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.
I'm trying to recover my password, but when I ask for a new one I get the message: Error sending mail: There is no e-mail address recorded for user "John Doe".
If you have forgotten your password and didn't register an e-mail with your account, I'm afraid there's no way to recover your password. Your only choice is to create a new account. If you do so, you can edit the userpage for your old account to point to your new username. --Mysdaaotalk02:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further, at no time will Kralizec be punished for your ignorance of policy. Either learn the rules or accept a block. Since you claim your edits do not require a source, they do not conform to our policies requiring all edits to be verified with reliable sources. Your edits, besides being wholly inappropriate for an an encyclopedia in both tone and subject, are instead original research. Xenon54 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to create an archive page for the Talk:Salsa (dance) discussions, but I think I might have done something wrong, because the archive searches don't work.
Here is an example of the search not working correctly. If you search for "Picture", you should get 1 result for it in the search. But if you click on that link, you don't go to the archive, you go back to the main talk page where the topic isn't there anymore. Yet if you check the archive, the discussion is indeed in there.
This is what I did to create the archive, and why I think I might have messed up. I followed the instructions on Wikipedia for using the cut and paste procedure for creating an archive, but I only archived one of the discussions. Later on, I went and edited the archive to add more discussions to it, but the {{talkarchive}} tags say not to edit the contents, which I did several times.
I've got a (1970ish) book with a nine digit SBN number. I'm not sure how to use that number in citation templates (like template:citation). I thought I saw somewhere on Wikipedia, where it said that we are supposed to tack on an extra zero at the front to make an even ten digits, and then just treat it as an ISBN number? Does anyone know how to treat SBNs?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our article ISBN#Group identifier says, The original standard book number (SBN) had no group identifier, but affixing a zero (0) as prefix to a 9-digit SBN creates a valid 10-digit ISBN.
First, let me apologize profusely for not having been able to decipher the instructions, or perhaps not being able to find the answer already posted via search. That said, here is my specific quandry. A new political party was launched on january 20th. I was going to add it to a list of political parties, and in doing so, make the listing a link to the party's website. However, when I went to save my edit, bells, buzzers, and other alarms went off warning me that this was potentially improper. Now I certainly do not want my first eve post to bring editors down on my head; instead I want to be very respectful of the rules. As such, I did notice that the other parties listed seemed to have links to Wiki pages (as opposed to external links to websites). Is this the proper thing to do? Should I create a Wiki for the party, and then link the listing to the wiki? Please advise, and again, thank you for your patience with my noob-ness.
Respectfully,
Dan Aronson
Party Recon
PS Should I change my user name from Party Recon? I saw where that might be considered a "promitional name". Please advise on that as well. A great many thanks for this wonderful resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Party Recon (talk • contribs) 05:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
Due to your conflict of interest, you should avoid directly editing pages relating to the party. Instead, you could suggest changes on the associated article talk pages. For example, to make a suggestion about List of political parties, put a message on Talk:List of political parties - be open and honest about your conflict of interest. Please read WP:BFAQ.
(edit conflict)x2 Hey Dan, Thanks for your concern but you don't need to live in fear that anyone is going to come down on your head. This place can be confusing for new people and you did the right thing by asking first. In order to have an article (a Wiki page, as you call it), the person, place, or thing must first be notable. That basically means that it, in your case a political party, should be the subject of multiple independent reports. These can take the form of magazine articles, books, television/radio news stories, etc. Certain web sites would also suffice if those web sites are known for their place in the field (i.e. not fan sites, etc). Basically, this is because Wikipedia is not a platform to help launch as yet unknown movements, parties, etc. The other editors at WP:WikiProject Politics should be able to help you craft an article if one is indeed warranted.
As far as your terminology, please be aware that there are many wikis of which Wikipedia is just one. Wiki is a type of software that Wikipedia runs on and borrows its name from. Some people get more bent out of shape about that than others.
Chaz, thank you for the kind, gentle, and informative nature of your reply, and please understand that sheepishiness is just my default setting when I am new to things. I was taught to be respectful when a guest, which is how I view myself at this point, despite the fact that Wikipedia (and yourslef) have made me feel very welcome. I now understand what I need to do and what milestones I need to hit before doing it. I do, however, require one piece of immediate advice. After perusing my preferences page, I cannot seem to find a way to change my login/screen name. Is there a way to do this, or do I need to create a new user account. Please advice, and again, thanks for the friendly advice, and have a great day!
This user has made multiple articles for his friend's "company" SimpleBotics. I know that this is his friend because if you go to the youtube profile at the bottom, there's a video addressed to "Keith" "for Wikipedia". I want to know if there is a Twinkle (Or other) template/option for warning users for dodging the page protection by making articles with slightly different names. Bluefist talk06:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess, you're thinking of {{Db-repost-notice}} - but note that only applies to articles deleted via discussion, not for recreating speedy-deleted articles (see G4).
