Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 August 26

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

August 26

Default font

WHAT IS WIKIPEDIA'S DEFAULT FONT and how do I enable it?

I recently reinstalled Windows XP and my previous fonts appear to be in place. When I use Wikipedia however, the text is barely legible. This screen shot (and the two preceding it) provide good examples:

[1]

I know how to change the font in Internet Explorer 7 so every website displays the same one. I'd rather not do this because Wikipedia seems to be the only place I visit that's affected.

Thanks for your help! Smithville1977 (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC) J.

{{oldprodfull}} and {{CurrentYYYYMMDD}}

Please see this page and this page. I'd rather not type it all again. ;) Rockfang (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. In [2] you say "I'm thinking either there is a bug with {{CurrentYYYYMMDD}}, or the subst suggestion on {{oldprodfull}} should be removed". The subst is required and not a suggestion. It ensures that the displayed date is the day the template was added, as it should be. Without that, it would be the day the template is viewed. Subst'ed templates often produce ugly looking code but the date is rendered correctly at Talk:YouAreTV. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand why it was substed. I was just wondering if the {{#switch:{{{1}}}|s=|-}}08{{#switch:{{{1}}}|s=|-}}24 result of this edit was a necessary side effect. Is it possible for the template to be adjusted so that when it is substed, the above bolded text does not appear, but still produces the same end result (the current date being shown)?--Rockfang (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a template coder. You could ask for the reason for [3] at User talk:DBD. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a year ago, so I'm not sure, but at first glance I think I made it so that by using {{CurrentYYYYMMDD}}, one could insert the current YYYYMMDD as a string without the -s... DBD 09:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I just undid the previous edit to {{CurrentYYYYMMDD}}, and it works fine now.--Rockfang (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Australian Soccer Players

Hi I Have just joined and an not a geek. I have looked through the FAQ's and played around but not changed anything( to scared)

What I am trying to do is to add my name 'Brett Beves' and a few others 'Arno Bertogna' 'Peter Rascopulos' I know that Played soccer for Australia.

The category is Australian Soccer Players, Australian International Footballers. The reference for proof is www.ozfootball.net/ark/players/b/ber.html.

The issue I have found is when you go to edit page it is the header and I cannot get to the list 'hyperlinks' below that is alphabetical.

Can you please give me the directions and the scipt I need to put in to add these people

Cheers

Brett Beves --Brettbeves (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Australian soccer players and Category:Australia international footballers are categories. This means they show existing Wikipedia articles, and an article is added to a category by editing the article. See Help:Category. If Wikipedia has no article about the players you mention then they cannot be added to a category. Your link should be http://www.ozfootball.net/ark/Players/B/BER.html (capitalization matters in a url). It appears from http://www.ozfootball.net/ark/Socceroo/1981B.html that you were a substitute in a practice game against a club from Hong Kong. I haven't evaluated whether that or other things qualify the mentioned players for an article. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for guidelines about requirements to get an article, but note that per Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, it is strongly discouraged to create an article about yourself. You can request an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles (which already has a huge number of requests), or possibly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia (where it may get attention from editors with a special interest in the subject). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Question removed after rollback:

Hi. I just came to this site and heard anyone can edit it? Is that true? how can i prove my edit is factual, i mean otherwise anyone could write anything surely no? Thanks. Lee.

Yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia. However, information must be verifiable. You may notice on a number of pages, there is a list at the bottom page of references where a user can confirm the information seen in Wikipedia. Information that is not referenced can easily be challenged and removed by another user. Bvlax2005 (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So every fact needs a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.191.6 (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, mostly information that could easily be challenged. "Google is a search engine" really does not need a reference for the sheer fact that it would be extremely difficult to challenge that statement. "Google is the second most visited site on the internet" could be easily challenged if there is no source to prove it. Bvlax2005 (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ok thanks. all sounds a bit subjective to me, but i guess u just have to apply common sense. thanks anyway for answering my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.191.6 (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for help with images

Resolved

 – Thanks to purge. Jappalang (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done some changes to Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. After making them, I was no longer able to see the images (alt text is in place). However I can view the images in their own pages or in the Preview screen. Is this a problem on my end, or is there some sort of bug in play? Can someone help to solve this? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, a purge did the trick. Jappalang (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Email change without password

HI.

For reasons I cannot track down, I have completely forgotten my wikimedia login's password. OK, easy so far, BUT...

I no longer have access to the original email address to reset the password on one of these accounts.

What would you need from me to change the default email on my account to something I can open to follow the new temporary password? Any help would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.243.156 (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Without the password or email, there's no way for you to access your account. You'll have to create a new one. Algebraist 08:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

For immediate action: Slander found on Wikipedia

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I would like to draw your attention to two articles published under the guise of a VTC introduction and that of the Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education, a member institution, that contained a lot of inaccuracies and more importantly, smear of a serious nature.

A user by the name of Brenda LO888 and ThaddeusB posted at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Institute_of_Vocational_Education a twisted version of VTC and IVE several times respectively on 21 Aug .2008 and 25 Aug 2008.

While respecting the freedom of speech on your innovative mechanism, I would like to state in no uncertain terms that malicious smearing will not be tolerated.

Please go to www.vtc.edu.hk for the correct information.

Grateful if you could check the pages at issue and revert by 4 pm tomorrow (27 August 2008) as to how these can be resolved.

Many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canimbengu (talk • contribs) 07:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, vandalism is a nasty byproduct of Wikipedia. However, in no way is it acceptable. Currently (as of 08:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)) the article looks fine, however if the vandalism continues by the same user, you can report them at WP:AVI. Keep in mind that the user must be CURRENTLY AVTIVE when they are reported. Under "User-reported" click the edit link and there are instructions within the edit box on how to list a user for intervention. Bvlax2005 (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also it looks like the vandalism was originally introduced by an anonymous editor seen here. I would assume that User:ThaddeusB reverted your changes in haste, incorrectly assuming the edits were vandalism. Although this is only an assumption on my part. Bvlax2005 (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fimo Damaging Innacurracy!!!!!!!

Hi,

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fimo it states "According to a 2002 U.S.PIRG report Fimo contains polyvinyl chloride (PVC) mixed with phthalate"

At the bottom of the page, it says "FIMO is phthalate-free and is conform to the stringent European Standard EN 71 part 5 and bears the ACMI-Seal AP "non toxic"."

Clearly there is a contradiction here. If the latter sentence could be moved to the top so as to make clear to any potential customers that there is no phthalate in FIMO that would be great! When I try to edit the page this is not possible.

Please help,

Regards,

Tom Carter

<email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.132.137 (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I did a little research and this site says that it does in fact include phthalate. I am by far no expert on the subject however. If you have a source stating that it does not contain phthalate then I would gladly change the article for you. Bvlax2005 (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address. Please sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: . Do NOT sign in articles. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 09:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

how can a redirection be undone?

I'm really new to Wikipedia but keen to learn. Havn't found what I need on FAQ and other places so asking you experts.

Want to post some facts about a Smart421 but see that a redirection takes users to a page occupied by content relating to KCOM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart421

How can a redirection like this be undone?

I'll be in sandbox today to trial my content before posting.

Thanks Cufflinks Cufflinks (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason it redirects to the KCOM page is because Smart421 is owned by KCOM and does not have enough information/notability to justify its own article. To create an article on Smart421 go to the page first, and after it redirects you under the title "KCOM" is line stating "(Redirected from Smart421)". You can click this and it will take you back to the Smart421 article where you can edit it (and remove the line that makes it a redirect). I'm not an expert on either company, but if there is only a small section of information on Smart421 you might want to consider adding it as a section under KCOM. If you have any questions or felt I wasn't clear feel free to ask me on here or on my talk page! Bvlax2005 (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) You can go directly to Smart421. When you try going to Smart421 and it redirects to KCOM Group, you should see "(Redirected from Smart421)" just under the article title ("KCOM Group") at the top of the page, you can click that "Smart421" to get to the page you want. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You really need to expand the KCOM article as the parent of Smart421. If and when that article grow to large, then you can split it off. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama

Resolved

 – User blocked for abuse.

