of the shows I have featured on my website. My site link has been removed from all three areas that I posted to.
I'm very confused because I know of two people who have their site's listed on one of the very same wikipedia pages that I added mine to. One of the site's listed is most definitely a fansite. It has photos, fan fiction, and a forum. I have the same on my site, but mine can't be listed. Why? How in the world is it okay for them, but not for me?
I wanted to get in touch with the perosn who sent the message, and apologize to them, but I couldn't find any way to do so.
My intent is not to offend anyone. I orginally signed up to wikipedia in case I find or already have helpful information to add. But when I saw the website listings in the external sections of pages, I thought it would be fine for me to add my own, since editing does allow such action.
I don't even know if I'm sending this message to the right place. [sigh]
Again, I have no intent to offend with anything I've done or may do. I'm slowly learning my way around.
To all affected by this - Please accept my apologies for such a blunder.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. There are some guidelines available about adding external links at WP:EL. However in spirit, the question that needs to be asked is whether the external link being added is adding any value to the article at wikipedia? If it is, then the site should be listed at the article. If however, one can simply take the additional information from the site and add it to the article, then there is not much point in adding the site. If the other sites are not adding value, please feel free to remove them as well. However dont just do it to make a WP:POINT. That would be in bad taste.
Have I managed to answer you? You are at the right place to ask this and can always ask more questions here or at my talk page. — Lost(talk)11:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
What's the right way to edit the page about my company and my own bio
Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I'd like to correct some errors both in the pages on craigslist and myself.
Jimmy asked me to ask here regarding protocol, so ... is it right for me to edit those pages, or what would you suggest?
You should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for detailed recommendations. If I were going to do this, I would make a statement on my user page about my connection to the articles I planned to edit, and that I would only be editing to improve accuracy. The only edits I would make would be ones that had ironclad, independent reliable sources, so the change could be evaluated for its sourcing, not its editor. If I wanted to argue for a change less well sourced, I'd make my best argument on the talk page, disclosing there as well what my involvement is, and asking for independent assistance. Always avoid deleting sourced information detrimental to the subject, as that can get you blocked for COI. If you believe it's unfair, bring it up on the talk page. Polite requests will generally be taken much better than angry complaints. That's my 2 cents. ~ Jeff Q(talk)20:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Note that this can be pretty confusing, especially if an article has a statement that you know is wrong, but it has a reliable reference (say, it states your birthday is on a determined date citing an article from New York Times or CNN, but you know it is wrong). In this case, people may ask you a reliable source for your birthday (yes, verifiability is taken pretty seriously in determined articles). And even some people may consider you are doing original research, and remove your annotations! So, if that ever happens, try to converse in the article talk pages, most times consensus is reached fairly easily if they are "trivial" corrections (editors do not really like people removing correctly referenced information, even by the subject of the article itself, so you will have to explain, listen to suggestions, and try to ask for guidance). -- ReyBrujo20:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Also, make sure you state in the talk page of articles you want to/have edit (and that are connected to you or your business) who you are, to prevent misunderstandings. I agree with Jeff Q that you should edit your user page at User:Cnewmark and put information about who you are and your connections, to prevent anyone from thinking you are doing sneaky edits. -- ReyBrujo20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and one other thing: it will always be an uphill battle, and generally not a good idea to edit your own subjects, so be prepared for neutral editors to still reject your changes, preferring less involved editors to work on them. Wikipedia has had some rather public battles with conflict of interest, so many folks try to err on the side of rejecting edits from people too close to the subject. ~ Jeff Q(talk)20:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, much appreciated! I've noted on both pages that I intend only to fix stuff, and add external links. I'll try to restrain my sense of humor. Cnewmark21:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Attacked by a Deleter!
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I recently saw on my user discussion page that someone had speedily deleted the article I had submitted (on Ormus matter) - because another article on the same subject (unimpressive stuff) had been criticized by 9 skeptics and then withdrawn by the writer.
The deleter's page had no administrator mark, so can he just go around deleting topics he is skeptic to?
On his discusssion page he seemed to be working as an administrator (and evidently helping several users). I asked him there for an undelete, and he told me to apply for an undelete of what that other guy had written!
He also told me how to rephrase definitions for various topics. A valid objection - but it assumes the existence of text that can be changed - the basis for wiki-style cooperation.
As the history of my article is unimportant: Is it ok for me to (solidify my definitions and) simply resubmit it? OlavN09:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I wanted to add an article about myself - David Winters (musician),
there was another David Winters (a scottish footballer) already listed.
