Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 August 8

Help desk
< August 7	<< Jul | August | Sep >>	August 9 >

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

August 8

How

Resolved

How do I create an article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuribug (talk • contribs).

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation.. PrimeHunter 00:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

blocking templates

Resolved

Are non admin users allowed to place block templates on a user page, if the blocking admin has not done so.86.141.240.149 00:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. WODUP 00:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Glamis Castle image circa 1880 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/glamis_castle

Resolved

We would like to use the image on an invitation for a private event. Are there any restrictions? What would be the best proceedure to use it? Thanks Andresinteriors 00:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The image description page at commons:Image:GlamisWide.JPG shows that it's licensed under the Creative Commons ShareAlike 1.0 license. The restrictions can be found on the license page. WODUP 02:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

citing wikipedia

Resolved

when using wikipedia as a source for academic research, how do you cite the internal reference to wikipedia as the source conforming to APA format?

Many thanks 01:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Click "Cite this article" in the toolbox to the left on the used article. An APA style citation is included. PrimeHunter 02:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You should also read Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia which contains warnings about using Wikipedia in research papers and the like. WODUP 02:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Resolved

Do we have to put (edit conflict) edit conflict (EC) etc. when one happens? People seem too eager to add this to indicate what should be an everyday occurrence.ALTON .ıl 02:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has to do it, but it can be useful to indicate that the comment was written before seeing the previous comment. I only use it when it's relevant for that reason. PrimeHunter 02:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The holy grail

Resolved

WHO IN YOUR APINION IS THE LIVING OR DECEASED PERSON WHOS BLOOD LINE IS OR WAS THE HOLY GRAIL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.138.48.91 (talk)

What do you mean? Melsaran 03:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes. .V. _[Talk|Email] 03:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My coffee mug can directly trace its lineage to the Holy Grail. Shame it got broken.--Max Talk (+) 03:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The question appears to involve a semi-grammatical corruption of the premise of The Da Vinci Code. --Teratornis 14:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Palm

Resolved

How can I download wikipedia on my palm?

It might be possible if you had a fully featured web browser installed on your Palm. Trying to view the English Wikipedia Main Page on my Palm Tungsten T5 caused the Blazer web browser to crash. Astronaut 09:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It worked on my Palm Tungsten T5 using the Blazer web browser in wide-screen mode (it crashed my T5 when in portrait mode). The T5 was connected to the internet via my mobile phone with Bluetooth. My mobile phone contract allows GPRS internet access but it is slow and expensive to use. I think it is possible to buy a wireless internet card that would fit in the SD card slot which would be faster and could use my home ISP or any wirless hot-spot. Unfortunately, the biggest problem is the text size and formatting gave the web page a strange look. Maybe a better web browser on the T5 is what I need. Astronaut 10:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

TomeRaider might help. --Teratornis 14:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nutritional Requrement for Hepatitis B Patients

Resolved

Please direct me to a site where i would read the nutritional requirements of a Hepatitis B patient--203.87.181.34 04:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For starters you should see the article on Hepatitis B. Please note that Wikipedia does not give medical advice. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 04:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking and non-redundant section headings

It seems that a heading of a sub-section should avoid repeating the heading of the section that contains it; this seems redundant. For example, Cyanosis#Common causes of central cyanosis is a subsection of Cyanosis#Central cyanosis, so a less redundant sub-heading under "Central syanosis" would be "Common causes". However, the link Cyanosis#Common causes incorrectly suggests to the reader that "Common causes" is a main section of the article and concerns the causes of cyanosis in general. And, if there is a section like Cyanosis#Peripheral cyanosis that also has a subsection "Common causes", the link Cyanosis#Common causes only refers to the first occurrence. Is there a way to link to a subsection of a particular section? If not, is there any point for me to suggest at the Village Pump such a modification of Wikimedia? -Pgan002 05:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you type out the hyperlink Cyanosis#Common causes of central cyanosis, it would look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanosis#Common_causes_of_central_cyanosis, which is a long line of text, like most specific hyperlinks. I don't think people will be too concerned about the redundancy there. However, if you are linking inside Wikipedia, you can pipelink by making it look like: Common causes of central cyanosis, but it actually leads to: Cyanosis#Common causes of central cyanosis. You can do this by typing: [[Cyanosis#Common causes of central cyanosis|Common causes of central cyanosis]].

