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.
Please tell me this is just a temporary measure to fight an increase in spam, it's annoying as hell and I've already hit it twice in the last hour--VectorPotentialTalk00:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I just got hit with this message while reseting the sandbox header, can't we at least set up some kind of URL whitelist to avoid triggering this message all the time?--VectorPotentialTalk00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New users, with accounts created in under 5 days, usually get this warning. It is a nuisance but im pretty sure it will go away once you wait for five days. Its probably a safety precaution to avoid spamming --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 05:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i was currently viewing encyclopedias on the internet and in books i have and nowhere in a normal encyclopedia have i ever found a "crime" section or an "abortion" section. I was currently viewing the people that are a part of the Central America project and i think that it would be a much better idea if everyone was just asigned to contribute to a certain country only one. I thought about that when i looked at one in particular he user name i believe is "lanicoya" she wants to put a crime section for el salvador and she already has an abortion one on there my question is Managua is know for being dangerous and Nicaragua also does not allow abortions so why is she being allowed to trash the El Salvador article she says so herself in her sentence she wrote all she knows is Nicaragua she doesnt know El Salvador like i do and like everyone that lives there and is from there, my idea i think is brilliant it doesnt look like she wants to contribute in a positive way but in a negative way and as a contributor i can't work with that. Im sure i can find articles about crime and gangs in Nicaragua and also about abortions but i didnt want to contribute to Nicaragua but to El Salvador but if she wants to trash that article i will gladly find my sources and also create a crime section among corruption in Nicaragua. This is an encyclopedia look at these other ones they have no such sections:
[1][2][3][4]
Honestly take a look at these encyclopedias, they ae model and professional encyclopedias were not just anyone can write their own personal opinion and because someone doesnt like El Salvador they are going to make it the worst article ever. Wikipedia from a point of view looks no offense like its being created by kids it doesnt look professional anyone can just sign in and edit, it does not seem reliable and if this site will contain an article about El Salvador i will make it the best or if anyone can just mess it up and put in what they think of the country i would much rather have the article taken off and suggest other more reliable encyclopedias to people doing searches on countries. Every single country has crime if you havent heard or read the news Guatemala tops El Salvador in crime this year and the end of 2006. Please feel free to contact meGuacamaya
Learn interpunction and spelling first, maybe someone will be inclined to answer you after you've accomplished that. Damned Americans, they can't do anything right :-P. Terribly sorry, but for me, as a second language English-speaker, your message is not intelligible. Please reformat it, using commas and proper interpunction etc., so that everyone can read it. Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 04:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed anyone can edit Wikipedia. But you seem to be taking the view that there was once a good reliable encyclopedia, and then we allowed just anyone to edit it. That is not the case: there was nothing, then we allowed people to edit that nothing, and now we have an encyclopedia which is not too bad, and has over a million articles. Some people think that we should now change the rules, they take the view that the work is now done and the encyclopedia should be locked from all edits. Others disagree. Of course, people sometimes try to convey their point of view that things are bad in an article. Also, sometimes people try to remove mention of bad things because they are proud of the subject. Wikipedia has policies to ensure there is a balance: see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Notinasnaid09:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a wikipedia edit summary, is it possible to get a count of the number of edits and unique editors that have contributed to a given article? Please let me know ASAP! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.69.208 (talk • contribs)
I am currently working on creating a template, but need the assistance of someone who actually knows how they operate. I've essentially tried to reverse-engineer an existing template to modify it for a similar purpose, but am not certain that it will work (or rather, I understand enough about templates to be almost certain that it will not work in the way I want it to). I would like to post the source code of the template so that an editor could review it and see if the problem can be overcome. Where is the appropriate place to post it? Here? WP:VPT? A user's talk page? -- Black Falcon04:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The template is located at Template:Oldcfdfull. Essentially, I am trying to create a template that would serve as the equivalent of {{oldafdfull}} for categories titled Template:oldcfdfull (for consistency with the AfD version). However, I cannot just use the source code of {{oldafdfull}} by just replacing "afd" with "cfd" as the archiving systems for AfD and CfD discussions are different.
