Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 December 4

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.

December 4

Two thing to discuss

1. I think there should be category created for Fictional People with Bipolar Disorder because for example Callisto_(Xena) from Xena has bipolar disorder. 2.I also think there should be category for American_people_of_isreail-Jewish_descent because that applies to such people as Natalie_portman and Oded_Fehr. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

1. We already have Category:Fictional people with neurological or psychological disorders. I think Bipolar Disorder is too specific for fictional people. Callisto (Xena) is already in 11 fictional people categories and supposed bipolar disorder isn't a major character trait. The story is set a couple thousands years ago and I guess "bipolar disorder" isn't mentioned. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 14#Category:Fictional sociopaths where Category:Fictional psychopaths and Category:Fictional psychopaths were deleted, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 10#Category:Fictional megalomaniacs where Category:Fictional megalomaniacs was deleted. The suggested category has the same problem.

2. We already have Category:American people of Israeli descent and Category:American people of Jewish descent. Most people in the former will probably be Jewish. I don't think we need a triple combo for American-Israeli-Jewish. See also Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Wikipedia:CatScan can be used by people who want to find more category combinations than we have specific categories for. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes of my own

Sometimes I use infoboxes in my personal sandbox. There are two things I would like to know: a) Who created all of the Infoboxes? b) If I can, how do I create my own and use it in my sandbox?

Thank you! Tmchead (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If you click the "Edit" tab at top of a page then the bottom of the page will have links to the used templates. An infobox is a type of template. See the page history of an infobox to see the contributors. There will often be many, and other infoboxes may have other contributors. See Help:Infobox if you consider creating a new. This can be difficult. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Contents

How do I put a Contents box into my article?

Thank you for answering!

Tmchead (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Tables of contents should only be in articles when are necessary. If it has sections (it will know by the use or headings), it will automatically be added.  Hazard-SJ  ±  00:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

See more at Help:Section. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Uploading pictures

I have a book published in 1927 about WW1. I copied the 400 pictures and translated the German Captions to English. I wish to upload these photos. Please advise procedure. Johnwoods11 (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be running afoul of copyright there. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as it was published 83 years ago, it is possible that the photos will be in the public domain. Do you know who the photographer was and when he died? Alternatively, ask about this at Media copyright questions where the real experts in copyright hang out. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 03:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:TITLE

Good day,

I am having a bit of an issue in the Spanish wikipedia with some editors regarding the WP:NPOV pilar and the WP:TITLE guideline. Yes, I know that the best place to deal with this issue would be in the Spanish wikipedia, but this is just a general question (and I feel more comfortable writing in English than in Spanish).

The matter is, the title of an article is currently of a specific POV because it is associated with a particular theory. The title I am proposing is completely NPOV. After much analysis and discussion, we (as in my side of the argument and their side of the argument) came to the conclusion that both terms were "equal" in various aspects, except that the title I proposed had the "issue" of having two definitions (which aren't opposites, just simple two very similar varieties); and also that their title, though more precise, was NPOV.

Two questions thus come out of this situation, which I hope you can answer (or can lead me to the right place to ask them):

1. Does WP:NPOV have supremacy over WP:TITLE? If so, in what respects? If not, could you please explain why?

2. The "precision" problem of my proposed titled isn't one that is obviously terrible. According to the WP:TITLE guildeline: "For technical reasons, no two Wikipedia articles can have the same title." Yet, the "two varieties" of my proposed title are closely linked to each other, and there is no possible way of creating separate encyclopedic articles of both of these entries (If it was tried, they would amount to little more than content forks). In other words, in the same article both "varieties" would have to be mentioned. As such, based on this situation, would having this title be breaking the WP:TITLE guideline? If yes or no, please explain why.

The basic point is that both titles are "good" or "acceptable", but the main problem lies that with the current title there is a POV issue, and I don't know for sure if my proposed title is a better proposal or one that isn't worth anything.