Keep in mind that the section Cyanosis#Common causes does not exist, so it redirects you to the Cyanosis article itself. --JDitto 06:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear. The redundancy is the repetition of "central cyanosis" in the headings of the article and the TOC; in long articles with many subsections and levels of subsections, this kind of redundancy makes the TOC difficult to read. The headings can be reworded to remove the redundancy, were it not for the linking problems above. -Pgan002 06:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it does, but it makes it more clear for people who are new to the article and do not know that there are more than one kind of Cyanosis, right? --JDitto 06:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Then the MoS should be modified to say that the sub-headings should be unique, even if that makes them redundant, right?. -Pgan002 22:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Wording, "Avoid restating the subject or article title, or of an enclosing section in headings." I would take that to mean that a sub-section shouldn't include the heading from the section, so "Common causes" would be correct. Confusing Manifestation 07:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Then how do I link to the second subsection called "Common causes"? -Pgan002 22:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

signature usage

Resolved

Poemisaglock 05:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I am a fairly new user and i don't understand what the signature option under "my preferences" is for. I checked the signature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures) page and it talked about signing your posts. I do this and it shows up with my username (Poemisaglock), but would having a signature replace this? I just don't understand what the point of it is if your username already shows up when you sign your posts. Is there some other purpose of the signature or perhaps it is considered more official than the username? Please clear this up. THANK YOU!

Typing ~~~~ produces i ^said 06:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC) for me. For you, it will produce whatever you have in the raw signature box, or Poemisaglock and the time as a default. You should always type the four tildes after every post you make on a place where it is appropriate, i.e. pretty much everything but an actual article. This page, article talk pages, user talk pages and the like should all be signed. This helps people communicate by letting us know who wrote something. i ^said 06:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Image in a table

How do I center align an image in a table? --JDitto 06:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

<center> tags work. See my example. WODUP 08:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried that, but it doesn't work on the weird table found on Chess#Strategy and tactics. --JDitto 02:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin complaint and request

Resolved

Admin IPSOS has placed a "False" allegation on my User page[1] and is accusing me of being a liar, and has placed me here:[2] Admin IPSOS seems to state as fact that I am a sockpuppet here:[3]? I am requesting that this be addressed as soon as possible as it has upset me greatly and I am concerned that this Admin is set on providing personal information to other editors that will enable them to harass me. Your cooperation with regards to this matter is sought in a timely manner. Regards,TalkAbout 06:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, you can post at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. --JDitto 06:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and guidance. I will place the complaint there. I know that as Admins you can see that I am not that individual and therefore took this accusation all the more seriously. PEACETalkAbout 07:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Admins cannot see whether two accounts are editing from the same computer. Few people have the CheckUser privilege required at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. PrimeHunter 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

deletion of my first contribution "Ari Forman" .... and my research to support it...

Hi... my contribution was deleted. I think I understand why... I didn't add links to the places I found my info/facts. I tried to edit it to read less like an "advertisement" as I did NOT intend it to come across that way. It was my first attempt and I guess this is a common newbie mistake.

Moving forward... how can I undelete this contribution "Ari Forman" and make it appropriate? here is the main source of my info for this contribution. However I have many other links that give more bits and pieces below the main link.

(main source of info) http://www.onthegomarketing.com/bios/ari/ari.html

(other sources of info/facts) http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200502/1107806469.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_16_29/ai_n19041558

http://www.worshipworthy.com/category/our-daily-bread/

http://peelmagazine.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=102&osCsid=d17d9caa382

Dannyglasband 06:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Danny

HELLOOOOOOO.... anybody out there?????

up stream in pipeline construction work

Resolved

up stream & down stream in pipeline construction work

Um... I do not understand what this is about? If you need help without something else besides Wikipedia, you should check out the reference desk. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 07:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Move sections?

