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.
Can you be a little more specific? Without the name(s) of the article(s), I can give you some general advice, but that's about it. You would need to move the page to the correct title, but first your account must be autoconfirmed (at least four days old and made ten edits first). TNXMan00:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last week, I requested assistance from an editor to update the article Statistical Assessment Service, which in its current version, has many problems. I had prepared a revised version and, because I have a potential conflict of interest with the subject, worked alongside an uninvolved editor to make it ready for primetime. And then, after I had updated the article to address his last concern, he has not commented again although I've asked twice. So, I'd like for someone else to look at my proposed draft and our Talk page conversation. If you think my version is good to go, please move it over yourself or perhaps give your assent on that page, and I can take care of it. Of course, if you have other concerns, please let me know that, too. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a very quick look, your new version appears balanced. If User:MastCell is the editor you were working with before, I suggest you wait until he has a chance to respond. He has edited on August 3, so he must be around. There could be ways to more fully integrate this article with other Wikipedia articles that cover some of the same controversies. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you allowed to create a page for Wikipedia that highlights your business? Mine is TransformationServices, Inc. www.transformationservices.info--Drhicks (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a word, no. If you business is notable enough, people who are not associated with your business will be interested enough in it to write books and magazine articles about it. Then yet more people who have nothing to do with your business can read these books and articles and use them to write a Wikipedia article. That is how things get done here. See the pages:
for more reading on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in these areas, as well as why they are in place to begin with. --Jayron3202:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 30th July user Coltech88 added several website links on the Faith Healing page to: www.reiki.org and qigonghealingarts.org which look like organisations promoting the topics referenced.
There's also a link to http://www.latter-rain.com/church/layingonofhands.htm.
I think that they shouldn't be there but wanted to check first rather than just deleting them - am I right?
Links to commercial or organizational sites like this should be removed with impugnity as soon as they are encountered. See WP:ELNO for more examples of external links which are generally inappropriate. These fit the bill in spades. Remove them. --Jayron3202:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse Me, My name is Imaginationpage and I'm new. I have a story following up with a question... I joined to tell every one a story I've been working on for a while. However, I read the terms of use and it seems as if my article may not be excepted. My article would be completely fictional however, I intend to tell the reader at the very top of that none of the document exists anywhere outside my own mind. (The main clause that worries me reads "this website is only for articles that would be found in a encyclopedia") If this is allowed, I intend to take care not to violate any rules such as personal information, inappropriate information ect. Though my original question was "Did I sign up for the wrong reason" reading it back, it has become apparent the answer is "yes" So I suppose my actual question is if this behavior is allowed on any domains of my personal Wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaginationpage (talk • contribs) 07:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone give a personal testimonial of when the categories in articles actually helped them find helpful information?
I'm not talking about abstract hypotheticals -- I can dream up a whole bunch of those. But can anyone attest to them actually happening? 75.4.17.253 (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, not another proposal to dump cats. Categories are very helpful IMO because it works as a navigational device between articles when there is not one that is readily available in the form of lists, templates, etc. Also, cats are important in stub sorting and all that. Kayau VotingISevil09:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I use categories often to find related information. For example, if I'm looking for a type of hat, I would go to the category for hats and start exploring. I may not know the name but at least I can narrow it down to a category and work from there. Dismas|(talk)09:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I use categories occasionally in Wikipedia, but I use them often in our (Mediawiki) wiki at work where I find them a very convenient way to navigate. --ColinFine (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates for a comparison of three of the main methods for grouping related articles on Wikipedia. All three methods have been useful to me - for example, if I have some application software I don't like, and I want to find similar software that might work better (or cost nothing), I look up the Wikipedia article on the application I know about, then look at any categories or list pages it appears in to see the similar packages. Also search the Help desk archive pages for "CatScan" - that finds many examples of people requesting information from Wikipedia