Thanks in advance for the response.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a major problem on English Wikipedia as well; much of WP:LAME is filled with insane movewars over the names of places, see Derry/Londonderry or Bolzano-Bozen/Bozen-Bolzano. In English Wikipedia, the solution is usually to use whatever the most common term in English is for the name; whatever reliable sources call the concept you are talking about in the article, use that term. Spanish Wikipedia may have very different rules regarding this, however. YMMV. --Jayron32 06:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Jayron. I agree with you that this is really one of those WP:LAME situations. From what you tell me in your examples, this situation is silly, but still complicated. Your suggestion to use the "most common term" is a great solution, but the problem is that there are no reliable sources that determine the "most common term" in this case. Both terms, my proposal and the established title, are both supported by reliable sources, including specialized works (from PhD's), dictionaries, newspapers, internet articles, books, etc. Essentially, the "most common term" position has been agreed by both sides to be non-existant (there are no sources that validate the "most common", and there are plenty of reliable sources that validate both proposals).

The situation comes down to my proposal following WP:NPOV but having a minor "precision" problem, and their proposal breaking WP:NPOV but being mostly (though not completely) precise. In terms of Wikipedia policy, what should be the position to follow?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The big problem is there is no Wikipedia-wide solution. There is a solution on English Wikipedia but that isn't really applicable at Spanish Wikipedia. WP:NPOV is a foundational principle, but the actual application of that principle is left up to the individual Wikipedias to work out. WP:TITLE is even more specific to each project, that page was negotiated exclusively at English Wikipedia for use at English Wikipedia, so is completely inapplicable at Spanish Wikipedia. What you need to do is to go through whatever the established dispute resolution process is at Spanish Wikipedia and build consensus in that way. That's the best advice I can give, since I am not familiar with Spanish Wikipedia I don't know how their policies play out on this topic; their own rules will be different than ours, so you're really going to have to work this out there. --Jayron32 15:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the response. I'll go the Spanish wiki and see what comes out of the situation there, though (after reading both WP:TITLE versions, in English and Spanish) it seems that the Spanish Wikipedia simply took and translated the concepts from the English Wikipedia (the only difference is that they ask for the "most common Spanish name", while the English WP asks for the "most common English name"). As a side note, we've tried the dispute resolution process in the Spanish wikipedia, but the problem is that users that have gotten involved claim that WP:NPOV does not apply to the title. They claim that the WP:TITLE guideline has supremacy over the WP:NPOV pillar, and they don't bother to explain why; which is why I came here to the English wikipedia in the hopes of being explained which policy has more weight (TITLE or NPOV) and why.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia

I am a descendent of Daniel Mendoza (an article on Daniel is on your website) this article is linked to an article on Peter Sellers (also on your website). In both articles references are made to an autobiography by Roger Lewis who apparently claims that Daniel Mendoza is the great, great, grandfather of Peter Sellers. There are a number of websites that quote references to Peter Sellers ancestry, but some also correctly claim that Peter Sellers great, great, grandfather is Mordecai Mendoza who was the first cousin of Daniel Mendoza. As a family historian who has researched my family’s history for nearly 30 years I can say with absolute certainty that Peter Sellers great, great, grandfather is Mordecai Mendoza who was the first cousin of Daniel Mendoza. I learned this by trawling through historical census records and birth, marriage and deaths records and the link can clearly be found. Yet try as I might I can find no records that could possibly link Peter Sellers’ ancestors as direct descendants of Daniel Mendoza, so I am at loss as to how Roger Lewis' claim can be supported without any evidence.

I personally would have a vested interest in Peter Sellers being the great, great grandson of Daniel Mendoza, because it would mean that I could boast to being more closely related to Peter Sellers. But the fact is, is that this claim made by Roger Lewis simply is not true and it can be proven by anyone willing to research actual historical records for themselves.

I have linked several references to edit this article when making this edit, and yet each time the author reverts the article back to the false reference. As this is a factual error and can be proven, how can I make the author of the Peter Sellers article accept my edit. Please see below.