On the Barack Obama article, how come it doesnt mention that he is a racist bigot that wants to tax the middle class? --OuijaBorn (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you already know the answer to that, but I will humor you and point out that Wikipedia is just like any other encyclopedia and has a strict Neutral Point of View policy. Bvlax2005 (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No I dont know that. Telling people the truth is more important than Neural point of view. I demand access to the Barack Obama article. --OuijaBorn (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Is taxing the middle class a bad thing? It's better than taxing the working class. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 10:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this OuijaBoardOuijaBoard (talk · contribs)? Who initiated the #Evidence that smoking causes cancer? question above? (Also who seems to be angry?) Also who is blocked? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You have 5 minutes to allow me access to the Barack Obama article so I can 'modify' it. If you do not, I will crush Wikipedia by hacking into all of the articles and deleting them all. You have been warned. --OuijaBorn (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

and no, I have no idea who User:OuijaBoardOuijaBoard is. --OuijaBorn (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot access the Barack Obama article, I am very very angry. I DEMAND access to it NOW! --OuijaBorn (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Use {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the article, followed by your request Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 10:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You have quite the same demeanor, thus Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/OuijaBoardOuijaBoard. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, this account has been blocked for twenty-four hours to prevent their carrying out their threat to vandalize Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there's nothing like politics to get the blood boiling. It's amazing that Wikipedia can deal with such controversial topics without sinking into POV wars. It may be worth pointing out that as long as the U.S. (or any) government spends money, someone has to pay for it, either through taxation or borrowing. The United States public debt is large and growing, and one way to view deficit spending is an attempt by taxpayers to get something for nothing. Since there are no free lunches when it comes to public spending, taxpayers who consume more public goods than they pay for are essentially attempting either to pay for their consumption later, or to shift the cost onto future generations of taxpayers. At the moment, all but the wealthiest U.S. taxpayers consume more public goods than they pay for, although I've read arguments that the wealthy few enjoy the invisible benefit of a stable society that allows them to accumulate wealth, so it's reasonable to tax them disproportionately. That's probably a compelling argument if you aren't rich. What I find impressive is the great success of the U.S. Republican Party at persuading vast numbers of average people to vote in favor of borrowing from the rich at interest rather than taxing them so much, which essentially amounts to average people indenturing their children to pay debt service in the form of future taxes. I suspect Napoleon might smile. --Teratornis (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sponsorship: Marathon Runners - Energy Bar

The Marathon Club of the South African Reserve Bank is planning a Time Trial for the staff on the 1st of September. I wanted to put this request forward to the company "Energy Bar"

My request to you: Is it at all possible that you can supply/sponsor us with energy bars at the end of the 4km's run?

Advertisement and mentioning of sponsors will be done electrnically and on the Electronic notice board in the South African Reserve Bank's foyer.

Awaiting your response:

Regards.

Linda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.29.247.120 (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. _Gb^T/c 12:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal information redacted. Hi. This desk is for help on using the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. You seem to have read one of its articles and assumed it was affiliated with the company therein. Unfortunately, it's not. Sorry. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Resolved

 – User blocked for abuse.

I want to be an admin make me an admin. --OuijaBland (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Open a WP:RFA - however, using 3 different accounts (all brand new) is not a smart move. Consider helping for six months or so, and then nominate yourself. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 12:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Make me a fucking admin now or I will report you to your slavemaster Jimbo Wales. --OuijaBland (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[Biting my tongue so I don't call this "user" something really offensive...]  – ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One must cultivate sangfroid to be able to practice civility. Have confidence in Wikipedia as a system - it has withstood far worse. --Teratornis (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This was a sock of User talk:OuijaBoardOuijaBoard, who was indeffed yesterday. Moving on... Tan ǀ 39 17:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

write letter

I need to write Diane Feinstein a letter where do I get that information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.178.224.157 (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia help desk is used for asking questions regarding using Wikipedia. I would recommend viewing the article on Diane Feinstein to see if there is a personal site that may have her contact information. Otherwise the Wikipedia:Reference Desk may be able to help you out Bvlax2005 (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at her website for contact information. – ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia disclosure

Where do best improve disclosure of the policies of Wikipedia in article deletion?

