Help desk
< May 13	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 15 >

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.

May 14

making pages

how do you make your own page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hackett (talk • contribs).

Help:Starting a new page and Wikipedia:Your first article are useful pages to look at. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you need instructions on creating your own page, WP:USER might be helpful. Pea ceNT 08:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RIAA certifications given to music albums

Should RIAA certifications given to music albums be capitalized on pages like discographies? Some editors do capitalize (see Earth, Wind & Fire discography, Audioslave discography) and some (I actually know only one) don't (see Britney Spears discography, Eminem discography). I need opinion of at least two experienced wikipedians, thanks! Daniil Maslyuk 00:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say capitalized, because that's what the RIAA does on their website.[1] Calliopejen1 00:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Etitis' arguments for lower case include: "platinum is an adjective in disographies" and "we shouldn't take into consideration what other people do". Is that right? Daniil Maslyuk 13:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For more input, you may wish to ask on WP:VPM or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. --Ideogram 06:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try. Daniil Maslyuk 13:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki

Currently from what I read MediaWiki can only be installed in servers. Is there any way it can be installed on a webhosting service subdomain, like my geocities site? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be, if that website supports a couple of things:

PHP 5
MySql database
Apache server
phpMyAdmin is helpful, but not required

Not all webhosting services have these. I believe that this one does, but have not personally used it. Gracenotes^T § 04:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your perception that MediaWiki can only be installed in servers is technically correct, but the word server is ambiguous here and may lead you to an incorrect conclusion. You can also install MediaWiki (and many other wiki software packages) on your personal computer, running as your own personal wiki, by first installing an AMP package, which effectively turns your computer into a "server" of sorts that is only accessible locally from your Web browser. For step-by-step instructions, see m:Wiki on a stick. Installing MediaWiki as a personal wiki is an easy way to learn MediaWiki administration, as well as a way to maintain offsite backup copies of your wiki once you do find a suitable hosting service for it. Also see b:Wiki Science/How to start a Wiki, and check the List of wikis and WikiIndex to see if a wiki already exists that you can use. --Teratornis 14:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Hi, I looked through the tutorial and I couldn't find the answer to my question. I'm currently editing a page and I need help adding pictures to it. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could explain it to me or show me where to find the information on how to insert pictures onto wikipedia pages. Thank you.

~*~

-Sam <33

See Wikipedia:Images. PrimeHunter 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a more technical explanation on including an image once it is uploaded, see Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. If the image is free, make sure to upload it Commons! (all images at commons are free to use in Wikipedia, and in fact anywhere) Gracenotes^T § 04:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

empty page change, where to discuss?

I noticed a recent change to the text displayed for a deleted or otherwise nonexistent page like this, adding inter-project search links. I'd like to suggest some minor formatting changes, but I have no idea of the title of the MediaWiki talk page (at least, I assume it's in the MediaWiki namespace) at which I would do this. My searches have turned up nothing. I would greatly appreciate any help. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 02:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking for MediaWiki:Noarticletext. I found the page by checking recent changes in the MediaWiki namespace, you can also find it via Special:Allmessages by using your browser to find the text "If you can't find" etc.--Commander Keane 03:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how to create a corporation stub?

how do i create a corporation stub like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavium_Networks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D2tech (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Don't worry, it's already been done.--Trampton 04:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, you can add a stub by putting {{name-of-stub}} at the bottom of the page. You can find a list of stub names here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. tiZom_(2¢) 04:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jennifer lopez

she's famous for having a great sexy butt - i tried to add that to her bio, they keep deleting it saying it's 'nonsense' - it's actually something people talk about in the real world - come on, let's be real! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.13.7 (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I suggest you try to convince them on the talk page rarther than edit warring over it. I see you have already been blocked once over this. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one cannot just say "Jennifer Lopez has a great sexy butt." That would be violating WP:NPOV. [Mac Δαvιs] ❖ 05:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your point re the quote, but I tried the talk page, and no one responded. You can't have a 3-page article about her and not mention her sex appeal - come on, this isn't bizarro universe! I even supplied references, articles - they took them out too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.13.7 (talk • contribs)

Please read also WP:BLP. Pea ceNT 07:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you think she has a sexy rear end is not really of any importance to anyone looking for information about Jennifer Lopez, this is why your information and references keep being deleted. This is an encylopedia, I'm afraid that if you want to talk about JLo's butt, you need to find a community. AngellSilverwolfe 09:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dismissive replies to this question seem to imply a lack of awareness that some of Wikipedia's articles on sexuality consistently rank among the 100 most visited articles. Here is an excerpt from: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-14/Academic journal coverage:

... a pair of pieces from Anselm Spoerri: Visualizing the Overlap between the 100 Most Visited Pages on Wikipedia for September 2006 to January 2007 and What is Popular on Wikipedia and Why? Spoerri, a Rutgers University professor who developed the searchCrystal visualization tool, used this and data about the most visited Wikipedia articles to consider the popularity of different subjects over time. He pointed out that entertainment topics tend to be the most popular overall, and that a handful of topics related to sexuality have a "timeless" appeal while the popularity of other topics fluctuates.

Clearly, content relating to sexuality is extremely important to a substantial fraction of Wikipedia readers, and anyone with the slightest grasp on reality understands that Jennifer Lopez' sex appeal has substantially contributed to her success in the entertainment industry. Would we have even heard of her if she looked like, say, Janet Reno and had to make do on her talent alone?

Other entertainment figures owe some of their success to unusual body parts: Jimmy Durante's nose, Dolly Parton's breasts, etc. There is nothing wrong with mentioning these facts as long as they are reliably sourced, and the presentation sticks to objective facts about what published sources have written and avoids promotional language, author's opinions, and so on. In fact, the articles about Jimmy Durante and Dolly Parton accord so much importance to the unusual body parts of their subjects that both articles mention them in their lead sections. --Teratornis 15:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of the article SAMAHANG ILOKANO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samahang_Ilokano

SAMAHANG ILOKANO

i am the main contributor of the article. i created the article using an ip and i did not register that time. that time, wikipedia seemed to be responsible enough to protect the article. but we were wrong.

i am the main representative of the organization. the article has been vandalized over and over by an unknown member of wikipedia only using an IP address. i requested for a temporary full protection but was rejected. the organization is now requeting to have our page deleted since the vandalism is continous.

for any questions,

we are the official representatives of the organization and no one else. please contact us for any questions.

this is the official website of the organization

http://www.samahangilokano.org

http://www.samahangilokano.org/about/history

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dondef (talk • contribs) 06:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Are you familiar with the conflict of interest policy? If you're editing an article about your own organization, you should be. Vandalism is normally not a reason to get something deleted. Even if the article isn't protected, vandals can be blocked so they can't perform any future vandalism. Can you be more specific about the vandalism you're talking about, because a quick perusal of the article history doesn't show anything I can identify as vandalism. Blanking articles can be considered vandalism though, so you should be careful not to do that again. You have the right to remove inaccurate information, but the company itself does not have any special privileges in deciding if an article is kept or deleted, because you released the material you provided under the GFDL when you wrote the entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Higher attention necessary [ML replies][SOLVED]

Hi again, this is being posted in following to [2], in the first few days of May.

The original post was essentially on solving a WP audience/quality issue, causing some policies to apparently collide. The solution wasn't easy so we agreed on asking to Wiki-L. Unluckly, not many people replied but the surfaced solution were indeed very elegant.

The initial point was about two article sources contradicting each other.

Said A,B,C were the only possible options and how to use them. This is the most authoritative resource on the field.
Said D was "better" but it didn't explain how this merged with the above. This is a non-autoritative but very well-known source with much wider audience.

The solution, to the error everyone committed including me up to recent was in believing one authority "stronger" than the other. Andre Engels wrote (about reference "autorities") ("Wed, 9 May 2007 09:36:13 +0200"):

“

There can't be any general rule on this, but I do have to say that there are many cases where neither takes precedence, but the NPOV thing is to give both their say.

”

In other words: because it's unclear in what field what authority has power and this is not recognized by everyone (and the limit is fuzzy), considering a reference "more important" than other is POV.

That's delighting. I really never believed this could be so easy.

So, after this has been solved, I have posted back this here so it can be useful for the people at the help desk as well.

I hope this can be useful,
MaxDZ8 talk 07:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logging in

I can't log into my account. I've attempted to send a new password to my email address but I cannot recieve it. It(my password) worked perfectly well until a few days ago until the inclusion of greater security measures. What can I do to access my account again? 58.110.211.31 08:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC) (actually User:Yuanchosaan)[reply]

Make sure you have cookies enabled. Daniil Maslyuk 13:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wiki outlook synch

Hello, I would like to know if it is possible to synchronize a wiki page with outlook, for example, read the the Contact Info from Outlook and display this information in the wiki page. Thanks, Adrian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adrian.groza (talk • contribs) 08:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Do you mean on your own Wiki, or Wikipedia? Notinasnaid 10:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means that he that he wants his contact details and information from Outlook Express to appear on his userpage. ~Spe bi 10:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit an album infobox

how do you start and edit an album infobox in music album articles?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Metal80sfan1987 (talk • contribs)

Replied on user talk. Pea ceNT 09:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article

Could some administrator kindly provide me with a copy of the article List of important dates in fiction which was deleted on 10 January? Also I'd like the two hours of my life back that I've just spent searching for it. -Multivitamin 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might ask one of the administrators listed here. 10:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't give you back the time you spent looking for it, but next time you look for a deleted article, try finding it in Special:Log/Delete or try to find the discussion that got it deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important dates in fiction. Other articles will follow similar naming conventions for that second link. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had no reason to think it would have been deleted. I knew I'd seen such a list on Wikipedia before and was trying to figure out the title by looking for articles that might link to it. On the whole I've found the world wide web a great disappointment, but Wikipedia is especially bad. It's meant to be a collaborative venture to draw together human knowledge, but when it's actually used collaboratively to produce content that one person alone would find it difficult to collate, the content in question gets deleted. -Multivitamin 12:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the whole business of deleting information from Wikipedia is an ergonomic catastrophe for anyone who finds that information useful; this is just another manifestation of one of the World Wide Web's most glaring flaws: link rot. I too have been victimized, repeatedly, by searching for useful information I was certain I had seen before on Wikipedia, only to find that it wasn't there when I looked for it later. (In some cases, I knew the information had been there at one time because I put it there.) However, a basic rule of life is that one gets (at most) what one pays for, and one is not paying for Wikipedia. (Even if you donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation, you are not purchasing a guarantee that you will receive any particular service, nor that Wikipedia will function according to any of your expectations, whether your expectations are naive or well-founded.)

In general, entrusting one's fate to distant strangers yields decidedly mixed results, whether the distant stranger is named Bill Gates, Jimbo Wales, or any other survival machine for a bundle of selfish genes. The people who run Wikipedia cannot satisfy everyone. Indeed, judging from the endless edit wars around here, the people who run Wikipedia cannot always satisfy themselves. (Peruse the staggeringly complex policies and guidelines and ask yourself, what are the odds that any two people can read all that stuff and come to exactly the same conclusion about what is going on here? Wikipedia is probably beyond human comprehension at this point, and when humans cannot comprehend something that matters, plan B is generally to fight about it.) Therefore, if you need something that Wikipedia is not, for example if you need a reliable information appliance to augment your personal memory, you might get better results by building or buying your own.

For example, I would like to have a Web browser that automatically archives a snapshot of everything I view, and indexes the snapshot copies for later searching. Merely archiving the list of URLs I have visited is insufficient, because content could change or vanish by the time I need to find it again (i.e., link rot). The latest version of Google Desktop might do something like what I want, but I cannot tell from the Wikipedia article whether Google Desktop indexes a snapshot of the actual content I view for later retrieval from my own local copy, or merely directs me later to URLs which might no longer exist. (I'm also a bit disappointed with the quality and depth of documentation that accompanies the Google products I have tried, especially now that I have seen the light of wikis and I expect to be able to correct and add to the documents I rely on. Every day I see more to persuade me that everything which is not a wiki is doomed to suck.)

Projects like the Internet Archive are another response to link rot.

Just to spice things up, here's a question to ponder: does Wikipedia's current zeal for deleting articles (to the tune of some 2,000 articles per day) violate the DRM clause of the GFDL? According to GFDL#Overly broad DRM clause, the GFDL (which governs Wikipedia's content) contains this interesting clause:

You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.

When someone deletes a portion of an article, the content is still available in the article history, so that would still satisfy the GFDL. Contemporary Search engines generally can no longer see it (article histories descend into the abyss called the Deep Web, which may be searchable in the future), but technically the content is still "there." However, when a Wikipedia administrator deletes an article altogether, whose content had been released under the GFDL by the original author(s), now the general public can no longer see the article history. Wikipedia administrators have arguably used "technical measures to obstruct" "the reading or further copying" of the article. Note: I'm not suggesting Richard Stallman would agree that his DRM clause to applies to Wikipedia's article deletions, merely that his wording raises the distinct possibility.

I don't have a quarrel with Wikipedia deleting whatever content it doesn't want to host, but I would like to see Wikipedia behaving a bit more charitably about it. (After all, Wikipedia is a a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity, and charities don't normally go around destroying things that significant numbers of people value.) Specifically, I would like to see Wikipedia making good-faith efforts to outplace deleted articles with other wikis. Of course nothing happens on Wikipedia unless somebody volunteers to do it, and finding happy homes for deleted articles is more work than simply deleting them, so I'm not saying it would be easy for Wikipedia to show respect to its contributors who haven't read and understood all the rules. But it would be nice if we had some efficient mechanism to identify those deleted articles which would be welcome on other wikis, and outplace them there. And maybe someday I'll do something more than just whine about it (I've made a few outplacement recommendations for specific articles, but that's just a drop in the ocean of deletions). --Teratornis 14:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ Teratornis: My but indeed you do have views. Your essay is exceptional, I'd urge you save it to your user space so others could link to it, but then there's no guarantee you'd choose to leave it there ;). In all seriousness though, I agree with most of your very cogent and compelling observations, but I do take exception: I'm not sure if you were being entirely facetious with your analysis of the DRM clause. It's questionable, since such an expansive interpretation of "technical measures" would preclude even the most obvious and necessary kinds of routine maintenance that just happened to cause, as a side effect, the inability to access content for even a millisecond.

Moreover, once WP deletes content, it is arguably no longer a "distributor" of that content, and I am not aware of any clause in the license that requires a licensee to agree to play the role of "distributor" in perpetuity, nor any clause that prohibits a licensee from destroying "copies" that are under its exclusive lawful control and ownership. Additionally, as I am certain you realize, the clause is intended to preclude Copy protection schemes and the like, and it is difficult to imagine a practical scenario where a judge or attorney would consider it rational and strategically advantageous to forward the expanded "technical measures" definition as plausible and non-frivolous. Anyway, with that aside, great essay. dr.ef.tymac 14:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I do have views, which I generously share with all who make the mistake of listening, and I am steadfast in my views right up to the second that I delete them. While I am fairly sure, as I mentioned, that the original intent of the DRM clause was not meant to apply to Wikipedia's penchant for deleting articles, in the interest of further hairsplitting (a day without hairsplitting is like a day without sunshine) I should point out that when Wikipedia "deletes" an article, it still retains a copy of the article and its history for distribution to the administrators, which would seem to weaken your argument that Wikipedia is no longer a "distributor" of that content. The whole point of Digital Rights Management, in my imperfect notion of it, is to ration access to information. That is, DRM is a mechanism for allowing some people to see the information while preventing others from seeing it, and I don't see how else to characterize Wikipedia's current mechanism for article deletion (those with administrator rights can see it; everyone else cannot). Another point to consider is that Wikipedia per se is not the author of the content it deletes; Wikipedia is merely a distributor of that content. Perhaps the authors of deleted content ought to be entitled at least to some sort of notification, if not access to archival copies in case they want to recover their contributions and publish them elsewhere according to their GFDL rights. Do contributors actually have any GFDL rights? Was it Stallman's intent that the GFDL should favor a distributor over an author? I don't claim to know the answers, but I enjoy raising the questions. (What if Microsoft was encouraging people to contribute content, and then deleting it? Would we be so quick to excuse that?)

It may be difficult to imagine the various practical scenarios employed by attorneys every business day, but even a superficial scan of some recent patents and court cases suggests that the legal system is under no obligation to restrict its activities to those imaginable by a rational person. What is possible via the legal system seems more a function of a litigant's budget than our common sense. (For example, it is possible for lawyers to create an illegal number. Or looking farther back in time, consider the history of slavery and the many court rulings upholding it.) Granted, I don't see anyone ponying up for a legal dream team to challenge Wikipedia under the DRM clause for deleting an article, but I think the prudent course would be to at least consider how much resentment may be building as a result of those 2000 article deletions per day (with not even a weak proactive attempt to insure the original contributors are aware of what can effectively become star chamber proceedings or have been given minimal advice about how to recover their work and publish it elsewhere). The real tragedy is that there are thousands of wikis begging for content and here is Wikipedia deleting any number of articles that could work on them. A possibly large fraction of deleted articles were contributed by users who are new to wiki editing; many may not even be aware that there are other wikis besides Wikipedia. I'd like to figure out some way to close that information gap. What fraction of WP:AFD proceedings contain even minimal attempts to search WikiIndex for alternative places to publish content up for deletion here? --Teratornis 16:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More clever points, nearly all of which I will not respond to, not for lack of responses, but because this arguably has gone way past the threshold of what is appropriate on this page. I will say this however, you did well to clearly distinguish hairsplitting from pragmatism ... (the latter was exactly what I was appealing to in my response to your first essay). All contributors and readers will do well to *save* a copy of anything they find worth keeping. Of course, you knew that also, but then who are we to steal your sunshine. :D dr.ef.tymac 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iplay TV

Hi, I went and looked at this article and noticed that it was tagged for afd. When I clicked on the discussion page it led to a discussion page about an article for game called bounce. I attempted to create the correct discussion page and link to it and somehow I have messed it up. I would be grateful if someone could look at this and help me to see what I did wrong and to make it correct. Thanks in advanceHotmann 10:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Nothing like it links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bounce (game) and I can't find an article with the title Iplay TV. Did you capitalize it correctly? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is IPlay TV. I have fixed the tag by deleting the existing afd text and adding {{subst:afd1}}. The procedure is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. PrimeHunter 12:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. I wasn't the original user who tagged it I was just trying to fix it but managed to make it worse. Thank you anyway. I will read that page. Hotmann 12:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how to see earth

I want to see earth, how can i see and where to see like google earth, i have heard that wikipedia has also that facility. But i could not locate the same. pls guid me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.95.193.197 (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think you're looking for the extension at User:Dschwen/WikiMiniAtlas. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional possibly useful links:

--Teratornis 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

company location req.

Falcon trading co. W.L.L - P. O BOX 2509, MANAMA, KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.181.98.117 (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's not a question. Please read the instructions at the top of the page and clarify. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a link to the Wikiant?

Hi! I am Tellervo, the user at 1.2.2. who is so fond of the cartoon of a Wikipedian as a blue Wikiant, that I wish to have it on my user talk page. Lovely, that you have given me a link to it! But now I have a new problem: how can I create on my user talk page/user page (which one I decide)a link to the Wikiant? Also, could you give thechnical help to move it to my user talk page? --Tellervo 13:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you have additional questions about a question you asked earlier, it's better to append them to the original question, if it is still visible on the Help desk (and hasn't gone into the archive yet). That way your follow-up question will make more sense.

Your original question was under: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 May 11#Wikiant lost!!. You appear to be asking how to link to an image. See: Help:Images and other uploaded files#Linking. The image that you want to link to, according to the answer to your original question, is: Image:Wikipedesketch1.png (which you could determine by viewing the wikitext source of that question, to see how Dismas referred to it). To link to that image from your user page, use code like this:

[[Image:Wikipedesketch1.png]]

--Teratornis 14:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you, Teratonis. The Wikiant is now on my user page. Tellervo 07:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Main Page

How do I change the main page wikipedia goes to when I search for something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.248.42 (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you click "Go" and there exists an article or redirect with the searched name, then the software automatically takes you to that article. This cannot be changed as far as I know (and I don't think it should). Click "Search" instead to see a list of articles containing the search term. Also see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Maybe a link to your preferred article or a disambiguation page should be placed at the top of the article with the searched name. What is the searched name and which article would you like it to find? PrimeHunter 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't satisfied with Wikipedia's search function, there are several alternatives. See: User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#Sea. --Teratornis 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im curious about the Wittenburg Article. It seems to go to a small german city as opposed to a much larger german town with a much more detailed article. Im wondering why the article is defaulted to the smaller city and if it shouldnt be how to change that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.248.42 (talk)

Wittenburg says "Wittenburg should not be confused with the much bigger Wittenberg". Is this what you refer to? They have different spellings and are each located at their own spelling. I don't see a problem. By the way, archived Help desk pages are rarely monitored. I discovered your follow-up by coincidence. PrimeHunter 15:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit a title if it doesn't have an edit tab attached to it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Mitchell has a title whcih has been categorised as (actor).

Gerry was a (TV and Film Executive) not an actor and I cannot see how to edit the title appropriatly.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.163.165.185 (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"(Actor)" (which should in any case have been "(actor)") is part of the name of the article. You can't edit it, but registered users can rename articles after a few days. That would be a rather long title, what is the one thing he is best known for? Producer? Notinasnaid 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MOVE for instructions on how to rename an article. Also, the word "category" has a distinct and different meaning on Wikipeda than the way you use it above; see Help:Category. --Teratornis 14:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured content

Hello can I be given a quick and easy to read summary on what Wikipedia:Featured content is all about. Can anything be chosen as featured content? Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 15:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read that page, the information is concise. Pea ceNT 16:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a list of pages on the subject of featured articles, see: User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#Fea. For example, WP:WIAFA looks pretty concise to me. --Teratornis 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sioux Falls Jazz and Blues Society

I have created an article about my company under the name Sioux Falls Jazz and Blues Society and I am not sure if I have submitted it correctly. I can not access it from the main page. Neither can my coworkers. Is there something special I need to do to submit it? thanks.

-Megan —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sfjb (talk • contribs) <email removed>

What you created was your user page User:Sfjb, not the article. You should create it at Sioux Falls Jazz and Blues Society (currently a red link). See Help:Starting a new page. Please make sure that your company meets WP:ORG and be aware of WP:COI. Hope this helps. Pea ceNT 16:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that most pages created by new users are deleted. I suggest requesting the page. Scottydude _talk 16:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Why "most pages created by new users are deleted"? As far as I know, there's no such precedent rule. Pea ceNT 16:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a rule, but a speculation on what tends to happen to new pages created by new users. Certainly, we know that many new users have not read and understood all the complex policies and guidelines that apply to the articles they create (just read the questions on the Help desk to get a feel for what new users don't understand about Wikipedia yet). Given all the ways to write articles that violate the policies and guidelines, what are the odds that a naive user will magically comply with all the rules on a first article attempt without first studying the rules?

However, in the interest of sourcing our claims, I'd like to know if anyone is actually keeping track of article deletions as a function of author experience. If it turns out that a disturbingly large percentage of new articles by new users are getting deleted, then it would be better for everyone involved (the new users who waste their time writing things that get deleted, and the experienced editors who waste their time deleting things that shouldn't be here in the first place) if perhaps new users had to demonstrate some understanding of the rules before being allowed to create new articles. Currently they only have to wait four days after creating an account. How about making them pass a simple quiz, too? If nothing else, quiz new users on their understanding of the high rate of new user/new article deletions, or at least have them check a box that says:

I acknowledge that by refusing to RTFM first, I could well be setting myself up to ask, Why was my article deleted?

--Teratornis 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create New Entry

How do I create a brand-new entry? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josephwhughes (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please see Help:Starting a new page and Wikipedia:Your first article. Pea ceNT 16:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as Wikipedia:Why was my article deleted? for what may happen if you create new articles before learning the policies and guidelines. First, be sure Wikipedia is the most appropriate wiki for the article you want to create. There are many wikis, most with policies different than Wikipedia's. See WP:NOT.

You might want to tell us about the article you have in mind, so we can advise you on whether it belongs here, or would work better on some other wiki, before you sink many hours of work into editing it. --Teratornis 16:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trouble logging in

I am trying to create a new account but forgot the password I originally used. So then I requested a new password and entered it -- but a new screen comes up and no matter what I enter it tells me it's the wrong password.

How frustrating! This is effectively blocking me from logging in -- and since I have never been a wiki user before, I don't know what to do.

I'd like to post a new article.

Help?

Thanks,

Hopeful new user —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.194.37 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What is your username? --Mschel 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Question

I am a new user to Wikipedia. Is this the correct place to ask this question?

My question is: Is it appropriate to edit a page to include a warning about a scam on a website linked to Wikipedia?

Under "Corpus Christi, Texas#Magazine" - Media - Magazine

there is a link to a website for "Texas Coastal Enthusiast"

I have information that this magazine is a scam. I saw this in Wikipedia and paid $12 on the linked website for a subscription months ago. My credit card was billed, but I received nothing. They do not return phone calls. I spoke with a former contract employee who said that she quit because she was not paid. The magazine appears to be sporadic or defunct.

However the linked web site is still active and soliciting money for subscriptions. The publisher is Damon Earl Gibson, age 35, of 307 Paloma St, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412. Calls to any of his several phone numbers are not returned: cell (361) 232-1896, home (361) 906-0380, office (361)814-1489.

Since this is not a legitimate business, is it appropriate to edit this page to warn other Wikipedia readers not to send money? (If this question was submitted to the incorrect place, please let me know.)

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ffluffy (talk • contribs) 18:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sadly, it would be quite inappropriate to add this information to an article. Things in Wikipedia must be independently checkable (e.g. in a newspaper). However, I see no particular reason why you shouldn't delete the link from the article. Someone else may put it back, however, unless you use a good edit summary. Notinasnaid 19:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be perfectly reasonable to report them to the Better Business Bureau, however. If the BBB launches a public investigation you could cite that in the article.—WAvegetarian (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could also state your case for removing the link on Talk:Corpus Christi, Texas, to support your contention that the link was spam, and reduce the chance that someone would add the link back without first showing proof of the link's compliance with Wikipedia policies for external links. You could ask if another editor knows of a reliable source to support your contention. This is what talk pages are for, to discuss changes to an article before we have them in shape. You may wish to use Special:Linksearch to see if the link spammers hit any more articles with this same scam. --Teratornis 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Proof on Mac OS X?

Hello. I am running Mac OS X 10.4.9, and am trying to run VandalProof via CrossOver. I am recieving an error message that says:

Run-time error '445': Object doesn't support this action

Has anyone ever run this program via Mas OS X or can you point me to another similar program? Thanks, Curran (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried VandalSniper? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I MADE A MISTAKE!

Hello; I'm AMERICAN MAN! Top of the day to you. I recently started a new article "PEACEFUL INSURRECTION"! yet I'm new here and my user name was not entered correctly it reads anerican man and I could use a little help any suggestions? Thanks! AMERICAN MAN 68.8.38.207 20:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Username#Changing your username

hope that helps. The Transhumanist 20:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And more specifically Wikipedia:Changing username--Alf ^melmac 20:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the repetition of your post. Also note that Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines, for example WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Peaceful Insurrection could easily be proposed for deletion. PrimeHunter 20:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted 3 minutes after my comment. PrimeHunter 21:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat perversely, that tends to happen when new users mention their new articles on the Help desk, thereby attracting the attention of experienced users. Now the questioner will need to read: Why was my article deleted? --Teratornis 15:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

immunology

how can i find if a skin rash is due to problems of the immunological system —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.156.172.224 (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia does not give medical advice. You should ask a doctor. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 22:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having problems logging in

unable to get Wikipedia to open an account for me! every time i read off the partially obscured bitr and put it in thhe reklevant box I click the button and it reverts to asking me another differnet load of obscured letters so I tried to log in and it said itr did't recognise me!!!! my user name is Merri Gee

Make sure cookies are allowed from en.wikipedia.org (?) ∴ here…♠ 05:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 May 14

Contents