The major problem I see is with [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/{{#if:{{{date|}}}|{{{date}}}}}#{{{page|{{{votepage|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|the discussion]]. Firstly, I'm not sure that's even accurate (this is the first time I've ever edited a template's source code--my prior editing experience to templates is limited to their content only). Secondly, AfD debates are archived as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName, whereas CfD debates are kept as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/Year Month Day#PageName. So, it is necessary to somehow include the date of the nomination in the link to the CfD debate in the specific order: Year Month Day. Could you help, please?
Note: There is an additional complication in that CFD archives prior to January 1, 2007 are prefixed [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion:]] instead of "discussion". The only working solution I can think of (with my limited knowledge of template creation/editing) is to create a separate template, say for instance {{oldcfdfull-del}} in which "discussion" is replaced with "deletion".
If the concept of the template is fundamentally flawed or impractical, please let me know and I will {{db-author}} the page. Thank you in advance for any help you can give, Black Falcon05:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that {{cfdend}} might be a better template to reverse-engineer in this case, as it's designed for use with the CfD archiving system. If you're not sure what a certain template markup will do, you can test it in the template sandboxes ({{X1}} through {{X9}}) and use the Sandbox itself to try transcluding and substing it. --ais523 11:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This sounds fascinating, Black Falcon. I'd be glad to help program the template, since I have an idea about how to go about it (plus the deletion/discussion thing), but can't implement it right now (in several hours, though, when I'm back on a computer). GracenotesT § 14:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I contribute from an IP address then how can I understand I've got a message. Will it be appeared You've got new message, as like an registared user?--NAHID13:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It used to work that way, currently however, If an IP receives a message their message bar won't appear until after they clear their browser cache, once they receive it, it won't go away until they once again clear their browser cache. I imagine the developers made some sort of change to the default monobook assigned to anon IPs and this was a side effect. The implication is that in the mean time, it's almost impossible to contact an IP via their talk page --VectorPotentialTalk13:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. If it is almost impossible to contact an IP address via their talk page, then what's the point of posting vandalism warnings or a {{subst:anon}} greeting?--Vbd (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess that most people don't realize that the new messages banners don't work right for anons anymore, since most people don't tend to edit while logged out, and as far as anons go, they tend to get ignored more often than not, at least in my experience, so there's not much use in an IP trying to file a bug report. Besides, it's only been for the last month or so, I'm sure at some point a developer will track down the glitch and correct the problem, assuming they're aware of it --VectorPotentialTalk17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say there aren't currently any developers working on it, because there probably aren't very many registered users who would notice it at all, so the chances of any developer being aware of the problem are slim--VectorPotentialTalk14:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of the problem, but not what was causing it (I just new that anon new-messages bars got stuck sometimes). Could someone who can confirm the problem open up a new mediazilla: bug report if there isn't one already? --ais523 14:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
1. Which is a better statement?
A. Although she was sick, Mrs Tan went to work.
or
B. Although Mrs Tan was sick, she went to work.
(Should we use the proper pronoun in the main clause or sub. clause when we use 'although'.)
2. We are given these 2 sentences and asked to rewrite them into 1 sentence using 'whose'. I would like to know if the following answers are acceptable.
Given: The owner of the dog was fined in court. His dog had bitten a maid.
Ans A) The owner whose dog had bitten a maid was fined in court.
Ans B) The dog whose owner was fined in court had bitten a maid.
3. Given : Mr Lee is the supervisor. You need to see him if you are looking for a job. Rewrite these sentences into 1 using 'whom'
Ans A) Mr Lee whom you need to see if you are looking for a job is the supervisor.
Ans B) The supervisor whom you need to see if you are looking for a job is Mr Lee.
Is there a difference between the 2 answers. Which is acceptable?
Hi. Another user tagged a section of an article that I had worked on, stating that it did not cite its sources (the other user is associated with Larouche, and this is not just a neutral tag, but I'll let that rest for now). Anyway, I have now provided extensive sourcing to the section, but the tag is still there. My question is how tags get removed, and by whom....