I thought by editing I could submit a new article, and may have
unintentionally deleted his article. Can there be only one article per title - in this case a person's name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Winters (talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC).Reply
Welcome to Wikipedia! This is quite common actually, and you can learn how to handle this by looking at disambiguation, but you're halfway there with "David Winter (musician)" and "David Winters (footballer)". I've reverted the article that you overwrote to the previous state. However, since, as you stated, you are writing an article about yourself, you probably shouldn't start that article. Please read WP:AUTO and WP:COI and also WP:NPOV. You are welcome to put that information onto your userpage at User:David Winters until someone writes that article though. --MECU≈talk19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
But remember, a userpage isn't a free advertising space. If you create a bio there without occasionally editing Wikipedia it is likely to get deleted. - Mgm|(talk)10:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
customizing wiki
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It sounds like both of these questions are about customizing the MediaWiki software. This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. If you're asking about how to use the software, you're probably better off asking at the MediaWiki support desk. If I misunderstood, and your questions are about using Wikipedia, please restate them with a little more detail so we understand what you need. —PurpleRAIN15:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
How do you add a contribution?
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'd like to know how to add a brand new contribution to the wiki. Not editing a pre-existing entry, but creating the entry from scratch? How would i do that? Thank you in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmdesign (talk • contribs) 16:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC).Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I began a translation as a response to a proper 'request for translations' - then discovered there already exists an english version - it's just not as good.
I feel comfortable supplementing the english version with bits from the french but don't feel comfortable cutting out what's already on the english version page.
any guidelines?
please reply on mytalk page Liloleme00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am impressed with your list of railroad museums. I would like to submit the Gold Coast Railroad Museum located in Miami, Fl as an additional railroad musuem. I do not really know how to add a museum, so please forward me information that will allow my staff to put our museum on your list with the brief description.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you,
Linda Lavalais
(personal information removed; answers are given on this page)
You can create a new article on Wikipedia yourself; see the Introduction and Tutorial if you haven't already, and then specific information about when to create a new article and how to create a new article. Note that all articles have to be written in a neutral manner; this can be quite hard to do if you're the subject of the article or affilated with the subject (see the conflict of interest guidelines). Note also that articles require sources external to their subjects; for instance, you'll need to find some newspaper reports, or possibly academic papers, referring to the museum; this is to prove that the article is verifiable (otherwise we have no way of knowing it's true) and notable. Hope that helps! --ais523 18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
longest living kidney transplant recipiant
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi ,
I was brousing and saw you have listed the longest kidney transplant rec. being at 28 years,my mother had the procedure done 6-1976 & is still alive and well.
I dont know if you would contact me or not.
E-mail address is email address commented out
Thanks Scott —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.60.115 (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC).Reply
We can only add documented information to Wikipedia. If you have a news article or other documentation stating that your mother has lived longer than 28 years with a transplanted kidney, then please include that information in the article, or mention it on the article's talk page. If the information isn't documented, then unfortunately it can't be used here. —PurpleRAIN21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
How to prevent an article from being deleted
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi,
I had posted an biography about Digital Media Network (Digital Media Network was also the title) a global company that was founded 12 years ago. After posting the company profile it shown that it will be deleted because it was written as advertisement. Therefore we had analyzed some of our competitors such as Cisco and HP and did have out PR department rewrite this to fit the way these company's have formulate there biography. Still it was deleted again. Are only public company's allowed to post content about them and private owned company's are discriminated against. We do not understand what was spam on the second posting and if it is considered spam why are Cisco and HP allowed to post they biography?
Out intent is not to spam in any way but to provide users with information about the company and its high class management team.
What did we do wrong and how would we have to go about to get our official biography on to the site?
Hello, Thomanji. Wikipedia has a lot of policies on what content is acceptable and how it should be added. You might want to start by looking at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. This should help you understand what the reason was for your article to be deleted.
What is often recommended is that you wait for someone else to write the article about your company. If the company is notable enough, that will eventually happen. You can also discuss the deletions at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
Also, regarding your question why are Cisco and HP allowed to post they biography, the answer is that they also are not allowed to do so. If you look at the history tab of the articles on those two companies, I'm sure that you will find dozens, if not hundreds of editors have edited the articles over time. Wikipedia has never authorized any company or organization to write "their" own article, and in fact has a policy that no one owns any article here. -- John Broughton(♫♫)22:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Image Deletion
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Ok, I did my first article, please check it out. If you find any grammatical errors please correct them, as I'm not a native english speaker. Also if you have anything to recommend, comment so I can learn better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VoivodMacedonia (talk • contribs) 12:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC).Reply
Hello! The person must be notable (the notability guideline for persons is here). See if this subject is notable, if not the article will be deleted quickly. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo22:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, technically you can. However, you should not add an article about something that doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - and, specifically, for individuals, this policy. If you do write an article about a non-notable person, you're wasting your time, because it's likely to be nominated for deletion and subsequently removed, as are more than 2000 articles each day (compared to about twice that number added each day). And you're wasting the time of other editors who look at new articles to see whether they are suitable for Wikipedia.
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I would like some advice about Hill and Plain RECON. It seems to me that most of this article(i.e. the detailed and personal descriptions of every member of staff) is useless. Is it OK to truncate this article into a stub?
JPilborough22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you consider that information is unnecessary, you can do so. Try to discuss in the article talk page before, to prevent people thinking you are blanking the article. From what I see, yes, most information is unnecessary and, in fact, the article may be deleted due lack of notability. If you have any question about personal information suitability, ask at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. In the meantime, I will propose its deletion. -- ReyBrujo22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I am writing an article in my "/draft1". Only the first half of the entered article displays on preview or when I save the page. The last character displayed on the incomplete saved page or preview is 'square'. Any ideas on where I have gone wrong?