His maternal grandmother, Benvenida 'Welcome' Mendoza (1855–1932), maternal great grandfather, Israel Mendoza (1811–1897), and maternal great, great grandfather, Mordecai Mendoza (1774–1851), were of Portuguese-Jewish descent. Mordecai was a first cousin of English prizefighter Daniel Mendoza (1764–1836).

Please help

Pheadirean

Ps As a matter of interest, Daniel Mendoza may have been a great man but unfortunately many of his children went astray. Four were convicts, three of whom were sentenced to serve in Australia. I am a direct descendant of Daniel's daughter Matilda who was a free settler in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheadirean (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have published sources which correctly list the Mendoza family tree in detail so anyone could check it? While we have no reason to doubt your own original research here, we also have no reason to trust it. Wikipedia articles must be based on verifiable sources, so we would need to be able to see that the above information is published somewhere. Because Wikipedia wants to make sure that every thing published in its articles is correct, it also wants the information to be checkable in reliable sources. That's why Wikipedia also has a policy against original research. What we would need to fix the articles in question is an actual published family tree or reliable geneology; your own research in this area isn't really helpful for people wishing to verify the articles later. We do want to get this right, which is why we need reliable sources. --Jayron32 06:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jayron for your response to my concerns. I do not know of any verifiable sources (yet), however I also dispute that the biography by Roger Lewis (who made the blanket statement that Peter Sellers is the great, great grandson of Daniel Mendoza) could possibly be deemed a verifiable source without backing that statement up with any verifiable sources. Please tell me if any of these could be used as refs http://bootsalesounds.blogspot.com/2009/03/peter-sellers.html http://www.enotes.com/topic/Peter_Sellers http://www.zoodisk.com/post/the-many-faces-of-peter-sellers-ndash-part-1/157734 http://dictionary.sensagent.com/peter+sellers/en-en/ http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7342565 And the list goes on Please help me to set the record straight Cheers Pheadirean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheadirean (talk • contribs) 08:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you should bring these matters up on the talk page of the article. I have gone there and put a link to this discussion. None of your sources are really worthy. See WP:SOURCES for more on why. You also might want to enquire on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as to whether the Roger Lewis biography and your other sources are fit to be used as citation. Thanks. —Half Price 13:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have found a book online that may be considered a verifiable source. I read this in the book synopsis. Please note the part last paragraph. I would like your thoughts as to whether you think this source may be acceptable. I have also posted this on the Peter Sellers discussion page. Thanks.

British People of Portuguese Descent Product Details • Pub. Date: May 2010 • Publisher: General Books LLC • Format: Paperback , 40pp • ISBN-13: 9781156804483 • ISBN: 1156804485 Synopsis Excerpt: Richard Henry Sellers, CBE (8 September 1925 24 July 1980), commonly known as Peter Sellers, was a British comedian and actor best known for his roles in Dr. Strangelove, as Chief Inspector Clouseau in The Pink Panther film series, as Clare Quilty in the original 1962 screen version of Lolita, and as the guileless man-child Chance in his penultimate film, Being There. Sellers rose to fame on the BBC Radio comedy series The Goon Show. His ability to speak in different accents (e.g., French, Indian, American, German), along with his talent to portray a range of characters to comedic effect, contributed to his success as a radio personality and screen actor and earned him national and international nominations and awards. Many of his characters became ingrained in public perception of his work. Sellers's private life was characterized by turmoil and crises, and included emotional problems and substance abuse. Sellers was married four times, with three children from two of the marriages. Peter Sellers's birthplace on the corner of Castle Road and Southsea terrace, in Southsea. The blue plaques read "Peter Sellers, Actor and Comedian was born here "Sellers was born in Southsea, Portsmouth to a family of entertainers. His parents nicknamed him Peter at an early age, after his elder stillborn brother. He attended the North London Roman Catholic school, St. Aloysius College, although his father, Yorkshire-born Bill Sellers (1900-1962), was Protestant and his mother, Agnes Doreen 'Peg' née Marks (18921967), was Jewish. His maternal grandmother, Benvenida Welcome Mendoza (1855-1932), was of Portuguese-Jewish descent; her grandfather, Mordecai Mendoza (1774-1851), was a first cousin of English prizefighter Daniel Mendoza (1764-1836). Sellers was also a cousin... More: http://booksllc.net/?id=24518 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheadirean (talk • contribs) 11:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That looks absolutely fine. —Half Price 18:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you Half Price.