Resolved

Is it possible to move sections of an article as a new article. (And keep it's history, of course.) --JDitto 06:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a way to move the edit history of just that section to the new article, but you can create the new article with an edit summary that links back to the source and leave a summary in its place, if necessary, on the parent article. See Wikipedia:Summary style. WODUP 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks! --JDitto 02:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

{help me} cant get my password86.91.118.155 06:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Hello,

I dont know where to look for my question, i tried many times with a email, but every time it comes back. I hope you can help me.

This is what i wanted to ask:

Hello Lindenlab,

My english isnt that good, but i try.

I have a question: my password is saved at my computer. And i dont remember it anymore. So i am unable to go to the site. I tried to answer the question that was asked, but did it three times wrong. Now i dont get my password.

Can you help me please so i can also get into the side?

Thank you very much. I hope to hear from you .

Greetings,

Catharina86.91.118.155 06:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be possible to get a new password sent to you. Enter your User ID on the "sign in/create account" page here and click the "E-mail new password" button. It will only work if Wikipedia knows your e-mail address (which you set up on the "My preferences" page). Astronaut 11:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Stubs

Resolved

Is it possible for an article to go from being not a stub, to being reduced to one? That seems to be what happened to the Otherkin article--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 07:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is possible for article to go back to being a stub (its happened before). This usually happens when a large amount of information is deleted due to copyright vios, WP:NOT, community consensus, etc. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 07:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 07:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User RfC link gone red

Resolved

I've just noticed that cross-references I've made in various places to comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian have gone red. (No doubt the same will happen here at the help desk when I press save.) Why is that? Are user RfCs deleted when they are closed? And (since I'm here asking questions) if they are, then why is that done? AndyJones 07:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

according to the logs it was deleted because "El C deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian" (efforts to resolve the dispute are lacking)". Remember to check the logs on the pages :)--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 07:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see that. I'm still not sure I understand the procedure, though: yes, the RfC was closed (and quite rightly: I was one of those who defended Eyrian's position, although I had other comments to make). Why the page deletion, though? Most other discussions are kept visible. Is that the procedure? And if so why? AndyJones 08:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ask El_C. Miranda 11:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See this archived discussion. Corvus cornix 22:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Foundation

I would like to know who is financing the Wikipedia Foundation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.19.201.193 (talk)

The Wikimedia Foundation is financed by gifts, because it is a charitable organisation which does not have advertisements on its websites. See also the "make a donation" tab to your left. By the way, tildes are generally made by pressing shift+the key left to the 1, but you can also click the signature button on top of the edit box. Melsaran 11:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia is one of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs wikis on the MediaWiki software – confusing, I know) operates on donations and grants. foundation:Finance report might have more detailed information. WODUP 12:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know who are the main spenders (donators) by name? --91.19.197.221 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Tildes

Resolved

1)What is the 4 tildes?

2)Did I have one, if so can you give it me, please.

 If I did have one, I cannot recall it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anacrossan (talk • contribs) 

The tilde is the squiggly line probably on the button to the left of the 1 key on your keyboard. On Wikipedia, typing four of them (~~~~) automagically produces your signature and timestamp when the page is saved. WODUP 11:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

1) The 4 tildes are used to sign your post so people know who you are. They look like this ~~~~ and produce a signature of your username/IP address followed by the time and date.

2) I don't understand your question or the context in which it is placed. I have a feeling you are not connected with the "...who is financing the Wikipedia..." question above. If this is the case, you need to create a new question by clicking the "Click here to ask your question about using Wikipedia" link at the top of this page.