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have written two articles here (on Ormus matter and PESWiki), and both were speedily deleted by someone who evidently didn't like the topics. (The last time I didn't even get a message about it, and don't know where the text is.) It seems Wikipedia isn't the place for people who do constructive work. At least there should be a list of banned topics, so that people don't write articles in vain. Is flagging for deletion only used by a decent minority of the admins? OlavN09:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ormus matter was deleted because there was previously consensus to delete ORMUS; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ORMUS. Likewise, there was previously quite a large debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PESWiki) where it was decided that an older article about PESWiki should be deleted. You may have been just unlucky in writing articles about things that were deleted in the past. (One thing you can do is to open the 'deletion log' link mentioned on the new-article screen before writing the article, to make sure it hasn't been deleted earlier; however, this would only have helped in one of the cases (PESWiki), as you used a slightly different name for the article about Ormus matter.) If you believe that for some reason the original result is not applicable to the new article (for instance, if the article is actually about something different), you could try taking the matter to deletion review. Hope that helps! --ais523 09:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict; echoing what ais523 mentioned) You'll find the relevant discussions here:
Please note that the articles weren't speedy deleted, but nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where you'll find more information regarding the process and steps involved.
You can find the relevant AfD entries by looking at the deleted pages' deletion logs. The easiest way to get there (as far as I know), is to visit the deleted article as you normally would, which would bring you to an edit page, as if creating the article anew. In this case, clicking on the redlinks above will take you to that edit page. On that page, you'll find noted:
If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function. If a page previously existed at this exact title, check the deletion log and see Why was my page deleted?.
The text "deletion log" will be a link which will take you to deletion logs showing the relevant AfD entry for the page in question.
Note that the articles that you wrote and that were deleted were not the ones originally AfD'd, but according to speedy deletion criterion G4 if an article is deleted at AfD, a recreated version that doesn't address the original problems can be deleted speedily. --ais523 10:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I am trying a add an article about my new project Lunartics, but Wikipedia appears to want to delete and can't understand why and don't know how to ask anyone...
I already have a feature under "Danny Flynn" regarding my 23 career as a reasonably well known S F and fantasy artist www.dannyflynn.com
Lunartics is about to be a widely seen project, for children of all ages
Any help or advice would be warmly appreciated as obviously don't wish to be doing any wrong
yours Danny Flynn
(email removed to protect you from spam)
The article was deleted because its subject was considered to be not yet sufficiently notable; you may want to read the deletion discussion. Generally speaking, there should be press coverage independent of the subject itself, ot other sources (such as academic journals) not connected to the original subject, for something to be considered notable (otherwise, there's no reliable way to verify that the information is true using an independent souce, which is important to help keep it neutral). There was also a worry that the page might be self-promotion. You might want to read Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? for more information. --ais523 09:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
electric harmonicas
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Guys,
There has been an interesting development to the harmonica in the first electric and now wireless instrument. Look at www.harmonix-harmonica.co.uk where you can see pics of the new harmonica. It is modular and has a cartridge system for changing key.
Wikipedia doesn't generally report things like this until there is significant discussion in independent sources; for instance, newspaper reports, academic papers, or something like that. If you have the sources, you can add them to the article yourself (or place them here if you need more guidance). See Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:No original research for more information. --ais523 11:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Removing italics
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What is the problem with the article about Marcus Tullius Cicero?
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello!
I have for over a month tried my best to edit the article about Marcus Tullius Cicero. In December 2006, when I started to work on it, the article was rated an A page, although some editors wondered on the discussion page, how an article with so few references could be rated A.
I added some new material (with references) and corrected some wrong edits, maybe vandalism,
like: "As everyone knows, Cicero was a homosexual etc.". I also tried to whip up some discussion on the discussion page. Yet, in January 2007, the page was rerated into a B article, much to my chagrin and worry.
Please, could anyone visit that site and tell me frankly what you think are its good and weak points! What should be augmented and what removed? Should it be broken into two articles or not?
(I have suggested this breaking up, but I am not so certain that it is the best policy.)
What worries me also, that it seems to be the favourite place for persons who have no account, who work unsigned, and who often have very little knowledge about Cicero, to come and
change, - for instance: "during the first century BC" to "during the second century BC" (the
latter being plain wrong and skewing the whole article). I am feeling that my work on Cicero
is useless, as it will be messed up nevertheless in a few days anyway.
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am curently undertaking a first diploma for ict prcatitoners and would just like to ask for the use of your text about the televisions show lost for my website design modual.
i would like to use some of the text in your artical and as the college policy would like to request for the use of the content of the text.
because i would like to add the text onto my website about lost
as a good will guesture i will add a link to the wikipedia site and clearly state where the use of the informaton has orginally come from
on the background for a Illegal immigration template I'm creating. Hmmm... --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)