I do not believe it - my references above have been removed again. WHAT CAN I DO!!!! HELP

we would love to donate but....

Dear Mr.jimmy wales

first let me make clear that as always we will donate and as always it will be more then 2000$ as we are a group of 20 friends but what we dnt understand is, why do always, when a page is locked it is always in a state hiding the truth i mean see the page of Babari Mosque even after pictures were uploaded showing the mosque was demolished by Hindu extremist leaders that was removed and page locked, Dr. Zakir Nayek rebuttal page again locked when it is in wrong state why? and many many pages you need to check the pages do research on it and then lock once the truth is clear and proved, we have no problem if anything is writen against anyone as long as it is true!

Thanking You Mir <email address removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.67.76 (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have issues with any pages, you should discuss them on their talk pages. This is the WikiPedia Help desk. For more information on page locks, see Wikipedia:Protection policy. Thanks. —Half Price 12:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed your email address to protect your privacy. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Two sharks for sister Sarah

No questions asked, they will be assisted gladly by an unknown number of whales. They will envy only things that are not human, like swimmers on beaches, whales of larger size and the likes. Not a problem, they will go unnoticed, unmolested, ignored to the point of oblivion. It is already bliss for them, not a big change in their natural loving mother. Yes, mother nature will love them with hereditary gifts. They will satisfy their hungry habits without the use of garbage tanks, or containers of waste, for that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.200.2 (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please remove Jimmy Wales' photo from Wikipedia? It's doing my nut in.

He looks very egotistical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.165.126 (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You can click the "x" in the corner to close the banner. Alternatively, you could sign in and set your preferences to permanently close it. wackywace 13:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Only users can adopt preferences, not IPs. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 14:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

August Heinrich Petermann

I am editing a page concerning August Heinrich Petermann. In the following paragraph the hyperlink to the image is not hidden, whatever I try, though I use the edit link for hyperlinks. All other hyperlinks, internal or external, work. How come?

He proposed to follow a course East of Greenland, for he and other geographers were convinced that Greenland stretched much farther North than was known in that time. Though Ferdinand von Wrangel started a four year long expedition in 1820 to find possible land North of cape Shelagskiy and couldn’t find any land he noted a Chucki chief saying: “One might in a clear summer’s day descry snow-covered mountains at a great distance to the North.” Heinrich Berghaus, Petermann’s teacher, included this information in the right hand corner on his "alexander+von+humboldt"+and+"isotherm-Kurven"+and+1838;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=0&trs=1 isotherm map of 1838 for his Physikalische Atlas with the text ‘possible polar land’ (Wahrscheinliches Polar-Land). So it might be possible that Petermann based his views on this information.

It shows in Wikipedia thus: He proposed to follow a course East of Greenland, for he and other geographers were convinced that Greenland stretched much farther North than was known in that time. Though Ferdinand von Wrangel started a four year long expedition in 1820 to find possible land North of cape Shelagskiy and couldn’t find any land he noted a Chucki chief saying: “One might in a clear summer’s day descry snow-covered mountains at a great distance to the North.”[26] Heinrich Berghaus, Petermann’s teacher, included this information in the right hand corner on his "alexander+von+humboldt"+and+"isotherm-Kurven"+and+1838;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=0&trs=1 isotherm map of 1838 for his Physikalische Atlas with the text ‘possible polar land’ [Wahrscheinliches Polar-Land]. So it might be possible that Petermann based his views on this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smi1 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed this. The system was confused by the double-quote characters inside this URL; I have recoded them as ampersand-2-2-semicolon. This is described here.