If you've added enough references to merit the tag's removal, then you can remove it yourself. Just find the part contained in two curly braces, like this: {{unreferenced}} and delete it. Let us know if you need anything else. Hersfold(talk/work)13:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though it's irritating to have your work peppered with "citation needed" tags, it is an absolute rule that everything be sourced in Wikipedia, so the other editor was probably doing the right thing. It's just not done nearly enough so it can look like an article is being singled out. If you are satisfied the section/article is adequately sourced (i.e., reading the sources will support every word in the section), just remove the tag, stating clearly what you are doing and why in the edit summary. If you suspect it may be disputed, first indicate your intention in the article talk page, to allow a consensus of editors to decide. Notinasnaid13:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We know that we can't use another wikipage as refernce or citing footnotes in an article page. But I noticed some WP:Policy page contains Jimbo Wales's quotation with the reference / footnote taken from another wikipage (Example:Wikipedia:User page, Here Jimbo wales's quotation's been founded ). Why this happens? Is it right--NAHID13:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use other wikipedia pages to cite articles. But since it is about a policy all the relevant citations will be wikipedia pages. Policy is formed on the wiki, so that's where sources will be. Quotations from Jimbo about a certain policy are entirely appropriate to cite in a policy page. - Mgm|(talk)14:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted
Avobe statement appeared at the middle of an edit page. But how can I take permission from another website for using their texts. Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, it deals with only image permission. If I get the permission for using texts then where I mentioned its permission link? In article's discussion page? Or where? For using How many sentences do I need to get the permission? Is it compulsory to mention permission link here (Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission).
If a paragraph is taken from another website then does the user need to mention the reference line by line? I noticed some articles contain 2 or 3 sentences even more sentences that is directly taken from another website. Aren't they falling in copyvio? Is it okay If I take some sentences (without any reference, if the sentences aren't likely to be challanged) from another website to create/improve the article? (And other materials are written / rewritten by myself). How many sentences can I take from another website? --NAHID13:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is possible in theory for some sites to get permission to use their text (which must be released under a free license), it is not usually a good idea. The reasons include
1. Writing on other sites rarely is in the necessary enclopedia style, so rewriting is desirable.
2. There is no easy way to mark the permission on the text, so there will often be users who think they have found a copyright problem.
3. Once the information was copied from the other site it would begin to be changed by other editors, so keeping track of the original information becomes difficult.
4. Most web sites are not a "reliable source" in Wikipedia terms.
For all these reasons, articles should be written in your own words, using sources. Small sections of other sites may sometimes be quoted: this is different from copying. Do not copy any piece of text, no matter how small, unless it is marked as a quote. You cannot make an article by joining quotes together: I would be surprised if quotes were more than 5% of an article.
You wrote "without any reference, if the sentences aren't likely to be challenged". Sorry, references are needed in all cases. Most articles do not yet follow Wikipedia standards, but one day they must, or they will be deleted.
Wiki is not an acronym, so we write it as an ordinary word. As to what makes a good wiki, a wiki is as good as its user community makes it. Wikipedia has one of the best user communities you will find on any wiki, and the result is an exceptionally well-developed wiki. Starting your own corporate wiki from scratch requires identifying the core group of people in your company who will spend many hours learning wiki editing, designing templates, training new users (probably most if not all employees at your company will be new to wikis), writing pages, and cleaning up the first efforts of new users. Ideally, your core group of serious editors should have fairly extensive experience editing (at least 500 to 1000 edits) on at least one well-established wiki (such as Wikipedia, and others), so they understand what they are trying to build with their corporate wiki, and they know how to copy templates, etc., from wikis such as Wikipedia to save effort. At a bare minimum, you need one person with that level of wiki experience (perhaps you? perhaps an outside contractor you would recruit from, say, the Wikipedia community?), who has spent some time learning from experienced wiki users in the larger world outside your company. Above all, be patient, and just keep plugging away at your wiki. Busy employees may take a long time to wikify their pre-wiki work habits. Identify some easy applications that employees are likely to use (such as: an employee schedule, contact information, etc.). Any documents your company is currently distributing as e-mail attachments, for example, should go straight onto the wiki. That will clean some junk out of everyone's e-mail inboxes and allow everyone to update one canonical copy. Some references: b:Wiki Science/How to start a wiki (more about public wikis rather than corporate wikis), and Using Wikis in a Corporate Context. Also see structured wiki and TWiki, if you are interested in building wiki applications in addition to building a Wikipedia-type corporate knowledgebase. --Teratornis17:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed a pattern of edit warring on black people and was wondering if there is a way to request admin intervention on the article. Noone has broken 3rr yet, but there is a pattern of warfare occuring there. Kyaa the Catlord14:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I tried to make an account but every time I get an error: Login Error: The username was not valid (or something like that). The trouble is, every time the page came back, I had to totally fill out the form again. This was very annoying because I didn't know what was a valid username and each time I had to type the contents of the image, try a new username, type in a password twice and my email address. I think this is a horrible process which put me off making an account.