Astronaut 11:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SIG and Help:Talk page. If you cannot find the tilde on your keyboard, look in the big box below the Wikipedia edit window, which has a line labeled "Symbols:" and you can click on them to insert them into the edit window at the cursor position. There is also an Edit toolbar you can display above the edit window, and it has a button with the Tooltip text: "Your signature with timestamp." If you don't see this toolbar when you edit, you will have to enable it in your Preferences. --Teratornis 15:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Irregularity on AfD

Resolved

There's an ongoing discussion on AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laila Richard Sadeq, which is irregular at best and may be deliberate trolling. It was created yesterday from what seems to be an old, closed AfD, although I can't find any evidence in the admin's edit history that he or she was ever involved in the discussion and the user who created the page and who supposedly originally nominated the article in 2005 seems to have only created his account in February of 2007. Having created the AfD, his next step was to alter the dates to the current year. User:Xxdisneyxfanxx then came in, edited out some of the admin comments & added his or her own back-dated comments. User:82.13.21.147 removed the admin notice altogether. Long backstory, short question: how should this situation be handled? This isn't an actual AfD; the process has not been followed. It seems to be a group effort to stir controversy. (Sorry for not using "difference" tags instead of the cumbersome method I've used; I haven't figured out how yet, though I'm sure it's perfectly obvious. :)) --Moonriddengirl 12:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Um... that's an odd one. The article should be nominated, the subject does not meet notability or verifiability standards. Ok, I'll probably get yelled at for this, but I'm going to be bold, close off the current discussion as improperly filed and debated, and re-start it properly. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 12:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have completed the AfD nomination on the current AfD debate which has multiple comments and should not be stopped in my opinion. PrimeHunter 13:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah.. I think I should have paid more attention to my spider-sense on this one and exercised more caution before voting. However, now that the AfD nom has been sorted out I'm not going to change my vote; It does leave an unpleasant taste in the mouth, though, as I can't shake the feeling that there are agendas being pushed and other motivations behind the original "nomination". I reserve the right to change my nom, as ever, should things that are currently just suspicious become more alarming. Oh, and thanks to Moonriddengirl for pointing me in this direction. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

trinidad & tobago

Resolved

population

Trinidad and Tobago says "July 2005 estimate 1,305,000". PrimeHunter 13:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated MOS violations/anon IP difficulties on Jennifer Hudson

Resolved

For the past few days I've had issues with various anon IP users (as well as one user who made the initial edits, User:Ebrownn, who I addressed on their talk page after another user voiced their concern about their use of images[4]) altering the Jennifer Hudson article to fit their own idea of the Manual of Style. I've reverted back each time, possibly accidentally removing some kosher edits in the meanwhile, citing my reasons, but later that day the article is transformed yet again.[5][6]. My question is, what can I do to stop these changes? I don't feel comfortable warning these separate IP accounts; what if it's the same individual? Should I ask for the article to be protected? Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? Should I just let it take its own course? What Would Jimbo Do? María (críticame) 14:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been no discussion on the talk page in over a month. You need to continue the "discuss" part of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss. Also, you can leave a note for User talk:Ryulong, who is already familiar with the problem, or at WP:ANI if he's not available. I think it's too early to seek semiprotection. Shalom ^Hello 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

recurring vandalism to JASON Defense Advisory Group

Resolved

The vandalized article, JASON Defense Advisory Group, was semi-protected. And when the protection deadline of Aug. 4 passed, I reverted the article to the last non-vandalized version. The vandal is back, making the same changes; and I've just re-reverted the article. Can the vandalisms be blocked in some way? AKath 15:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Ann Finkbeiner

The following question by User:Prakashpgopinath|prachi]] is not related to my question. Note by User:ConMan: unrelated question now separated.

Since it looks like it's just the one vandal operating on a bunch of IP addresses, and only one at a time, I would suggest that once protection lifts again, if you catch them in the act, you can drop them one of the immediate vandal warnings (such as {{uw-v4im}}), and then if they continue to report at WP:AIV. If they get a few warnings and stop each time, and you can provide enough evidence of that (shouldn't be hard), you can then start looking at making a post either to WP:AN/I or Wikipedia:Abuse reports. Confusing Manifestation 23:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Signing

prachi 15:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC) why when i sign in the language turne in Russian prachi 15:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

what is a shuttle?