Note that the guideline on linking from articles to external websites says that links should normally occur in references and in the External Links section only, and not within the body of the article text. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ochromonas malhamensis and Vitamin B-12

I want to know why Wikipedia has no definition on "Ochromonas malhamensis" especially since it has shed important light on B-12, and is the most effective of the various assays at measuring metabolically active B-12. (This is because when grown in dark conditions is specifically requires B-12 and responds to B-12 in its natural form) Baker H, Frank O, Khalil F, DeAngelis B, Hutner SH. Determination of metabolically active B12 and inactive B12 analog titers in human blood using several microbial reagents and a radiodilution assay. J Am Coll Nutr. 1986;5(5):467-75. and "Hutner, Provasoli & Filfus, 1953" and "coates & Ford, 1955" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.116.175 (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't even understand the question. But if there is a subject which meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and you see a need for the article to exist, why not create it yourself? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have an article on it because nobody has written an article on it. This might be because it is not a suitable subject (eg. because it is not notable by wikipedia's standard; or it might be because nobody has yet had the knowledge and interest to do so. Wikipedia is created entirely by volunteer editors, and articles get created when volunteer editors decide to create them. --ColinFine (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary so it shouldn't merely make a definition. Making a suitable article may require expertise and time. I had never heard of "Ochromonas malhamensis" but it appears to be notable from a Google Scholar search [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Suddenly no possibility to edit

Since yesterday I see that there is no "edit" for me in the toolbar of the articles (only discussion, history etc) i don't not know why. Cpt.schoener (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Some articles are fully protected and only have an edit link for administrators. Do you see an edit link at top of this page? If not then try clearing your entire cache. If it still doesn't help then what is your skin under "Appearance" at Special:Preferences? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My submission was declined

I recently (i.e., several days ago) submitted an article which, as I understand it, had to be approved before it was displayed because I had not edited the minimum 10 articles. The title of the article was "Eliza Anderson Godefroy." When I checked today, I found the following notice:

"Review completed.

This submission has been declined. The reviewer left the following comment:

   Hold issues not adressed within 24 hours

Your submission did not meet our criteria, but if you can address the reasons given, you are encouraged to make improvements and resubmit it. You can visit our live chat for assistance. When ready, please add the text {{AFC submission|||ts=20101204205953|u=Natwexler|ns=4}} at the top of the article to request a new review. The reviewer(s) who declined this submission will be listed in the page history. Last edited by Gfoley4 45 hours ago"

I have tried and tried, but I cannot find any explanation of WHY my submission did not meet your criteria. I would be happy to try to "make improvements and resubmit it," as suggested, but since I have no idea in what way the article failed to meet your criteria, I suspect that would be a waste of my time. If anyone can possibly tell me how I find out what the "hold issues" were that I apparently failed to address, I would be most appreciative. The situation at the moment strikes me as somewhat Kafkaesque! Natwexler (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The revision before the one that showed the review was complete indicated it was on hold because it needed inline citations. The article lists references, one of which looks like it might be a book. You should place the <ref> tags just after the sentence or paragraph the reference supports, and for long sources, you should indicate which page supports the statement. See WP:CITE. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Page history for how to find [2] where the hold reason "Inline citations needed" was stated. See more about referencing at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. See also Wikipedia:Notability (people) and try to make enough references to satisfy that. I guess from your username that you are the author of one of the two current references so see also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It would be good with supporting references by others. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Subscribing

I want to know if wikimedia has a subscription that I can subscribe to, to "recieve" information via e-mail on upcoming or monthly events/festivals/parades locally and nationally. 21:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sf83ub (talk • contribs)

No, Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, not a directory or promotional site. --ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The way I read it, they are asking if Wikimedia (M, not P) sends out details of their own Wikimedia functions/fundraisers/get-togethers/etc. I, however, don't know the answer. Dismas|^(talk) 21:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If you mean Wikimedia events then see meta:Events but I don't know of a general mail subscription for this. meta:Mailing lists/Overview shows some local lists. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

@Dismas: I considered that interpretation (though I missed "wikimedia" as opposed to "wikipedia"), but rejected it because of "festivals/parades". But you could be right. --ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

wiki and lyrics

Hey,

Since wikipedia holds separate pages for songs,
I've been wondering why none of them contains any lyrics?