However, on the last attempt before giving up I filled out the form with the first username I had chosen and strangely it worked. The only difference was that I didn't tick the "remember me" tick box.
Thanks
If an user get several vandalism warning (assume good faith 1, assume good faith 2, assume bad faith....) at the first time when he's just been volunteered, hence will it be a barriar for him to become an admin in future?? (suppose the user understands the policy and assuming good faith)--NAHID14:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking if recieving vandalism warnings will hurt a request for adminship? Like bad debts, the effects of vandalism warnings decrease with age and good deeds. Someone who was warned or even banned early in their wikipedia career might still pass RfA if they can show that they have turned around, and some time has passed. Someone with recent violations likely will not pass RfA. *Mishatx*-In\Out14:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what are acceptable references? Can pdf files and videos(youtube or files) be linked to an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graciemiami (talk • contribs)
You're quite right, YouTube is an acceptable reference. For example, we link to YouTube for the LonelyGirl article. However we couldn't link to YouTube as a reference if some random dude claimed GWB was a gay prostitute. On the other hand, if it Dick Cheney on YouTube that would probably be an acceptable reference. We also need to comply with copyright policy. If the YouTube video was copyrighted by Fox News and they had not agreed to put it on YouTube then it would not be acceptable Nil Einne10:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edits made, but IP address recorded rather than Login name
I made 3 edits to the Sete Gibernau page, but on looking at the Recent History page, I noticed that my login name (Saltation) had not been recorded, but rather my current IP address. Which appears to have been someone else's a while back...
Is it possible for someone to chown the edits to my login name?
They were 2007.02.28 :
- 14:36 -- Retirement - improve language, add Kawasaki offer, add quote
- 14:38 -- 2006 MotoGP season - additional Catalunya info due to career importance
- 15:41 -- 2006 MotoGP season - added reference: injuries & ambulance accident
Accounts haven't been reattributed like that for years. The cause is probably that your browser got confused about its cookies and logged you out by mistake; choosing the 'remember me' option when logging in tends to prevent such problems (and see the FAQ at the top of the technical village pump if it doesn't). Hope that helps! --ais523 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
curses! still, thanks for the prompt and lucid response. my browser SAID it was logged in as me at the time (before, during, and after), so like you said, it was probably just having temporal emotional issues. WORKAROUND: i added a pseudo ("nbsp") mod so i could add an Attribution note. whee! Saltation17:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between Sandbox and Subpage? If there is no difference then why they are in separate name? How can an user delete his sandbox?--NAHID13:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any problem If I use my sandbox as a subpage or subpage as a sandbox?? How can I delete my sandbox?? I know the deletion tag for Userpage/subpage is {{db-userreq}}. If I want to delete my sandbox then which deletion template is appropriate??--NAHID16:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using a user subpage as a sandbox is fine (for instance, I have User:ais523/Sandbox). You can delete any page in your own userspace that you've created, within reason, by placing {{db-userreq}} on it (whether it's a sandbox or not). Hope that helps! --ais523 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Your account has to be at least 4 days old to rename pages. If you want to rename a page before then, you can ask at requested moves, here, or the assistance village pump. Hope that helps! --ais523 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If a sock puppeteer is discovered, reported and verified via check user, what should an editor expect afterwards? Will the sock puppeteer be immediately investigated, any blocks/banning imposed on his socks or what? It seems logical that once a sock-puppeteer is found, the admin who does the check user would immediately investigate the activity of that puppeteer and block the accounts in question (and based on the templates associated with it, this would seem to be the intent), but is this actually done in practice? Kyaa the Catlord16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One common practice is for the CheckUser in question to block all the sockpuppets, but to take no action on the puppeteer. That's left for other administrators to decide, based on the CheckUser's verdict that the accounts are related. Often, the puppeteer isn't blocked immediately (if they weren't blocked before hand), but the details factor back into whatever discussion prompted the check in the first place (often on the admin's noticeboard, admin's incident noticeboard, or community noticeboard). --ais523 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Just curious. I requested a check user yesterday and I don't believe any of the socks were blocked (although 23 hours later, the