Being intrigued by Wikipedia, I spent a good deal of time and effort in a recent submission on Adiposopathy. It was complete with multiple supporting references. It was reviewed by who I believe is the writer of the currently published Obesity article. He did not agree with my article and suggested deletion to Cyclonemin (the Wikipedia representative). Immediately upon hearing this reviewer's objection, Cyclonemin stated: I'd support this being nominated over at AfD, would you like me to nominate it or would you like to do it yourself? This was hardly an objective assessment, and as one new to Wikipedia, represented a bit too enthusiastic zeal to delete the article. Being that the article had just been submitted, I would have thought the focus of Wikipedia personnel should have been on suggestions as to how to improve the article.

This became more understandable, when reading their "hard to miss," very public conversation:

---

Hey Cyclonenim

Will post the article on Adiposopathy for deletion. This is not a real medical condition. Will appreciate your comments.

On another note wondering if you could give my feedback on the obesity page? I am an ER doc whose hobbies include preventative health and science in general. Nice page by the way. You are good with graphics. --Doc James (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

---

My point is, Cyclonemin and Doc James clearly have a close relationship. That is a good thing, except when it results in bias against other Wikipedia submissions and authors. According to his Wiki profile, Cyclonemin states he is: A 17 year old student from Nottingham, United Kingdom. You can see a picture of me to your left! I will be applying Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry to study medicine in a few months (or failing that a neuroscientist). However, as of yet, i'm still a layperson studying at Bilborough College. I'm a Christian. Quite frankly, I love music and I play the guitar (acoustic, bass and electric) pretty much every day. I'm also pretty interested in parkour, photography and drama.

Thus, it is understandable that Cyclonemin values his relationship with past authors of Wiki publications, and wants to foster these relationships. However, Wikipedia should include on their main page that these types of relationships exist, and that currently published authors of Wiki articles - through their relationship with Wiki younger personnel - will naturally have great influence over deletion of future Wiki articles.

Just to be clear. I do not deny that my original submission could have been improved. All of us can improve. Although it had over 30 references, I offered even greater referencing if this would help. But when asked about this possibility, Cyclonemin suggested my best bet was to simply copy the article to my computer, as my article was likely to be deleted. This was not in compliance with the way I read Wikipedia's deletion policies.

The bottomline is this. I think all of us in academia are used to criticism. All of us are used to rejection. However, serious writers of serious articles in Wikipedia would benefit from knowing (before submitting) that deletion of their work may be substantially based upon the opinions of existing authors of existing Wikipedia articles, and the degree of their influence over impressionable Wikipedia staff.

How can I best edit Wikipedia's main page to disclose these potential biases? Thanks. Adiposetech (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to say that this desire to delete your article does not stem from bias. I will admit that I am not medical expert, however it is extremely difficult to find information on Adiposopathy. Two users alone cannot delete your article (especially since neither of them are an administrator). Wikipedia is about consensus not voting. Your article has not been deleted yet and a discussion is currently going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adiposopathy. At this point I would recommend arguing your case there instead of deciding to blame it on bias. If you still feel that you are being treated unfairly I would recommend getting in contact with an administrator. Bvlax2005 (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Main Page cannot explain everything that every potential user needs to know to avoid running into every possible kind of problem, because Wikipedia is one of the most complex Web sites in existence. However, I agree it is regrettable that Wikipedia's user interface does seem overly encouraging to some fraction of, shall we say, optimistic new users who come to Wikipedia with strong assumptions about how Wikipedia ought to work. I myself had no idea that Wikipedia deletes up to several pages per minute, and I did not learn this until I had been stumbling around here for some months. (I have suggested before that the Main Page should include a count of deleted articles below the count of surviving articles which it currently displays, with a link to an introductory page that describes Wikipedia's deletion process.) In addition to being complex, Wikipedia is unlike almost anything that came before Wikipedia, and therefore almost everyone who sees Wikipedia for the first time forms at least a few incorrect assumptions about it. Wikipedia is a do it yourself system, which means everyone who uses it has to self-educate via the difficult methods of RTFM and trial and error. Since we cannot march all new users through a comprehensive introductory course, we have no way to insure that everybody who tries to edit here knows whatever they need to know to succeed at whatever type of editing they attempt. To visualize the scale of the problem, consider that Wikipedia is one of the world's top-ten most-visited Web sites. Imagine going to the headquarters of any of the other top sites (e.g. Google), sitting down at a computer, and editing away on the site without first talking to anybody else who works there. What are the odds that anyone could correctly guess exactly how to comply with all the policies of such a site, without asking any questions first? Wikipedia does actually make this possible, by having amazingly complete instructions, but the instructions are so voluminous that few people can learn them quickly, and Wikipedia does not require new users to demonstrate any understanding of the instructions before editing. (As Jimbo Wales mentions in his lectures about Wikipedia, since anyone else can edit anything we write, we have to learn how to write for our opponents - that is, we must figure out how to write something that everyone else who reads it will find acceptable.) Instead, Wikipedia expects people to make mistakes, and then to learn from more experienced users who correct their mistakes. It's not pretty, and other people have set up other wikis with different policies (e.g. WikInfo), but Wikipedia's approach has made it the most popular user-editable encyclopedia. If you would like a structured introduction to Wikipedia, and you like books, you could read Wikipedia - The Missing Manual. --Teratornis (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I might add that the notion that a cabal controls Wikipedia is something of an inside joke here. On Wikipedia, there is in fact a sort of a cabal, or rather many fluidly-forming cabals, consisting of everyone who knows the rules that pertain to particular issues. See Wikipedia:There is no common sense - Wikipedia is very rule-driven, so power accrues to users in proportion to their knowledge of the rules. Someone who reads and understands everything linked from the Editor's index would become almost omnipotent here. --Teratornis (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia works by collaboration, Wikipedia editors are working together almost all the time. Any attempt to map the connections and relationships between editors would be impossibly complicated; it would be easier to map the family tree of a small city. When I imagine, after two years at Wikipedia, trying to post a list of editors whom I have worked with amiably, and might be likely to work with again in the future, I have to shudder a little bit. But it's true that the rules trump everything; anyone who can make a clear, cogent, correct appeal to the rules can get everything his heart desires here (assuming that his heart only desires things that are consistent with the rules). -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Some notes to your post. When you create a page, the top of the window says "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article". That page warns several times that articles may get deleted. Doc James has many edits to obesity but is not the creator or sole editor. Like most Wikipedia articles, it has many contributors. Click the "history" tab and the older links at the bottom to see the page history. Anybody can nominate an article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Doc James actually created the nomination page [4] before making the post [5] that Cyclonenim replied to [6]. And the post was made at Talk:Adiposopathy. As far as I can tell, it was directed at anybody who wanted to discuss the article and not aimed at Cyclonenim who just happened to be the first to reply. You call Cyclonenim "the Wikipedia representative" and later refer to "Wikipedia staff", but Doc James and Cyclonemin are both volunteer editors, just like you and almost everybody else. I don't know whether they knew eachother before, but many editors get in contact with eachother to discuss articles and that is not considered a problem. After getting a second opinion (which is not required), Doc James completed the nomination for deletion. You and others can comment at the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adiposopathy. It is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 24 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine, so editors who monitor deletion discussions can see it and choose whether to comment. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing that really struck me about this complaint was that Adiposetech has worked on his/her Wikipedia article for one week -- and Doc James has only been an editor for about six weeks longer than Adiposetech. They're both quite new editors. I doubt that it's appropriate to say that Doc James clearly has a close relationship with anyone on Wikipedia at this time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut to citing

I am citing the same book multiple times, but different pages each time so I can't use <ref name=blank/>. Is there a shortcut to do this without writing the citation out over and over again? Copana2002 (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I found it here. You simply create a notes section in addition to the reference section and cite the page number within the text. eg. <ref>[[#Smi00|Smith 2000]]: 4</ref> Copana2002 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the solution. I guess that's the best we can do at the moment, but it looks a little kludgey to me. Perhaps we should ask the coding gurus over at {{Cite book}} if there is a better way. – ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I just happened across a better way: <ref name=NAME>NAME, p. 1</ref>.  – ukexpat (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Global Account

I am creating a global account but someone has my name on the Polish wikipedia, one I will start using after I learn Polish on Wikiversity. This other Wikipedysta:Donek has not made any edits at all while I have made over 1000. Is it possible for me to acquire ownership of that userpage? P.S. I don't speak Polish yet so I cannot ask people on the Polish wikipedia. Donek (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy in the English Wikipedia for essentially stealing someone else's account (regardless of how often the person used the account). You must ask the user if you can have the password and start using the account. -- kainaw™ 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is true. Tan ǀ 39 15:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. That page has an interwiki link to the Polish pl:Wikipedia:Przejmowanie nazwy użytkownika which includes instructions in English. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The information at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login#Someone_is_using_my_name_on_another_wiki.2C_how_can_I_get_that_account.3F explains what to do if someone has your account name on another project. Bvlax2005 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Table(s) of Contents

Is there a reason that all TOCs default to "collapsed" mode (that is, I have to click "[show]" to see the whole Table of Conents)? I have not noticed this behavior before. Is this new, or does it only apply to unregistered (or unlogged-in) users? 137.148.237.84 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not noticing this behavior, but I am logged in. I tried logging out, but I still see the table of contents in an article I was viewing (which happens to be Hurricane Gustav (2008), if it matters), even after reloading the page. You could try searching the Help desk archive for previous instances of this problem:

• Search Help desk for: TOC collapse

but that doesn't seem to find anything relevant. You could try different search keywords. You might have a browser issue. --Teratornis (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that the TOC on each page now has a [hide] link. Someone must have added this feature and initially set it to hide by default. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

Resolved

 – User blocked for abuse.

I was reading through your encylopedia, and I noticed on the Jimbo Wales article that you refer to him as 'Wales is the current de facto leader of Wikipedia'. The term leader seems like a sociallist commnuist term does it not? Is Wikipedia a left-wing organisation? --LateKernelAmsterdam (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The term leader has a very broad use. For example, the President of the USA is sometimes referred to as the leader of the Western world. The word has no special link to socialist terminology, IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not fit into traditional political labels. Wikipedia is a system for Commons-based peer production, which is a different kind of social organization than was able to exist before the introduction of the World Wide Web in general, and wiki software in particular. Since Wikipedia is so enormous, depending on which part of Wikipedia you observe, you may find analogies with many different forms of earlier social organization, including socialism and libertarianism. (See Blind men and an elephant.) For more information, read the links under WP:EIW#Community, WP:EIW#Research, and WP:EIW#Basic_Info. You may also enjoy reading:

• Poe, Marshall (September 2006). "The Hive". The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved 2008-08-25.

I have some random notes at User:Teratornis/Theory of Wikipedia which may someday become worth looking at (although I may be blinded by optimism). For now there are some links to books and lectures by thinkers such as Clay Shirky and Yochai Benkler. --Teratornis (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "leader" is being used as exclusionary, not inclusionary. It means he is not an official. He is not elected. He is not appointed. He is not a dictator. He is not the owner. It is excluding a lot of other titles and leaving him with the ineffectual title of "leader". -- kainaw™ 17:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a Wikipedia election? I wish to be head of Wikipedia. If he wasnt elected, then that makes him a dictator because he took control of power without public vote. --LateKernelAmsterdam (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is probably just another Ouija sock. Tan ǀ 39 17:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouija Sock? What does that mean? --LateKernelAmsterdam (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:EIW#Sock. You cannot be elected because Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Teratornis (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you accusing me as a sock puppet? I am not such thing, what makes you think I am a sockpuppet? And if Wikipedia is not a Democracy, then what is it? A dictatorship? --LateKernelAmsterdam (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a meritocracy. You've obviously been here before and appear to be editing solely to disrupt Wikipedia. Tan ǀ 39 18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Proof? --LateKernelAmsterdam (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Indef blocked, we don't need to waste time on this. Tan ǀ 39 18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

List of language equivalents

What is the purpose of the list of language equivalents that appears at the end of articles but only on the edit page? I just added the Arabic equivalent of abacá to the English-language article, but I don't know whether this list is meant to provide a translation for the article title or a reference to the equivalent article in the appropriate language Wikipedia. If the latter, my addition may be inappropriate. Fbarw (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a link to same article in a different language's version of Wikipedia. The same list should appear on the left hand side of the page when you view an article. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I'll go back and delete my additions. Fbarw (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

For details, see Help:Interlanguage links and WP:EIW#Interwiki. --Teratornis (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How can I add my company to Wikipedia?

Hi, I want to add my company to Wikipedia. Does this have a cost? And how would I go about doing this? Please help. Thanks.

66.166.56.194 (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no cost. Though your company should meet certain notability requirements. And someone else should probably write the article due to a conflict of interest. Dismas|^(talk) 18:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BFAQ. There is no monetary cost to editing on Wikipedia, but there can be other kinds of costs, such as the fact that no one owns a Wikipedia article, so an article about your company may contain both good and bad information about it, whatever people can reliably source. --Teratornis (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Appearances In Popular Culture" from Dodge Charger page?

I recently spent several hours to add a area to the Dodge Charger page, and put in a new section. When I went today to add a new one I had just found, I found the section completly gone! I have seen nearly all other car pages have a "Appearances In Popular Culture" section, and none of them have been removed. I believe this to be important information, and it deserves to be there! But, why was it removed?65.26.158.208 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The popculture section was removed by Ckatz with the comment 'we avoid this sort of trivia'. The place to discuss this is at Talk:Dodge Charger (B-body), but see Wikipedia:Trivia sections and Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles for some background first. Algebraist 19:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I represent two comedians, Josh Blue and John Heffron, and need to change the content on their pages

Hello,

I have the approved bios and headshots for comedians Josh Blue and John Heffron. This is the only information they want to appear on the website besides the links to their websites. What steps do I need to take to make sure these changes happen? I need to make sure this happens as soon as possible.

Thanks Inamariesmile (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Handling this one on User talk:Inamariesmile. Friday (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Licensing issues

I have witnessed a user remove several recently added paragraphs from an article, and create a separate article with that exact information. However, in the page history the user who copied and pasted the text is given credit for the writing. Is this alright? Is there anything that can be done about it? Does it comply with licensing policy? « Diligent Terrier [talk] 21:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy-paste article creation is a GFDL violation, yes. (It's also done constantly.) There are two ways of dealing with it: the first is a history merge, which is messy and requires admin intervention. The other, which works well for simple cases (like spinning out a couple paragraphs by a single author when the article is new) is to just dummy edit the page and give credit to the original writer(s) that way. --erachima talk 21:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

History merges are not possible in terms of paragraphs. It does not comply with licensing policy unless they are the only people who have ever edited the said paragraphs. A null edit stating which text the article came from in the edit summary should be done, and a reminder about the licensing policies to the user concerned. Woody (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Collapse the TOC

I've been searching for almost an hour, and can't seem to find information anywhere outlining how to collapse a TOC or "Contents" box at the top of an article. Thanks in advance. — Hucz (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the [hide] box show up by default, or do you want it collapsed by default? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not being very clear, what I want is to be able to collapse it on default when loading the article. So that when the article had loaded, it's already collapsed and needs to be expanded. Thanks. — Hucz (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this can be done and it seems likely to me that many users would be confused if the default state varied between articles. Where and why do you want to do it? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks for clearing that up. I was going to have it on my userpage. — Hucz (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's different. Your other posts said article which in Wikipedia means the mainspace for encyclopedia articles. You have much more freedom on your user page. You could place __TOC__ (see Help:Section) inside a collapsible table collapsed by default, but it wouldn't be as pretty as having the TOC hidden by default. Below is sample code. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

{| class="toccolours collapsible collapsed" width="60%"
!colspan="2"| Contents
|-
| __TOC__
|}

Trivial Mention

What is a trivial mention? Schuym1 (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A mention that is either barely given, or barely worth noticing. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Schuym1 (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

For example, if the source has a "List of foo" and the "foo" you're trying to demonstrate notability is only mentioned on the list, that would be a trivial mention. Navin Johnson once tried to demonstrate his notability in a Steve Martin movie by pointing out that he was in the phone book, but this is a trivial mention (as well as primary source). SDY (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AFD problem

I nominated four Bratz movies for deletion at once and the nomination does not appear correctly. Please help. Schuym1 (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I won't be getting any help. Schuym1 (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just have a little patience, we are all volunteers. I started to fix it before your 00:11 post but Bvlax2005 saved first so I only fixed a few other details. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it for you. In the future remember to user the template {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} instead of merely listing the articles on the deletion discussion page. Bvlax2005 (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops. It's weird that I forgot that. Schuym1 (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you add video to the articles?

I was wondering if wikipedia will/ or is planning to add video or animate examples to the article pages, ie: animation/video of planets rotating around the sun in the planet article, or video/animation of how an engine works, etc, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.35.177 (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The joy of Wikipedia is that the question could easily be turned around: why don't you do it? There isn't an editorial board that directs tasks. If you had a specific request for this kind of animation, you might ask at the relevant project (WP:AST or WP:CAR), but the only practical way to make wikipedia better is just to dig in your heels and lend a hand. Just for the record, I think I've seen a couple of engine animations in articles, such as Otto cycle and Wankel_engine#Design. SDY (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has steered clear of adding a video option for a number of reason. The additional server/bandwidth strain would be insane, especially for a company that relies on donations for its income. How much will a video even help the content of an article? I don't believe video content can fall under a fair use rationale therefore finding non-copyrighted videos would be like finding a needle in a proverbial haystack. I do agree with you though that animated pictures (such as a GIF animated) might be useful in some cases, such as the rotating planet idea. However, I think that a full on video feature such as what is seen on YouTube is not in our near future. But who knows, maybe one day...? Bvlax2005 (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We do have animations - see, for example, Engine - and we do have video - see, for example, Galloping Gertie. However, both of these require the video to be made, put in an appropriate format, and released under a copyleft license or in the public domain. While the number of images that meet those constraints is relatively large, the number of animations and videos is significantly smaller. As pointed out, if there's something missing from Wikipedia, feel free to fix the problem yourself. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey fellow IP guy. Try taking a look at WP:VIDEO. You may find some information on how to upload your OGG files. Good luck converting you file to ogg. --CyclePat (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Becoming an admin

Hi, I think i would like to consider becoming an admin on here one day, but i fear my poor record on this site might count against me. Basically my first few edits on my account were vandalism, but from there I reformed and went on to make around 5000 constructive edits. However I also used to have a bad record for posting copyrighted images, but i stopped that now. The problem is I never leave edit summaries, and also I am really bad for making lots of small edits to the one article within a short space of time. For instance i have made over 500 minor edits to several individual articles. I notice most editors on here are not like me and make large changes in 1 or 2 edits but personally i like to make my large changes over several hundred edits and often over several days. Will this effect my chances of being accepted as a syop in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.209.42 (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are unregistered and this is your only edit, which might hurt. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have an account, i'm just too shy to log in to ask this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.209.42 (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case: 1- you probably shouldn't do that (sort of looked down upon, and it might be interpreted as a violation of WP:SOCK) 2- The main question being debated during an WP:RFA is whether you can be trusted with the tools and can be trusted to use them according to Wikipedia policy. Since it is a discussion, no one can really say for sure whether that will be an issue. A bad history, although it won't help, usually will be semi-ignored if your recent actions clearly state that you've learned or turned a new leaf. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help to go to WP:ER, or do some admin coaching before you submit an RfA. Both avenues should be able to help you evaluate the constructivity of your recent edits. PerfectProposal 00:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Calvin is right. But, he's also pointed it out in such as fashion that appears to agree with Wikipedia's policy called WP:DICK. 1 - You have the right to remain anonymous and hold many account. Having a sock is not specifically band. In fact, the creator of Wikipedia at one point, if not still, used sock puppets to remain anonymous. However, it's difficult to build, or as in the case of many administrators who have violated the community's trust (the illusion), the community's trust. 2 - Calivin is correct. Nevertheless, excuse the the vulgarity, you'll have to "suck a lot of ass" if you're any little bit as verbios as I and even then, you may see your RFC removed in shame. A word of advice... the only special about an administrator is that he has the end of a janitors mop. Where he puts it, sometimes isn't always pretty. WP:ER, is probably a good suggestion. But, I've noticed, people that become administrator are the one hungry for power and the ones that put on a good show by editing lots and lots of articles. Making the bold but good edits and clearly voicing there opinion (which more then often, concededly and surprisingly, makes good sense). p.s.: (Sucking up also helps. Writing messages like I just did, which can create fractures (and eventually requiring some sort of WP:CON) is also a good thing to try and avoid. Hence as Gandi may say "be humble"!) --CyclePat (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)