Resolved

could you tell us what a shuttle is?

This is an online encyclopedia. To answer your question, type shuttle in the box labeled "search" and click the button labeled "go". -- Kainaw^(what?) 15:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

About Fountain Of nations article

Resolved

I Wrote to more topics on the main subject and they won't come up on the articleCheyenneRulz 16:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

First, galleries go near the bottom of articles. Second, put external link references inside of <ref> tags. Third, ensure you don't leave the ending > off your </ref> tags. -- Kainaw^(what?) 17:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Eagle (gay bar)

Resolved

My article was recently deleted for not being noteworthy. I would think that several dozen gay bars, opened independently throughout the world, all of them dedicated to gay leather culture, would be considered significant, especially since individual gay bars, such as G.A.Y. and Heaven have their own pages. I suspect that homophobia played a role in the deletion, as for any gay man living in any major city in America, whatever Eagle is in their city is noteworthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gitaiba (talk • contribs).

Just for the record, the article was Eagle (gay bar) and Gitaiba has contacted the deleting administrator. PrimeHunter 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't quite detect a question in your post. If you are asking why it was deleted, take a look at WP:ORG. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out, editors are encouraged to assume good faith and making accusations of homophobia at the admin who deleted your page is not appropriate. However if you want to take it up, visit User talk:MZMcBride and talk to the deleter. AndrewJDTALK -- 21:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Inequity

Resolved

I'm disturbed at Wikipedia's tendency to paint Christians and, particularly, creationists, in a negative/controversial light, when the avid evolutionists/anti-creationists and evolutionary beliefs and theories are portrayed as positive, unchallenged, or fact. This is a significant anti-Bible and anti-creationist slant on all your articles, which leads me to believe that some supervisory body is making sure input into Wikipedia stays this with this particular point of view. Christian persons, ministries, and subjects are routinely questioned and challenged in Wikipedias articles, while other things like evolution, anti-creationists, and organizations working against biblical beliefs are given the soft touch and a free ride - barely questioning their beliefs.

It would be refreshing and more open-minded to see more equality in the articles. I have no problem with disagreement, but when one side is always shown as being controversial while this is never discussed with the other side, there is surely a biased viewpoint that the editors want to make sure Wikipedia readers see.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit - including you. That means that you are an editor. If you have trouble with the content of an article on Wikipedia, it is your responsibility to fix it. Complaining that the editors have a conspiracy implies that you do not understand that you are an editor as well. -- Kainaw^(what?) 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and Wikipedia:Verifiability - any "good" article should be balanced and any statement it makes that is even slightly controversial should be backed up by a reliable source. If controversial statements are made that don't conform to this, they need to be dealt with (possibly via discussion on the article's talk page). Confusing Manifestation 22:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection has been relentlessly attacked and questioned ever since its first year of publication (1859). This is part of the scientific method, which is based on critical thinking. Scientists do not try to exempt themselves from criticism as many religions do (some of which label such criticism as blasphemy, thereby committing a style over substance fallacy); rather, scientists welcome criticism because a theory must withstand the best attacks critics can throw at it to be considered a valid theory. All the attacks on Darwin's theory have motivated scientists to go out and collect more data; but the more data that comes in, the more convincing Darwin's theory becomes. For example, during Darwin's lifetime, there were some questions about how well his theory could explain some features of biogeography, without invoking the then-farfetched notion of continental drift. Then along came the discovery of plate tectonics along with scientific instruments that can now directly measure the motion of continents (the Atlantic ocean is growing wider at about the same speed that your fingernails are growing longer). Today the combination of evolutionary theory and continental drift neatly explains some otherwise puzzling aspects of the distribution of plants and animals around the world. Other scientific discoveries, such as radioactivity and DNA, opened vast new areas of scientific study that Darwin could probably have barely dreamed of, and these results too have added to the overwhelming support for Darwin's theory. The result is that evolution is accepted as historical fact by the vast majority of scientists, and is only questioned on religious grounds, as no factual criticisms of Darwin's theory based on objective data appear in refereed scientific journals.