puppeteer was finally blocked for 3rr). Should I bring this to ANI for oversight? Kyaa the Catlord16:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just have read about the fairuse image policy but I still disgest a part of it. An image that I find on Google, then I quote its source will make it a fairuse image? Appleworm16:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not enough to make the image includable on Wikipedia. The image has to meet all the fair use criteria; there must be no free use version available, it mustn't undermine the market role of the original image, it should be as low-resolution as reasonable (so you might have to reduce the resolution yourself), it must have been previously published, it must be encyclopedic, it must meet the image use policy, it must contribute significantly to the articles in which it is used (and must be used in at least one article), it shouldn't be used except in articles, and it must be properly sourced, attributed, and tagged, with a fair use rationale given. --ais523 16:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
First, you have to know the source: you have to be sure that the person who put the image on their site made the picture, or has permission to use it. Many pictures you find will just be copied without permission. Google doesn't have the pictures, it just searches for them.
Then, fair use is a justification: a reason why we can ignore the copyright of an image. The justification must be very strong, and follow legal rules. Wikipedia is full of people who think that "fair use" is a magic way of using any picture they find for any purpose, but the images mostly get deleted in the end. You should in general avoid fair use and seek a genuinely free image, which is hard: most articles will never be illustrated.
If you have a particular idea of image and article, that's probably the best thing: let us know the image and article, and we can try to walk through the process of making the decision. Notinasnaid16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That depends, I believe, on how much you edit the image. Simply tweaking the colors a bit doesn't, but using a small part of it in a much larger original work I think does make it yours. However, I am not a lawyer. Again, I'd really suggest getting a totally free image (or making one from scratch and then releasing it under Creative Commons or GFDL.) Veinor(talk to me)17:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you can do simply would make it yours. Think of images as like books. If you bought a copy of the latest Harry Potter book, could you sell photocopies? Type it in and sell it as your own? Type it in, make a few changes, and sell it? Sell single chapters? No to all of these. Images are every bit as legally protected: they are just very easy to put on the internet. Notinasnaid17:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is I still don't know the images that uploaded in certain websites are free-used or not. For example, Google finds images on blogs, online newspapers etc. What should I do to get the permission and what requires of a permission? If the websites also use fairuse images, should it be no chance to upload certain images on Wikipedia? Can any of you give me an a tangible example of a process to upload an image because I find it impossible to grasp the guide on Wiki. Appleworm14:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could you please answer on my talk page because this page is too long and I have trouble to find where's my question. Appleworm14:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Senior citizen and not real computer savy first off. I am interested to learn if this is the site where individuals can post their accomplishments in life and others can look up a person and learn about them. I would like to look up some people but don't know where to start.
Thank you in advance, but I'm not sure how I will hear from you since we are not to post our address.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.5.53.33 (talk • contribs).
Generally, replies to help desk inquiries are made on the help desk itself. In addition, each user has a talk page that can be used to communicate with them on Wikipedia-related matters. Mine is U ser talk:Veinor, and yours is User talk:76.5.53.33 (until you create an account). As for information on how to find other people, the simplest way is to enter the search term in the box on the left-hand side of the screen and then click search.
The short answer to your question is, no. You might be thinking of some other site, but I'm afraid I don't know which. You can, however, look things and people up by typing the name in the search box to the left and clicking Go. However, the information should only be there if the person is notable and discussed in published sources. Skittle22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the people you are trying to look up are not included in Wikipedia, you might try a site that was recently posted on the WikiProject Biography discussion page. It says that "WikiBios is a project for creating biographies of all people on Earth -- regardless of notability." Good luck!--Vbd (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has many rules in regards to adding information, where does one go to discuss specific ones?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordArthas (talk • contribs).