that can be found by searching in Wikipedia's categories. As to how useful the various questioners found the advice, you would have to ask them. --Teratornis (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Kayau pointed out, categories are very helpful for Wikipedia maintenance. When people add message templates to articles, for example to highlight problems such as missing sources, the templates automatically categories the articles into maintenance categories, allowing Wikipedia's small army of maintainers to find articles with specific problems they know how to fix. Maintenance categories are useful for generating statistics on how big our backlogs are getting. --Teratornis (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Semantic web and Semantic wiki. Someday, (maybe) Wikipedia will have semantic web features, and that will allow users to do complex queries on Wikipedia, which categories can only serve in limited ways at the moment (because we don't want to over-categorize). And read all the links under WP:EIW#Cat to grasp what categories are all about on Wikipedia. Categories are one of the harder Wikipedia features for the new user to understand. --Teratornis (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all those above. Use them all the time for all manner of things. However, I do sometimes wonder if certain categories are useful, and these are usually outside the mainspace or in the mainspace but hidden from normal view. For example, Category:Redirects from railroad names with ampersands but then there's always CfD if that becomes an issue. Still, you wanted some concrete examples. The other week I was searching for a list of articles that a deleted template had been in, which can be difficult to compile, so I went to a somewhat parallel category and looked at the edit history of the articles in it to see if the template had been deleted from them. When I'm searching for the proper stub tag, I think of a similar article, then to a category it's in with others and clicking on a few, I usually find the proper stub tag. Those are just two of many uses.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to hide a picture from the article for everyone, or are you trying to hide it just for yourself? Kayau's answer applies to the first case. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Next to TOC you have that button [hide/show]. Like this i want to have for pictures. To be capable me or the others, who visit the page, to hide the picture or to show it again. Exactly the use of [hide/show] button from the TOC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.231.254 (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what article you are working on, but it's probably a good idea to get talk-page consensus about hiding an image before doing so. Some see hiding of images as censorship or a form of vandalism--no reason to get yourself labeled that way, but no harm in starting a discussion of it to make others aware of what the situation is. DMacks (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New design is terrible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What's the bug?
After redisign it's now impossible to wait for a page download! Every page is hanging at the end of downloading for several seconds. I gues it is the problem of IExplorer, but guys - IE is most common and I am not guilty that I have to use in my office!
That is a common problem noticed by most of my colleagues and friends< and it is f##ng disturbing (((
Hi. I manage e-marketing at my company Productora de Software Ltda, PSL. We have been victims of libel in our brief wiki description. Although we have edited the libel out, we would appreciate if Wikipedia could erase the diffamatory statements from the history of the page. The libel within the history page can be found in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Productora_de_Software_Ltda&oldid=364932775
You're talking about oversight, and oversight is only used in case of an emergency. Oversight is used when an email address or telephone number is posted, not when, from what I can see, somebody criticizes that company. If you still want an oversighter to review this, you can go to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, but like I said, I don't see why that edit would need to be oversighted. The RaptorYou rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
good morning: I watched one of the episodes of How its Made the other night and they were preserving some type of inside of a tree in jars and adding brine, can you tell me what this tree is called, what the name of the product is called, and where I may be able to purchase same in Ontario?
thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.44.62 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Orange Mike | Talk15:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE: www.teachmyselfsmarts.com .biz, .net, .info and .org cannot be found
Hello.
Our website www.teachmyselfsmarts.com cannot be found in your search engine. Is it possible for you to add us and in return we would be more than happy to display a llink or banner directing traffic from our website to yours, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.155.31 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed an article and would like to remove an Unreviewed Article tag. While logged-in, I clicked special:mypage/monobook.js and I installed importScript('User:Btilm/aw.js'). A tab is supposed to appear (-uat) that allows me to remove the unreviewed article tag, but now I'm stuck. I do not see this tag anywhere. Should it appear as a generic tag when I log-in? Should it appear on particular articles that contain the Unreviewed Article tag that I am in the process of reviewing?
