Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 January 22

< Wikipedia:Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< January 21 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 23 >
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.


January 22

edit

copright date

edit

I need the copright date for wikipedia ad the person who made it for a citation can anyone help me?

edit

To the left of most articles there is a list of languages in which there are articles on the same topic as the one I am viewing. To the left of some of these listed languages, there is a blue square. To the left of others, there is a yellow star. What's the difference?

-Kris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.195.90.176 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A star means it is featured in that language. Dar-Ape 01:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a New Category for people to fill in - Category talk:Lists of English words

edit

I note that many concepts in English lack words, and suggest it may be useful to begin to list the concepts and then invite the readers to

(a) suggest a current English word, or
(b) suggest a foreign word, or
(c) make up a new word and
(d) have a column for people to vote yes/no to get a sense of how good it is.

For example: Greed describes a lust for money (and stuff), but what is the equivalent word for lust for power? Most people want money, and there seems nothing wrong with that, but some people are seen as greedy - grabby, too much, over-the-top, they'd sell their mother for it. Some people want to live and let live, and some people naturally become leaders. But some people are driven by a lust for power, and will sacrifice their loved ones, the good of their people, their nation or even of humanity, to get to the top of the heap. But do we have a word like "greedy" to describe this? No.

I tried to create the page and access, but see that this is a wee bit beyond my skillset. It needs both to have a table page

- first column blank - for the new word)
- next column for the definition, which people fill in first,
- third column for others to vote good or bad, and
- fourth column that tallies the votes.

It probably needs to be indexed somehow,
and then it needs to be a link off of "Category talk:Lists of English words."

a) Can you set it up?
b) If not can you tell me how to do it?

Akonga - - -

Wikipedia is not a neologism creating contest, nor a dictionary. --Wooty Woot? contribs 02:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Akonga

- - -
"Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude."

No contest was proposed, likewise no dictionary was proposed (Regarding dictionary - may I reference you to Wikipedia's own dialogue on encyclopedia[[1]]? "The encyclopedia as we recognize it today was developed from the dictionary in the 18th century. A dictionary primarily focuses on words and their definition, and typically provides limited information, analysis, or background for the word defined. While it may offer a definition, it may leave the reader still lacking in understanding the meaning or significance of a term, and how the term relates to a broader field of knowledge.").

Rather what is proposed is a page to enable readers to look at central concepts in our society for which, for whatever reason, there is no single word. Let us call them dark words.

In understanding the nature of society, language becomes a very powerful part. And like music, it is the pause, the absence, the gap, the shadow, the dark side which sometimes says more than the note itself. There are some very important concepts operational in western society, especially in both the USA and some of the Commonwealth English speaking nations that don't have a name. Perhaps you have a better way to set this out in an encyclopedia, and if you do, I welcome the advice. That was the point of my question, as I am new to Wikipedia, and was asking for help, not a shut down.

But I would stand by the point, that unless we understand that we operate under concepts which we do not name, we operate in darkness. The very point of an encyclopedia is to bring knowledge to light, to put it in a form where people may learn. There is a Wikipedia section on English words with disputed useage [2] and it seems there should be a comparable section on dark words - where we know the definition, but a word for it exists not.

If I may reference another section of Wikipedia "The language of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is Newspeak, an ironic, thoroughly politicized, obfuscatory language designed to make coherent thought impossible by limiting acceptable word choices." [3] So what happens when language provides no word choice whatsoever?

Wikipedia is appropriate for this, as it enables us to both understand the the dark word, and provide for analysis and background to understand why it exists but is not named.

  • It would be very troublesome to make such an article that was not original research, or to produce sources for it. Bear in mind Wikipedia's mission is to collect existing published information, not to do research or carry enlightenment beyond what others have published. Good idea, but not I think the sort of thing we do. Notinasnaid 08:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And while you may not know a word for "lust for power", I'm almost positive there is one. power-hungry would be a good approximation to start with. - 131.211.210.12 08:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophes

edit

Is Wikipedia part of the Worlwide Conspiracy Against The Use Of Apostorphes In English?Wolf


OK, I'm only half kidding.

How do you makle an apostrophe appear where it should? Merely typing one doesn't work.


TIA,


Wolf Kirchmeir

Akela353 02:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually just typing an apostrophe will yield one: ' This is a single apostrophe.

A feature of Wikitext is that two of these single apostrophes in a row will yield italics. For example, ''Text is uber'' produces:

Text is uber

Three apostrophes in a row will make bold text. For example, '''Be bold in updating pages!''' makes

Be bold in updating pages!