Hello, I am writing a Wiki article on the English luthier, John Birch. There is not very much published information on him, so I have been talking to people who knew him, who own his guitars, who worked with/for him, and the man who currently runs his guitar shop. It is all very necessary info regarding the article, as it gives insight into Birch's personal history, as well as the history of his company and customers. However, I'm not sure how to cite the emails in the context of the Wikipedia. There are no personal views I am trying to espouse, I am just trying to give an accurate history of the man and his work. The article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulkstadden/article.
Bad news, I'm afraid: you cannot use information obtanied in this way. All information must be verifiable, e.g. by reading a book, or a reliable web site. Information not published cannot be used in Wikipedia, no matter how important, true, or interesting. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Notinasnaid17:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The emails would have to be published somewhere else first; the problem is that if you use the emails and they aren't published anywhere, readers won't be able to verify the article for themselves (see the policy about original research). As Wikipedia can be edited by anyone online, it's kind of important that the sources are publically accessable (although they don't have to be online) so that people can see for themselves that the article is accurate (and/or correct it if it isn't). --ais523 17:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I posted the emails here: http://thepaulforum.blogspot.com/
They are from correspondence with John Carling, owner of John Birch guitars and former business partner of John Birch, from John Diggins, a very early employee of Birch, and from Ian Seaton of Rare Guitars, owner of a very rare original John Birch guitar.
Paulkstadden18:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contact your local newspapers and see if any reporters are interested in writing about John Birch. Journalists make a living by trying to get at the truth about things. That's why the information you have in e-mail form would carry more weight after having been processed through a journalist and published in reputable media, to become a valid source for Wikipedia. Another option would be to contact some published authors who have written biographies of luthiers, and see if any would be interested in writing about John Birch. Do you have everything that has been published about John Birch? You could ask on the reference desk for help with a literature search on John Birch. You could also ask on Talk:Luthier. Actual human librarians are another option. Also check with your local historical society, educational television, university, etc., any organization that might have written or like to write about John Birch. --Teratornis18:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions, I will take them. I have looked high and low in various guitar books and all of the ones I have seen give the same information with little variation: John Birch was an English luthier who built custom guitars for various celebrities. That's about it. This article is actually the most info in one page on John Birch, at least as far as I have seen. However, I will ask the reference desk and the Talk:Luthier page.
Paulkstadden19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, I think that the policy that everything cited to must be published is a bit extreme. Some information just isn't published. Citation to unpublished materials is permissible in academic journals, it should be permissible here as well. The issue is making sure that the unpublished material is somewhere where someone could check it if they wanted to. For example, I see nothing wrong with citing to an unpublished diary in a library archive. Your problem is that the information came from personal correspondence. Again, and this is just my opinion, that you've posted it where others can access it and evaluate its reliability is a big point in its favor. Another option is to simply write your own article on John Birch, using your own research including the letters, and then get it published somewhere even if it is an obcure journal that just pays in free copies. You obviously can write, so why not? Then someone else can use your "acceptable source" to work on the Wiki page. Crypticfirefly03:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the worst case, one can always invoke the ignore all rules guideline, and just throw articles out there on Wikipedia, to see if they "stick." If you don't mind the risk of feeding your work to deletionists, just go ahead and edit away. However, some people don't like to slave over articles just to watch them vanish; the best way to avoid this is to understand and follow as many of the Wikipedia article guidelines as possible, to soothe the deletionists' itchy trigger fingers. Wikipedia probably deletes more material than any other wiki; check the List of wikis for other wikis to edit on. There might be some wiki for guitarists (or musicians, etc.) that has more lenient policies. Here, let's search WikiIndex for "guitar"; that pops up: Wiki Guitar, GuitarWiki, etc. Perhaps Paulkstadden could develop the article in relative peace on a wiki that likes guitars, and then eventually try publishing it on the cruel world of Wikipedia when it's in encyclopedic shape. Having one's masterpiece deleted from Wikipedia doesn't sting quite so much when one has the material wikied up somewhere. --Teratornis04:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we worked like that, I could create a webpage, upload what I claimed to be emails sent to me by Tony Blair confessing that he was really Mark Boris, who killed the real Tony Blair at the age of 8 and assumed his life, and I could write a whole article on Mark Boris, using this as my source. Then I could accuse 'deletionists' of having itchy trigger fingers when it got deleted, even though I'd sourced it with emails that anyone could see! There are reasons why Wikipedia, unlike academic journals, must require published sources. Because academic journals have knowledgable editors checking everything that is submitted before it is included, while Wikipedia's editors are half troll :-) Skittle11:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I categotized my Sandbox and Subpage? For Ex. If I write an Test Article in Sandbox and Subpage, Then Can I put category ragrding on that Article (i.e. Category:Health book , Category:.......)? --NAHID17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Also Can I create multiple sandbox for multiple articles or for further test.
If you're preparing an article in a sub userpage, probabbly it would be better if you wait until your article is ready, move to the article's namespace and then cateogrize it, so the category won't be showing a userpage.
Category like ordinary link.E.g. Category:Bridges and {{stub}} in this way, do I need to put? What if I put the category like [[Category:Bridges]] at the bottom of the page. If the sandbox / sub userpage is categorized or if they appeared in category then is it likely to be deleted?--NAHID19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could put your category links, stub template, etc., inside an HTML comment (see: Help:HTML in wikitext and HTML element#HTML Comment), while you are editing the page as a user page. Then when you are ready to move the page to the default (main) namespace, you can remove the HTML comment tags, and your various links and templates will "go live." --Teratornis22:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the controversial article that I work on, an opponent tends to find damning quotes in newspapers and insert them into the article, such that the Criticism section is about half quotes. Well, maybe I exaggerate. Anyway, is there a guideline regarding Wikipedia writing style that specifically addresses this? I'm under the impression that encyclopedia style entails finding a solid source and then writing a sort of summary of the information that that source provides. Is that right? Is it unusual style just to string together damning quotes? Thanks! TimidGuy17:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the neutral point of view policy says that articles should be balanced with respect to the various views that could be expressed (and there's a tag, {{unbalanced}}, that you can place on an article to mention this); there's also {{quotefarm}}, which you can use on an article if you think it contains too many quotations. WP:TC (Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup) is a good page to go to if you think there might be something wrong with a page and want to know what to do about it; if there's a tag for reporting a problem with a page, it's likely that in many circumstances it will in fact be a problem. Hope that helps! --ais523 18:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_index_comparison lists private sites that wish to be removed. I removed one in question and was warned for "vandalism". The posting of incrimiating information about sites on a public forum(eg: implying that a site facilitates the distribution of illegal content) is slanderous and should not be included in the wikipedia. Please respect the wishes of site staff and owners and DO NOT replace the removed private site listings.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weberr13 (talk • contribs)
Generally, WP:LEGAL dissuades users from making legal threats against the foundation, however if you'd take this up talk page of that article I'm sure you'll be able to reach some kind of consensus with the editors on that page--VectorPotentialTalk18:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you get a vandalism warning let the warner know whats going on. Put this message(the one you wrote) on the talk page of the person who warned you. --Semper Fi,Darkest Hour 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This also shows the importance of edit summaries. Other editors cannot guess your rationale for your edits, so you should ALWAYS post an explanation for removing content. Xiner (talk, email) 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps more to the point, if the article follows Wikipedia rules, everything in it must be sourced. If that's the case, Wikipedia cannot be the one making initial accusations. If sources cannot be found which support both the statements and any conclusions drawn, that represents original research, and must be removed. I don't pretend to understand the article, but these are fundamentals. Notinasnaid20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up in the discussion, hopefully there will be a consensus reached. I apologize for the lack of edit summary, I will focus on making this clear in the future. The real question is for information on private web sites, even the implication that they are indeed "torrent" sites needs some sort of citation. Making claims about the internal content of a restricted web site should have more than hearsay and references to external wiki's to back it up.weberr13 14:39:00, 01 March 2007 (UTC)
I could have sworn there was a biography article for on this person I was interested in, but now I can't find it. How do I determine if there was article that since has been deleted?
Type the name of the person in the search box and click go. If the page has been deleted on said page there will be a link saying why was my page deleted? Click on the the links provided and you will find out who deleted it. --Semper Fi,Darkest Hour 19:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
We represent the Alpaca Owners and Breeders Association (AOBA).
Under the topic Alpaca, there is a reference and link to a UC Davis article. This case study is damaging because it is based on some incorrect information.
Please remove the reference to this flawed and misleading article.
If you would like more information or to speak with an AOBA spokesperson, call Cindy Berman at <removed phone number>.
Please provide a link [[Name of article]], because I cannot found the articl but not what you are talking about. --Semper Fi,Darkest Hour 20:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It must be about Alpaca#US speculative bubble which has a reference to http://aic.ucdavis.edu/research1/alpaca_RAE.pdf It's not my field, but a research paper published by the Agricultural Issues Center of the University of California may satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Lots of articles have a critiscism section or similar which may be disliked by supporters of the article subject, but that is not grounds for removal. The article clearly says who published it without stating it as truth. Without knowing all the details, it sounds in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines to me. If a reliable source has published comments on the paper, then perhaps it could be added as a reference. Comments on this page or in a phone call are not an acceptable reference for Wikipedia. PrimeHunter12:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If any user / anonymous user blanks the Sandbox page including template {{Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)}} and provide slang sentences, the is it considered to be vandalism?--NAHID20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I mentioned question in Sandbox and Subpage Categorizationin 2nd para. Can anyone answer that one too.
I'd think that that's a mistake that a newbie could easily make in good faith, so I'd be very hesitant to call it vandalism. After all, they're editing the sandbox, not the mainspace, so to me that shows some intention not to cause harm. However, it could be considered disruption if you ask them clearly and politely to stop doing it and they keep it up after a few requests to stop. delldottalk20:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can anything done in the Sandbox be vandalism? Nothing done there can last for more than an hour and I can find no guidelines about what should or should not be in the Sandbox, except for Please do not place copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content in the sandbox(es), and while that sort of stuff might be against the rules surely it doesn't qualify as vandalism. -- Lilwik00:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've always found it ironic that the sandbox carries the stipulation that some lines shouldn't be deleted. Anyway, I've found the need a couple of times to replace the whole page as part of testing, and while I could create a page in my own user space, it would be used so infrequently that it'd take more time for an admin to delete the resultant page than for someone else to revert the sandbox. Xiner (talk, email) 00:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have a bot that puts the header back every 30 minutes if someone deleted it. It's helpful if people try not to remove the header, but not a big deal if someone removes it accidentally. Dave6talk03:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly direct, but if there are less than 500 you can view them all and then do a binary search on the limit argument in the URL (or copy and paste them into a word processing program that will tell you how many lines you have). If there are more than 500, you can step through them 500 at a time and do the binary search (or copy and paste) on the last set. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the Unix shell to generate a count (or any Unix-like shell; I used Cygwin under Windows XP in the following example). First, click "What links here" to generate the URL to feed the wget program. Edit the URL to give it a big limit, bigger than you expect the number of links to be (keep trying larger numbers until the following command pipeline stops returning a larger count). grep the result for lines of HTML code corresponding to pages that link to the target page. For example, the "What links here" for this page (the Help desk) has (many) lines of HTML like this:
Thus, all we have to do is edit the now-stunningly obvious command pipeline, and copy and paste the whole mess into the Unix (Linux, Cygwin, etc.) shell prompt:
The result for this page comes back as 6529 links, so the limit of 20000 that I guessed was probably large enough. Just to be sure, you should try examining the output of the command pipeline by omitting the trailing | wc -l command, to verify that every line spewing out does look like a link. --Teratornis17:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My Internet connection tab shows My IP is 10.0.7.101. BUT Wikipedia shows different IP 202.79.18.2. Why this is happening?? Will it creat any problem??--NAHID21:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can any user categorazed his userpage / subpage / sandbox (By providing his own created template, that is used in another article). If the pages are categorized then what would happen? Is his Userpage name likely to be removed from the category? Or what?--NAHID23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. How can I remove Username from category page?