As to why science should receive seemingly more respect on Wikipedia than faith does (this depends on which articles you happen to be reading, as plenty of articles about religion here show clear bias in favor of their subjects), that is because science generally works better than faith. For example, you are asking your question by typing it on a computer, rather than attempting to communicate with distant strangers through purely spiritual means. Modern computers work reliably for telecommunication, while faith does not. Religious books such as the Bible contain many promises of tangible benefits obtainable supernaturally (for example, there are stories of divine healing, teleportation, remote communication across time and space, miraculous production of food from nothing, etc.), but few Christians seriously attempt to live according to the teachings of Jesus taken literally (take no thought for tomorrow, give all your money to the poor, forgive everyone who harms you, trust God to feed, clothe, and keep you healthy, etc.). This is because centuries of experience have shown technology and hard work to be more reliable than faith when it comes to putting food on the table and money in the bank (not to mention protecting against tsunamis and hurricanes, which equally lay waste to all buildings in their path, whether they are casinos or churches). Imagine trying to run a modern country based on the principle of turning the other cheek - such a nation would quickly be overrun by criminals and invaders. We certainly don't see George W. Bush shaping his foreign and domestic policies according to the Sermon on the Mount - to do so would be to invite disaster on an even greater scale than that resulting from the current policies.

Scientific disagreements are always resolvable in principle, and eventually in practice, because science makes falsifiable claims. Religious disagreements are typically irresolvable, either because religious claims are not testable, or when they are, religious adherents tend to maintain their faith even in the face of contradictory evidence. For example, archeological studies throughout Mesoamerica have failed to find one shred of evidence to support the historical claims in the Book of Mormon, and such evidence should be abundant if the Book of Mormon is true, as the purported civilizations should have left many artifacts, as other ancient civilizations did; failure to find said artifacts would be a troubling result for Mormons if they actually cared about objective data, but for the most part they do not, because that's not how faith operates. If they cared about objective data, they would have demanded some before accepting the Book of Mormon as truth.

It is, of course, disingenuous to equate religious thinking with open-mindedness, as faith is all about rejecting plausible explanations before all the facts are in. For example, right now it is absolutely impossible for us to determine which one of the thousands of mutually conflicting religions are correct about the afterlife (if any are actually correct). As far as anybody can tell, the ancient Egyptian formula of building giant pyramids to gain eternal life is as plausible as the methods promoted by other religious groups. Since there is no way to test a formula for eternal life other than by dying, and once dead a person can no longer reliably communicate with the living, the only truly open-minded take on the afterlife is to admit we just don't know. But no religion I have heard of is that open-minded. --Teratornis 06:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Unitarian Universalism might qualify... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt many followers of Unitarian Universalism would be open-minded toward, say, factual data which might support the more controversial claims in The Bell Curve. Which is not to say they would be as far from critical thinking as, say, the Taliban. Just that it's really hard for emotional humans to really have open minds. Part of the problem is that science occasionally discovers troubling things before technology provides the solutions. --Teratornis 00:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you make a page?

Resolved

How do you make a page on wikipedia? ChLoRiNaToRx27x 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. PrimeHunter 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

i have created and account but it wont let me log in please help

Resolved

69.8.33.187 19:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Help:Logging in. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 20:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What error message does it display? Wrong password? Melsaran 21:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing during an AfD debate

Resolved

Hello. Am I allowed to re-write an article while it is the subject of an open deletion debate, or might this be regarded as manipulative? Should I wait for the debate to be closed first? Thanks TreeKittens 20:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's strongly encouraged. Fixing articles is always preferable to deleting them. Cheers, WilyD 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, great. Thanks :) TreeKittens 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "Re-write" usually implies fundamental changes and can in certain cases be considered disruptive during an AfD, especially if the rewrite will make some editors more inclined to delete the article. But editing an article with uncontroversial improvements during an AfD is fine. PrimeHunter 20:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• If you do re-write it, it's considered polite to then make a note in the AfD, so that people judge based on the new version (some people also leave messages on the talk pages of people who !voted delete, in case it changes their mind). Confusing Manifestation 22:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It seems I was abusing the term 're-write' as I really meant just adding some sources I found and maybe adding some other sourced comments I feel are relevant. Sorry for exaggerating! Thanks again. TreeKittens 00:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Manga, Anime and Video game references

Resolved

Has there been any discussion on Wikipedia about the fact that for a good number of articles 1/5 of the content is "References in Pop Culture" which then go on to list each time the Person, Place or thing has appeared in Manga, Anime and Video games.

I like these as much as the next guy but this seems like pure trivia that is bloating up a ton of articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.237.181.100 (talk)

Yes, this is often discussed. See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. In many cases the pop culture section keeps growing and is eventually moved to its own article. At some point it's then usually discussed whether that article should be deleted, which it often is. PrimeHunter 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles (which is only an essay). PrimeHunter 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Naming

Resolved

Hi, could someone clear this up. In articles, are people referred to by their 'latest' title if for example they are made a peer/knight, or are they referred to as what they were at a specific time? E.g. On former Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, Sir John Stevens is listed as such, a title he held at that time whilst holding that position. He is now however Baron Stevens. Is it correct that he should be listed under a former title, or is he listed under his 'latest'?

If this makes sense, I can't really explain it any other way. Burto88 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the naming conventions on people, article titles generally "don't add qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation." Since there are in fact rather a lot of John Stevens, I would say the current title, John Stevens, Baron Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, while rather long, would be best. For similar examples, see Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, William Tyssen-Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst of Hackney, and in fact this entire category. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 00:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul Julia-Levy

Resolved

I have a problem with people vadilism my biographie i need to know can i protect my name ,

RAUL JULIA LEVY —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rauljulialevy (talk • contribs).

See Wikipedia:Protection policy. It usually takes a lot of vandalism to get protection. PrimeHunter 22:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected the page for a week, with a request for reliable sources on the talkpage. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 22:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Displaying latitude/longitude info.

I am editing a page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broxburn%2C_West_Lothian and have just added an infobox. My problem is that the latitude/longitude co-ordinates at the the top right had corner of the page are now displayed twice, they 'overlap.' I think this is because the co-ordinates were previously displayed using a template. So: 1) how do I identify the problem & 2) how do I correct it? Any help gratefully appreciated. Tissues 23:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the {{coor title dm|55|56|N|3|28|W|region:GB_type:city}} template from the bottom of the page, solving the issue. AndrewJDTALK -- 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

external references requiring login

Resolved

Several of the references listed in Voice of the Faithful require a username and login to NY TImes site. This does not seem correct. 70.19.161.63 23:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

While it's generally preferred that we use references that anyone can access freely and easily, where such sources are available, it's a fact of life that you can often find more comprehensive and reliable sources with extra effort -- sometimes that means logging in or making use of an Infotrac (or similar) account, other times it means running to the library for some reference text. Not sure how much there is we can do about that. *shrug* – Luna Santin (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Disappearing entries during Wiki rebooting this evening

Resolved

I was entering half-a-dozen more bibliographic entries (books w/authors, dates, publisher, pages, etc.) when I got a sudden notice of your computer rebooting, maintenance, or whatever.

After this notice, all my latest entries for "Further reading" in the article "Invertebrate Paleontology" disappeared!

All that remained in said section was the first half of the alphabet for the books (done 10 minutes earlier by me on another computer).

Can I or somebody retrieve these "lost" entries? Dr.Bastedo 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Every now and then, the database locks everyone out so that it can catch up to the zillions of edits we make every day. While annoying, it usually doesn't interfere with your editing (aside from the fact that it takes longer), but if it does, try checking the page history. It's possible your edits were saved, but got reverted accidentally by another user with a similar problem. If you think you saved the page, that's probably what happened. If they are not there, than I am afraid you'll have to re-type it. If it's not in the page history, nobody is able to recover it. Sorry, and good luck finding those missing edits. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. ♥ Dr.Bastedo 00:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)