I don't think you saved the edit to your monobook.js file - the only edits showing up in your contributions are to this page. Also, make sure you are using the monobook skin. If you are using the (newish) vector default skin, you make the edit to Special:mypage/vector.js – ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, UKexpat. I have successfully entered the -uat tab by entering the script into the monobook skin. But I'm stuck again. I'm trying to remove the Unreviewed Article tag for the educaedu article but when I click -uat, nothing happens. What are the steps that I need to do to get rid of that unreviewed template? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shasta819 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way is probably just to edit the article and remove {{New unreviewed article|date=December 2009}} from the top of the page. TNXMan02:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like ukexpat removed the tag, as seen here. When you edit the article, the notification was at the very top of the article, above the main body of text. TNXMan11:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say that editors on an article want to do a bigger, longer term project of redeveloping a section. And the want a workspace for the main draft (= a project page for the work) as well as a discussion page.) One can't do it as a sub article under the main article (while still having both a project page and a talk page). And one CAN do it as a subpage in their user space, but that doesn't seem like an appropriate place for such an effort. Is there another place to do something like this? North8000 (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd do it in a user subpage, with a note on the talk page directing collaborators to said subpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 15:07, 3 August 2010
User space is fine, as long as you take care to move the draft to article space rather than copy and paste it, so you will preserve the history. When multiple editors have contributed to the draft, we must preserve the history to comply with our licensing. That could cause problems if you want to re-work just one section out of a larger article this way. Another place to edit could be as a subpage of the most relevant WikiProject. However, why not just edit the article in place? You can put an {{Under construction}} template at the top of the section to warn readers about the potential mess. You can minimize the length of time that the section is messy by outlining what you want to do in some detail (on a user page), and then edit from the outline into the article proper. Since you did not tell us the name of the article or section, we can only give general advice which might not apply to your case. Also see WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPLIT, and WP:MERGE - if the section is big or needs to get big, maybe you could split the section into its own article. --Teratornis (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have thought about this for about 6 articles. The challenge is that (in addition to the points I noted) the talk page is too transient, and there is typically no space on a talk page that is considered editable or "longer lived". On some I've been doing a "work around" by deliniating / setting up an "editable draft" section on a talk page. I can give lots of examples if anyone is interested, but am not writing this about any one article. Most of these are just where there is big complicated work needed rather than disputes. I screwed up once and tried creating one as a sub-article to a main article, and just thought I would ask to see if there is a place to do this that I didn't know about. BTW can you move (vs. copy) a draft of a section? Or just a whole article. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to add this picture to the above articles infobox,though it is too big. Any value entered in the imagesize parameter of the infobox has no effect, please help :)Acather96 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't happened to me yet, but I was curious about what we're supposed to do about pending changes in an edit war. Let's say there are editors who are having a normal content dispute that doesn't involve BLP violations or vandalism. If I approve these changes, am I guilty of edit-warring, too? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is an official answer to that yet. Of course, edit warring should be discouraged and the parties directed to the talk page, etc. But my take is that since approving changes isn't really adding or deleting content, it's not really taking part in an edit war. Just my two cents until there is something more consensus-driven in place. TNXMan23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accepting a pending change from an unconfirmed user is taking responsibility for the content added in the same way as if you had added it. I have been in a couple of edit wars with pending changes and I found pending quite good in helping keep disputed content out of the article. If you are repeatedly accepting and therefore inserting disputed content to the article then technically yes you are also involved in the edit war. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Looking a little deeper, I see this list of edits that should not be accepted. 1. it conflicts with the Biographies of Living People policy 2. it contains vandalism or patent nonsense 3. it contains obvious copyright violations 4. it contains legal threats, personal attacks or libel. Nothing at WP:Reviewing really mentions edit warring. TNXMan23:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed there is nothing formed as yet, the understanding is increasing with the trial and I imagine when the inquest opens such issues just as this will be tweaked. I found that in such warring cases, passing good faith pending reviewers seeing the situation kept out of the way. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason why I bring it up is that there was a slight content dispute yesterday at our Radiohead article. An IP boldly removed a portion of the lede[1] which promptly was reverted.[2] I accepted the revert. I did not approve the first edit but I see both as good faith attempts to improve the article. Nothing has happened since, but I was wondering about what we should do if editors continued to add/remove this content.
You can either go to the "My preferences" tab at the top of your page, click on Gadgets, and enable Twinkle from there or manually install it by following the instructions at this page. TNXMan23:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle automates some Wikipedia features, like reporting vandalism/ inappropriate usernames, nominating things for deletion, or reverting edits. The main page gives an overview of a lot of its functions. It also automates some processes for admins. TNXMan01:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not fully automatic like a bot, but requires user input (clicking on the appropriate link) to perform its functions. – ukexpat (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the Monobook skin (pictured), the links are tabs at the top with the "article", "discussion", "edit this page", and "history" tabs. Twinkle menu in VectorFor Vector (pictured), the links are in a drop-down menu labeled "TW". Goodvac (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