Where did I read about this? It was in an essay or something. I would like to point a new editor toward the proper place and let them do their own search and discovery. Thanks. Buster Seven Talk06:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of an essay. Nor can I see anything in Category:Wikipedia_essays about "parti", "party" or "interest" (by searching it) which is relevant.
This page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia. 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.
(but note, they cannot offer medical advice either)
Everytime I try to read the wiki article on scientology my computer crashes. I have run virus scan and other virus related application on my computer and it is fine. But whenever I try to read the information on scientology it makes my computer crash. Is there an embedded virus on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.5.95 (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page opens fine for me, but I noticed that it took 1-2 seconds until the page had loaded completely. This might have to do with the lenght of the article. Maybe its a hardware issue on your end. I found a similar discussion in this archive which could be of some help. What browser and operating system do you use? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote an article stub on the (somewhat cumbersome) exponent notation by prime factoring which was used before Descartes came up with the one we use today (which doesn't involve prime factors). I wrote this in a hurry, so it's not exactly well polished or anything, but I've included one external source, and I think it's quite significant historically. Could someone please lend a helping hand? The article is called "Prime factor exponent notation". --Nmatavka (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prime factor exponent notation The article should be divided into sections. I think the lead section should be reformulated, briefly explaining why this notation is or was important (see MOS:MATH#Article introduction). Which brings me to the next point: The article currently contains a link to one reference (which unfortunately is not accessible). Generally, every topic in Wikipedia must show that it is notable by providing multiple independent sources (see WP:VERIFY). The best thing for this article would be to provide more sources to show the topic is notable (see WP:NOTE). Please provide more sources discussing the topic. Otherwise it might soon be deleted Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a cleanup template on the article. Please address the issues mentioned in the template in accordance with the policies to which I gave links in my reply above. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable as it is one of the subjects mentioned in a particular mathematical book, The Whetstone of Witte, which in fact does have an article on Wikipedia. Those reading the book, or other historical maths books before René Descartes, may be puzzled by words such as zenzizenzizenzic; in fact, they may be puzzled by the entire notation, which is based on prime factorisation. In the stub I have written, note that prime number exponents are called sursolids; modern exponent notation simply uses the power and doesn't bother to prime factorise it. Nevertheless, I have fixed the link to the mathematical dictionary --Nmatavka (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a concept is mentioned in one particular book does not mean this concept is notable. To proof this concepts notability, you will have to provide sources apart from the book in question that report about this concept. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm a new user, I would like to add a new article. Please let me know about the correct procedure as I cannot find a clear answer or guidelines concerning when and how I could add new content. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gao le (talk • contribs) 13:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right. I'm new to the inner workings of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the capitalized and lowercase pages have different content when viewed without being logged in. The capitalized version has two sections not present in the lowercase version, the references are different, and the main text is longer in the lowercase version. Shouldn't they be identical if it was a redirect? When logged in, the capitalized version obviously redirects, since the contents become identical to the lowercase version. Why does the capitalized version behave differently when logged in? Most viewers aren't so it seems to me that the two being different when not logged in constitutes a problem. I'd be grateful for insights. ArcusTangens (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. Tried clearing the cache of both my browsers. I tried accessing the two pages through a couple of remote desktop providers. All show different pages for the capitalized and the lowercase urls. For instance, the capitalized version consistently shows a fourth section called "The homeostatic objection", which is not present in the lowercase version. And again, if I log in to Wikipedia, the capitalized version is redirected. Now, here's the kicker: I tried connecting through VPN to the states (since I'm located in Europe). Suddenly, the two versions are identical. Turning off VPN tunneling, the two pages differ. Different IP-based cache redirects? At present, I can see a cache of the capitalized page with a US IP on http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Yoo3v_weA6UJ:www.digparty.com/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