I was just thinkning it could have been nice if i searched google for a song,
and it'll come up with the wikipage of it and the lyrics in it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.23.106 (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Song lyrics are usually copyrighted and cannot be reproduced in full here. See WP:Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry for more on this. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

hmm this page doesn not exist --79.176.23.106 (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I was close... -- John of Reading (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

...but no cigar... – ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions about donating...

It would seem that I want to donate to Wikipedia, but as this place is confusing and has no easy way to ask questions, I ended up here. I was reading a personal appeal (well.. several) from many supposed editors, and the founder himself, and have a couple of questions...

1) We are donating to keep Wikipedia ad free, correct? Wouldn't these "personal appeals" at the top of each page that aren't exactly small asking for money constitute as an ad in itself? Assuming I donate, will these be gone for me, or will I still have to manually close them every time?

2) I cannot tell you how much I've seen this redundent qoute thrown around: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." If that is true, then why does Wikipedia only accept articles on some subjects that potentionally (or likely) biased humans consider notable? The sum of all knowledge seems pretty clear to me, but it doesn't look like this place is commited to that at all.

I read articles on here regulary and since I am not an editor, I really do feel it is right that I donate. However, I simply would not feel comfortable doing so with these unanswered questions in my head. Thank you to anyone who may respond, and keep up the good work! 74.77.89.241 (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in donating. Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation which is also running other less known projects based on volunteer editors and the same servers and small staff. Donations go to the Wikimedia Foundation and a large part is to servers and bandwidth where Wikipedia is the largest resource hog. I don't think it has been decided what to do if donations become too small to sustain current operations. One possibility would be to cut down on servers and bandwidth, for example resulting in longer waiting times and more page load failures and breakdowns. It varies what the Wikimedia projects contain but yes, there are things considered unsuitable for all of them. Some things considered unsuitable for Wikipedia can be seen at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. One of the problems with accepting anything would be that there wouldn't be enough editors to make meaningful content out of the junk some people (for example vandals and spammers) would like to add, or to look out for legal problems like copyright violations and defamatory material (Wikipedia can ill afford lawsuits). I'm just a volunteer editor and don't speak on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation but I don't read "the sum of all knowledge" too literally. More like "all verifiable knowledge which is relevant for encyclopedic publication" in case of Wikipedia. Human decisions on relevancy are unavoidable even though Wikipedia:Notability tries to be objective with demands of existing coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There is no relation between donating and seeing donation banners. Registered users have the option "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" under "Gadgets" at Special:Preferences. It's free and easy to register and has several benefits. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to follow-up on your first question... You're not the first to notice the irony in banners promoting Wikipedia's lack of ads ([3]). The way I see it, the biggest reason for Wikipedia not to accept external advertising is to maintain its neutrality. If Wikipedia received funding by advertising a certain business, that business could pressure Wikipedia to select or present its content in a manner favourable to that business. Can you imagine how Wikipedia's article on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill might be different if Wikipedia received funding by advertising BP? There are other problems with external advertising listed at Wikipedia:Advertisements#Arguments_against_adverts. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Image name problem

If two different images on Commons and on English Wikipdia have an exact same name, how to use the one on Commons? --Tomchen1989 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not possible. One of them has to be renamed or the one at Wikipedia deleted. What is the name? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's possible to have two identical images on commons, but have different names. --Monterey Bay (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but one of them may be speedily deleted per commons:Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates. I don't know whether a redirect at commons would work when the redirect target is also at Wikipedia. Anyway, a renaming in one of the places is usually best. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)