Any mix of this works as well. '''Hey, this ''text'' is very''''' ''conspicuous'''!''''' makes:

Hey, this text is very conspicuous!

To do a regular double apostrophe, holding down Shift, then pressing the single apostrophe key, then releasing both, will usually work. Instead of '', use ". I hope I answered your question. GracenotesT § 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I also noticed that you changed

This bombing was, however, important to the Allied war effort because of the town's major railway facilities, which were vital to the Axis forces during the second World War.

to

This bombing was, however, important to the Allied war effort because of the town''s major railway facilities, which were vital to the Axis forces during the second World War.

The first version is correct. This is because, usually, a single apostrophe (not a quotation mark or double apostrophe) is used to mark possessives: what belongs to someone; ie, the dog's fur, the family's food, the houses' paint, and so on. See apostrophe#Basic principles: possessive apostrophe for more information. Happy editing! GracenotesT § 02:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Text recently added to the Nichels article by User:WmLaDow appears to be a direct copy of the information at www.RayNichels.com. I think User:WmLaDow owns the copyright to the original material, but despite having read Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ (twice!), I'm still not sure whether what has been done on the Nichels article is permissible - especially the inclusion of the copyright statement at the end of the article - and I thought I'd better check my facts before screaming "copyvio". Can someone please clarify this for me? (P.S. I've raised the issue on both WmLaDow's talk page and the article's discussion page). Thanks. DH85868993 02:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the addition(s) to the article. It's totally wrong to place a huge chunk of copyrighted information into an article. And it doesn't matter if the editor doing so "owns" the copyrighted information; Wikipedia articles meet GFDL standards. If the editor involved wants to change his/her website so that it is GFDL-compliant, then we could pick and chose from it (and take as much as we want to). But that obviously wasn't done here, and I doubt it will be. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting that out. DH85868993 03:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken redirect

edit

The redirect at Wikipedia:Perfect_stub_article is broken for some reason (it doesn't redirect), and I don't know why. Is it possible to fix it? --Sigma 7 02:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be broken for me; it leads straight to Wikipedia:Stub#Ideal stub article. What's wrong about it for you? GracenotesT § 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a browser/cache refresh issue. --Sigma 7 04:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

offensive article name

edit

I have printed out the page that stated "nigga bowl XLI", but why do your website say this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.32.101 (talk • contribs)

Hi! What was the name of the page? Some people here insert vandalism into articles, which is usually quickly reverted and the offenders blocked if they continue. But I can doublecheck if you tell us the article name  ! Yuser31415 04:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that it is Super Bowl XLI. This diff kind of confirms it... Titoxd(?!?) 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes printed it right in the middle of the vandalism, as it is usually reverted (removed in other words) in under a minute sometimes it takes just seconds! Arjun 04:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia toolbar ???

edit

Is there a wikipedia toolbar for the internet browsers? And if there isn't, are there plans for making one ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azuraspentas (talk • contribs) 05:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There is a Wikipedia toolbar for Firefox, which you can find more about here and which you can see here. It's effective, but it's out of date.
You can also search Wikipedia easily with search engine toolbars, which are embedded in Internet Explorer 7, Firefox, and a couple of other browsers. To enhance your editing experience, you may also wish to peruse the plethora of user scripts at WP:JS. GracenotesT § 05:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleting my edits

edit

how do I delete my edits?

is there a way to not sign edits?

In general, you can't. However, if there is a page which you made by mistake, and only you have made significant contributions, you can put {{db-author}} on it. Otherwise, unless you revealed personal information, your edits can't be deleted. And no, there is no way not to sign edits. The person who made the changes is automatically recorded. -Amark moo! 05:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to delete a user subpage, add {{db-owner}} at the top and it will be deleted shortly. Kamope · talk · contributions 12:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustly Accused of Vandalism

edit

I made a grammatical edit to an article, and was sent the following warning: "Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Mark David Chapman, are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Tvoz | talk 05:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)"

I find it unfair that my edit was considered unconstructive and vandalism, given that grammatical edits are specifically supposed to be encouraged by wikipedia. I am not a member, but would like the warning removed from the record of my IP address and my change implemented, if either or both are possible.

Thank you. 24.147.252.104 (talk · contribs)

You changed the word "song" to "soingle". Would you care to explain why that should be reinstated? -Amark moo! 06:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This edit. I'm assuming that the user meant to change it to single, made a typo, and was confused when he was {{test1}}'d -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, that didn't occur to me. I'll go blank the warning now. -Amark moo! 06:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a test1. It's a {{bv}}, and it was completely out of line. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Titoxd(?!?) 06:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope our joking, everyone makes the odd typo. --203.122.209.201 06:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He meant that bv was used instead of the more appropriate test1, not that the user was blatantly vandalizing. --Wooty Woot? contribs 06:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comet McNaught

edit

The number of images in the gallery has grown to unwieldy proportions and could probably be trimmed. Just to be safe, I'd rather have external editors, who have not edited the article or uploaded images, have a look at it. Also, could the size of the frames be altered to accommodate for portrait/landscape shots or are they fixed size? Zunaid©® 07:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted half of them. There are still too many. 147.188.225.245 09:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go trim down a few more. Mostly to remove copies of similar pictures. --`/aksha 11:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are still adding pictures and will probably do so for the next few days while the comet is visible (and then probably again when the semi-protection lapses). Please keep an eye out. Thanks! Zunaid©® 15:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regular expression searches

edit

I understand wikipedia is using Mono now. Is there any way for a user to do a regular expression search of the wiki. I spent some time fixing broken template:cite book references using a Google search but it wasn't much fun because over 600 pages are found that are user: or template: or wikipedia: pages. If I just exclude those words using advance search then I could miss articles that have those words anywhere in the article. Any ideas? --Droll 08:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't. Because the search sucks. 147.188.225.245 09:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've always found the "what links here" funciton to be useful when trying to track down templates. Would a whatlinkshere on the template in question work? At least it would distinguse between links and transclusions (templates in articles are generally transclusions, which are marked). --`/aksha 11:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would work. You'd have a long list in this instance, of course, but you can easily distinguish the articles from other links. Adrian M. H. 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find a list of donations to Wikipedia?

edit

Recently, there was a donation drive for Wikipedia. I'm wondering, can I get a list of donations and who they are attributed to? I remember there was a list of this sort available during the donation drive, but it seems to be gone now. Can anyone direct me to the link? .V. -- (TalkEmail) 09:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/ (I found this from the history of MediaWiki:Sitenotice). --ais523 10:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

question regarding adding content to Wikipedia which is then removed

edit

Dear Sir/Madam,

I run a webiste devoted to an actress that has a 'stub' page on Wikipedia on which I have added information and my websites URL many times.

For some reason every time I add the URl, in the relevant section under External Links, it only stays there for a few hours and then is removed or deleted somehow.

As far as I am aware stating an URL for a fan site which includes information and media about the subject and which is not objected to by either the subject of relevant rights company [ in this case Charley Webb and ITV, Granada/Yorkshire TV ] is part of the way the internet and Wikipedia runs.

Is there a reason that the link would repeatidly be removed?

The article is for CHARLEY WEBB and the added URL is www.charleywebb.info

Any further information on this would be appreciated so as I can add the information to the page and help build Wikipedia into the resource for fans it should and could be.

Thanks in advance.

Chris MacInnes webmaster: www.charleywebb.info —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.203.8 (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Etiquette of removing content from article talk pages

edit

Editor TammiMagee (talk · contribs) has been removing content from the Jade Goody talk page, starting with THIS edit. The three sections she removed aren't stellar examples of talkpage contributions, but they are all on-topic. What (if anything) should be done? Thanks in advance. Anchoress 10:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

put them back 147.188.225.245 11:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff from article talk pages shouldn't be removed (unless archieved if old) unless it's like...trolling, or very obvious personal attacks. Things like what you linked to should just be put back onto the talk page. And then the editor who removed them warned. --`/aksha 11:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
K, I just put them back. Would my detailed edit summary be sufficient warning or should I contact the editor on her talkpage? Thanks for the quick replies, BTW. Anchoress 11:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted the user. It's important that a user have the relevant warning template used on their talk page so that if they do continue to behave badly, it can be verified that they were indeed sufficiently warned. Subst'ing a template (I used {{test2a}} for instance) leaves behind an html comment that marks the warning as having happened. — coelacan talk — 11:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes content is removed from talk pages because it is irrelevant. See WP:TALK for a full discussion of this, and note "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." But it seems that these removals were discussion content that was actually about how to improve the article, to some extent, so they probably should not have been removed. WP:TALK is your friend and guide in the future when this happens, as it often does. Hope that helps. — coelacan talk — 11:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, Coelacan. I was fairly sure about that, but I wanted to double check. Also, two more things: One, thanks for the note on the editor's talkpage; and two, she seems to be doing it on other pages; I just reverted a similar action on the talk:Eminem page. I will check some of her other recent edits. I hate to think she's a vandal, I hope she just misunderstands the purpose of the talkpage. Anchoress 11:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Also see WP:TT for a guide to the various warning templates. Keep in mind that these should always be used with care; it reflects poorly upon an editor to misuse them. And if someone else applies them to your userpage, it's usually best not to remove them; just reply there about why you think it was unjustified, if you feel that way. As to this particular editor, now that the test2a template has been used, if it continues, use test3a or go right to test4a, and if it still continues, you just take it to WP:AIV. — coelacan talk — 11:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm fairly experienced (and cautious) about warning vandals. Maybe this is now not the forum for this particular discussion, but looking at the editor's recent contributions I wonder about her good faith? Her removals of on-topic content from talkpages is interspersed with adding relatively irrelevant, gossipy content to other talk pages. WP:POINT? Anchoress 11:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just reply in detail to anyone at the help desk; whatever I said to you might be useful to other readers who aren't as knowledgable already. =) I hope. Anyway, I get the feeling this is not POINT but just chatty myspacery, and since it's a wiki we get to delete stuff we don't like too! I'll try to remember to check this user's contributions again in an hour or so and see if at least the deletions stopped. And as you suggested, help desk is probably not the place to keep discussing the issue of this particular user, so feel free to bring the discussion to my talk page if there's more to be said. — coelacan talk — 11:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice Coelacan already did. But thanks tho. Anchoress 11:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need know!!!

edit

I am brazilian and I would like know, what is the article than visited of all wikipedia. I need know this for my homework of my school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isaac N.T (talk • contribs).

Try checking Special:Statistics. — coelacan talk — 12:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FELLOWSHIP PARTY

edit

The existing information on this political party

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but if you mean the Fellowship Party of the UK, look at that article. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source

edit

I'm helping to expand a restaurant stub, and User:Husond told me I shouldn't use sources from the restaurant itself. I've found several reviews on the restaurant, and I was wondering if I could use these (WP:CITE doesn't explain this very well). Thanks. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 14:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just a note after going through google: the sources are almost exclusivly reviews! :-O | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 14:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use sources from the restaurant itself; Husond probably meant you shouldn't write it down as fact. There's a difference between reliable sources and Neutral Point of View sources; while a webpage from the restaurant itself may not be entirely neutral, it is certainly a reliable source. Reviews depend entirely on who wrote them; if the publication in which a review is published is reliable, then by all means cite it. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple are notable reviews. Thank you for your help! | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recourse Against User Accusations

edit

I was accused of being a sock puppet because I and another person on my network are discussing the same article, and we have similar positions. Do I have any recourse? Avi9505 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines at WP:SOCK state only: "If you have been accused incorrectly of being a sock puppet, don't take it too personally. New users are unknown quantities. Stay around a while and make good edits, and your record will speak for itself." Which is not of very much use, but is the only advice that I have been able to locate. Adrian M. H. 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I saw this guideline too. I am just concerned as this user has been insulting and making accusations from when I started to edit this particular page, makes inappropriate reverts of my work and the work of others (e.g just eliminating sources etc. without any discussion), and is essentially writing the article like a religious missionary. Now begins the accusations again, and I would rather nip the problem in the bud.Avi9505 17:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider four the number of accusations you should put up with, at most. After that, or if the person violated WP:3RR and doesn't stop, you can report him to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Xiner (talk, email) 18:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One place to report possible violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA is at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. (Full disclosure: I've been the one responding to most of the postings there.) Sometimes a review - and possibly intervention - by a neutral third party can help. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 21:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cookies

edit

Anytime i sign in on wikipedia,i am being asked to enable cookies on my system.Please can you tell me how to enable cookies on my system.

What browser and operating system are you using? --ais523 16:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

downloading of entire encyclopedia to local hard drive

edit

Is it possible?

62.15.248.59 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Database download. It will explain how to go about getting a copy of the encyclopedia. —PurpleRAIN 17:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

place wikipedia on my desktop as an icon

edit

hello.........i'd like to put wikipedia on desktop as an icon for quick access.........how is this done............thanks....<email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgetlin1 (talk • contribs)

Assuming you're using Windows: Right click the desktop, go to New >, Shortcut, type in the URL (http://en.wikipedia.org), and press enter. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Plug

edit

Unsealed Electrical Plug/connector

I am attempting to find out how many electrical plugs that are not sealed and require the wires to be connected via the threaded screw. This plug is not sealed and is accessed via the threaded screw in the centre of the plug.

Alternative Electric Sealed Plug/Connector

The alternative to this version is the fully sealed electric connector/plug that is widely used on some but not all new purchases

Thank you for your time

Kind Regards

Baz Ramsbottom

I think you've mistaken Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, for some other website. You may have better luck searching for the name of the product or manufacturer on Google. Cheers and good luck, Tangotango (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or ask your questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offline

edit

Is there a way to write text offline? I'd like to create some things, but I need to do so offline and I want to be able to see what it would look like when compiled. I don't need it to support the templates we use. Just things like <br> and <code> etc. Is there anything I can use? CoolGuy 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make this clear, we're talking about wiki markup? If this is the case there are a number of WYSIWYG wiki editors out there, also wikEd has a feature that lets you preview wiki markup w/o having access to wikipedia servers (however you have to have your browser already have loaded up a wiki page you can edit to do this). —Mitaphane talk 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can always use the sandbox to see what happens. And no one is likely to object if you create a subpage within your user space as a sort of scratchpad, as you've already done at User:CoolGuy/Sandbox, for example. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 20:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web crawler

edit

If Wikipedia sets the robots.txt file to suggest one page per second, then how do sites like Google, etc. index Wikipedia? CoolGuy 18:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very slowly? I'm not sure – Qxz 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Database download does mention this restriction, but I didn't see it in the artual robots.txt file - perhaps the description page hasn't been updated?
In any case, this is the sort of question better asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where the developers hang out. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 20:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle multiple destructive edits

edit

An editor on Transcendental Meditation has made a number of destructive edits. I can't undo them all without violating 3RR. How do I handle this sort of thing? Thanks. Tanaats 19:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism doesn't count toward 3RR. Revert all you like. --Wooty Woot? contribs 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Sorry, I should have been much more specific about what I meant by "destructive edits." He makes edits based upon his personal opinions about what should or should not be in the article, rather than based on the guidelines. If we wait for DR, the article will be in tatters. Tanaats 20:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He also inserts OR. Tanaats 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the response. I just want to be absolutely sure... I understand you to mean that because the edits don't follow the guidelines that I can safely revert multiple instances of them without worrying about 3RR. Is that correct? Thanks. Tanaats 22:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as the edits you're reverting are blantant OR or Vandalism(e.g. "Transcendental Meditation is not as relaxing as drinking beer because many people drink beer rather than meditate", "Transcendental Meditation is stupid") you won't have to worry about 3RR. The point of 3RR is to prevent edit warring among editors and to focus on consensus. If this is just one editor adding his opinions, that he can't back up with legit sources, with out regard for others' opinions, then you should explain to him why you are reverting his edits and tell him to discuss the topic on the talk page. If he continues with his actions talk to an admin. —Mitaphane talk 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a deletionist, I'd IAR (holy crap, it's actually good for something!), risk the 3RR block, and revert. Repeated addition of OR is in my view vandalism. Just my opinion, though. --Wooty Woot? contribs 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a little note, this shouldn't be a problem as there are, by my count, at least 5 editors currently involved in editing this article. I would advice you not to break 3RR in this case, but to allow the burden of reverting to be shared among the editors. If, in fact, the other editors do not agree with you and multiple editors are making these changes, with only you reverting (I'm not saying this is the case, as I only had a cursory look at the history), consider waiting for a bit to see what happens. Possibly consider WP:TIGERS or WP:NAM :-) Skittle 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the above advice by Wooty is flat-out wrong. "Original research" and "vandalism" are completely different. No admin is going to give you a free pass just because you were say you were reverting OR, even if you were: OR is not one of the four listed exceptions. Make your case on the talk page. If the article is in "tatters" for a day or so (unlikely), them's the breaks - Wikipedia will survive. Also, note that WP:Resolving disputes has a procedure for getting other ("third") opinions if for some reason it's only you and one other editor who are disagreeing (unlikely for a popular article like this, as Skittle notes). -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

edit

How do I create a template? --Regards, Darkest Hour Talk•contribs 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this for a brief guide, or this for more detail (or this if you want more detail still). Trebor 20:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the best things that you can do is avoid starting from scratch: study a similar template, copy what is applicable, and add or modify what you need, based on the existing structure. You can create it in a sandbox first if you'd prefer that. Adrian M. H. 21:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FINDING AN LITTLE KNOWN AUTHOR

edit

I AM A SEAMSTRESS AND SEVERAL OF MY FAVORITE BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT WERE WRITTEN BY NANCY BENDER WHO USED TO TEACH AT EITHER THE WOMAN'S INSTITUTE OR THE FASHION INSTITUTE IN NEW YORK. I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HER LIFE AND WHAT SHE DID BESIDES WRITE BOOKS ABOUT SEWING. HOW WOULD I DO THAT?

jAN lITVIN

Unfortunately we don't seem to have an article, it would be here if we did. You can try searching Google, though at least the first few results there don't seem to be relevant. Failing that, you may have to look outside the Internet at more specialized sources. The books you already have are probably the best starting point in this case – Qxz 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to second Qxz, because just out of curiosity, I tried searching on "'Nancy Bender' seamstress", "'Nancy Bender' 'Fashion Institute'", and "'Nancy Bender' 'Woman's Institute'". The first search didn't seem to return anything relevant; the others returned nothing at all. :-( Another tack might be to join an online sewing-related community and ask your question there. Good luck. --Tkynerd 02:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might take this question to Wikipedia:Reference desk, which is a librarian-ish service for readers. This page is basically for helping editors. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XML scheme or DTD for output generated by Wikipedia query APIs

edit

Hi,

I am wondering, if there exists a XML scheme or a DTD for the resulting xml files generated through Wikipedia APIs like Query API or the new WikiMedia API. (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php)


Thanks, 

Dennis

141.54.158.4 20:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking Yurik. That question is probably beyond the knowledge of a few developers, and is most likely to be known only by those who actually worked on the BotQuery extension. Titoxd(?!?) 23:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will try to ask Yuri as soon as possible. --Dennis 141.54.159.183 11:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best place to ask questions like this is probably Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where the developers hang out. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 19:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography

edit

I am Lovern Kindzierski. I entered my professional information to update the article about me which only said that I was a colorist. I recently found it had been deleted and I have re-entered my information. I tried to create a new account, but was told that Lovern is already a username. How can I find if I already have an account if I have lost my log book of passwords and accounts? And if I do not already have an account how do I get one?

Lovern Kindzierski—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.155.169 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, you need to choose a name that is sufficiently unique, and the registration system will tell you to try again if you do otherwise. Secondly, you need to read Wikipedia:Autobiography - Adrian M. H. 21:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, you can check whether an account exists or not by looking at Special:Listusers, and typing your name or username. Try checking for a few combinations of names that you could have used; if you found one that you think you registered, try logging in as that user. If it doesn't work, try clicking on "send me a new password"
If you don't receive an email, or if the software tells you that there's no email address associated with the user, then you can try creating a new account, by going to Special:Userlogin, and clicking on "Create an account".
Alternatively, if you said that you edited an article that is now deleted, administrators can check the list of the users that edited the article, and we can try going from there. Titoxd(?!?) 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, Lovern Kindzierski is not deleted... nor it was edited by any user whose name is remotely close to yours, either before or after it was deleted for being a copy of another page without any indication of a release by the copyright holder, acceptable license, or other mitigating circumstances. Titoxd(?!?) 23:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted on the 22nd of November, restored the same day, and again deleted on January 23rd as a copyright infringement. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 19:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if we have a look at the edit history, we can see the anon has added the copyrighted material, both on the 6th July and the 22 January. On the 22nd the anon asserted "I added all my professional information to the single sentence that described me sinply as a colorist". Now the site it's alleged to be a violation from looks like it's user created bio's. I think there's more to this, there's a possible release in the edit history. I'll take this up with the anon, I used to share an email list with his daughter so I'll see if we can get Lovern to release properly in line with guidance. Hiding Talk 09:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving Discussion Pages

edit

G'day, you'd think a long time user like me could find out how to archive my discussion papers but I haven't. Sorry. Could anyone tell me how to do it? Thanks Maustrauser 23:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy! :-) (1) Create a blank archive page, such as User talk:Maustrauser/Archive 1 (you can call it whatever you like). (2) Move the oldest content (as much as you think is appropriate) from your main user talk page to the archive page. (3) Create a link to the archive page on your main user talk page. (This last step isn't strictly necessary, but it's considered good manners to keep your old talk page material accessible.) I don't think you need to worry about losing history, but if I'm wrong, with luck someone will correct me. ;-) --Tkynerd 00:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto gives an automated solution. Xiner (talk, email) 01:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you fellow editors. Much appreciated. Being lazy I shall try the Wednabot solution first. Maustrauser 01:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standard instructions are at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 19:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2007_January_22&oldid=1079800702"