Will be interesting to see if the different pages displayed in Europe disappear after a while. ArcusTangens (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is where my help stops...I have no idea what VPN tunneling is, so I can provide no more help, sorry. If no one else comments here, consider posting at WP:VPT, as that is the page for technical issues with Wikipedia. CTJF8319:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page history for the capped article shows it has been a redirect since June 2010. The "cache" linked above is not directly related to Wikipedia, it's a mirror if anything, see WP:MIRROR. If you are seeing things differently, I don't think it's anything to do with Wikipedia itself. Good luck. Rehevkor✉19:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two pages still display differently when accessed with European IPs. The google cache link was the only quick way I could think of that shows the page content I am seeing for the capitalized url with an EU IP to users with US IPs. If the page has been a redirect for months (as indicated by the page history), there seems to be something wrong with how this works in Europe. I'll wait a couple of days before posting on VPT, to see if the discrepancy between the capitalized and the lowercase urls disappear, or if someone posts an explanation here. Thanks for the help, though :-) ArcusTangens (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried the two URLs [2] and [3] while logged out, using a United Kingdom IP. I see only the latest content, the only difference being the "Redirected from..." message. The section entitled "The homeostatic objection" was deleted on March 15th, so if you are still seeing it then someone/something is indeed doing too much caching. If the problem persists I suggest you post at Village pump (technical). -- John of Reading (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except for "(Redirected from Banana Equivalent Dose)" I also see the same content on the two url's with a Danish IP, both when I'm logged in and out. Some ISP's can cache pages. Maybe your ISP cached the url with capitals before 15 March so you see an old version of the page. Do you see the same at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Equivalent_Dose if you manually add a question mark '?' at the end of the url? This may bypass a cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Did you flush local cache after logging off? I'm still getting the page with "the homeostatic objection" using the capitalized url from computers in Oslo, Brussels and Amsterdam. Adding a '?' to the url, the two pages are identical. Might suggests that numerous ISPs have a long half-life on their wikipedia caches? Btw: sorry if I'm wasting your time on this - I'm not all that interested in bananas, just the discrepancies between the two pages ;-) ArcusTangens (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't flush my Firefox browser cache but I have now tried three other browsers with the same Internet connection. I was logged out and none of the browsers had previosuly displayed the page. The first and third browser (Google Chrome and IE) showed the old version saying "This page was last modified on 13 March 2011 at 22:49" at the bottom. The second browser (Opera) showed the current version saying "This page was last modified on 20 March 2011 at 17:10". My guess is now that at least one Wikipedia server had cached the old version for the redirect url and it's uncertain which server you get. I have now purgedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Equivalent_Dose and get the new version in all browsers. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Depends really...a page like that with only 41 posts in 5.5 years, it isn't really beneficial to archive by dates. I would suggest just one archive. On the other hand, if a page got 41 posts in 1-3 months, it would probably be more beneficial to archive by date blocks for ease of searching archives. CTJF8318:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If by Hyperlink you mean a Wikilink, you can do this by simply enclosing the word that should be linked in double-squre brackets like [[this]], which would produce a wikilink to the article named 'this'. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or if you want to hyperlink to an external site (not Wikipedia), say YouTube, you could type [http://youtube.com/example WHAT YOU WANT THE LINK TO SAY] and it would show up like this: WHAT YOU WANT THE LINK TO SAY.
Hey guys. I've been around here for quite some time but am CLUELESS on images. I am currently doing a massive expansion of Boone Kirkman, and there are several images of him at the BoxRec wiki here, but I can't tell if I can use any of them or not. Please let me know if any are usable in the article as they would be a lot of help towards illustrating it. MobileSnail20:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright experts live at WP:MCQ, so you could ask there. My non-expert opinion is that the BoxRec wiki seems to have no system for recording the copyright status of each image, so it would be too risky to upload them here. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
---
Short answer: very unlikely we can use any of them. Longer answer;
Basic rule: we can only use pictures when we can absolutely, definitely determine their copyright status is acceptable (such as a clear declaration of release under one of the acceptable Creative Commons licences, or if it is "Public Domain" because it is old).(except very special cases)
The specific pictures you mentioned are not old enough to have entered the public domain.
"68Jun.jpg" The magazine cover from The Ring is almost certainly copyrighted.
For "Boone boxing-kirkman Ohalleran bout.jpg", the copyright will remain with the photographer or agency that took it - it is very unlikely the uploader to that wiki is the copyright-holder.
The same applies to "Boone kirkman bxr.jpg" - it looks like a professional publicity shot or a press photo.
"BooneKirkmanPhoto.jpg" is clearly derived (made from) another similar image.
The poster, "Boone kirkmanromanosposter.jpg", is very likely to have no declared copyright status - so we have to assume the rights belong to whoever made it.
This is the basic principle; we cannot assume something is copyright-free. If we don't have clear evidence, we assume it is copyright.
"Boone Kirkman 2005.jpg" seems to come from this 2005 newspaper article - which indicates that it is copyrighted to Gilbert W. Arias/Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
So we could ask Seattle Post-Intelligencer if they'd consider releasing the picture - but, as they're a newspaper that makes money from pictures, they are unlikely to agree.
Disclaimer: The above is, necessarily, a simplification of policies and guidelines applying to image copyright status, to give general help on the topic. If it any doubt about specific cases, ask on WP:MCQ as advised.
Sorry I can't give a more positive answer, but I hope that helps unravel some of the mysteries of image use. Trying to find pictures we can use is often frustrating, complicated, and frankly a pain in the ass... but, Wikipedia is the free content encyclopædia, so this complexity and hassle is necessary to keep it that way. Cheers, Chzz ► 03:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved