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 just read the plutonium article in English - clearly there are important facts left out in terms of plutonium toxicity. These I would like to add. How can I do that? It seems that there is some editing lock on it?
I asked the protecting admin to perhaps try removing the protection - and they did. So, as of now, it can be edited by anyone. Chzz ► 13:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is Chess Illusion a candidate for Speedy Deletion? Even though it gives a 1994 book as a reference, the website says that it is a new invention (WP:MADEUP). The video on the blog is by a user with the same username as the editor of the article, and he identifies himself as "Carlos", the inventor and manufacturer of the game, thus a wp:coi. (Also a single-purpose account.) The editor has removed the PROD tag. There are also questions about notability, etc. Bubba73You talkin' to me?03:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest an WP:AFD instead, it doesn't look like a hoax, but it also is doubtful it has notability. I don't think it qualifies for a notability CSD, and as the prod has been challenged, AfD is required. (though you never know, a CSD may get through) Monty84503:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to create a new, "Scorpia Rising" page, in place of the current redirect. Would I simply edit the "Scorpia Rising" redirect page?
Also, considering information, such as the synopsis, would be provided precisely from my own knowledge & observations drawn directly from the novel in question (Scorpia Rissing), how would I go about making the necessary citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatoranaki (talk • contribs) 06:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot cite yourself as a reference. The article must be based upon independentreliable sources. It may be appropriate to have a short plot-summary, and that is one place where you don't need another source - your own (well-worded, neutral, brief) summary of the plot is acceptable. But all articles need to be based upon verifiable sources - such as newspaper articles that discuss the book. Please read WP:FIRST. Chzz ► 06:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are fully capitalized words not allowed in Wikipedia articles?
For the article on the website "OMGPOP", the title is shown as "Omgpop". I changed all the "Omgpop"'s to "OMGPOP" but someone told me not to do that and changed it back to "Omgpop".
The website is OMGPOP, not "Omgpop". If you will not change it then the article is incorrect as the name of the website is not spelled correctly, and therefore an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.44.10 (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are "allowed". There is no technical reason why we cannot have all-cap names; indeed, we do for e.g. DNA, AC/DC, S.H.E and NASA - but those are more specific acronyms. We generally avoid all caps because it can sound like "shouting" and give undue emphasis - and we must keep a neutral point-of-view.
In that specific case, please note that it was already discussed previously, in January this year, in the section "Move?" - where 3 people directly opposed it and, apart from the nominator, nobody supported. Whilst I agree that the website's self-styled name is in all capitals, the convention generally is NOT to capitalise them - see MOS:ALLCAPS and MOS:TM#General rules.
However - if, after considering the previous discussion, you still think it is wrong (in this case) then please do start a fresh discussion - in Talk:Omgpop. There are instructions in WP:RM, or if you need help with it, please ask. Chzz ► 06:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Fully capitalised names are allowed in articles if that format is the standard format for an acronym or an initialism - for example, NATO or OPEC. However, the consensus seems to be that the capitalisation of Omgpop is a trademark device, in which case our guideline on formatting of trademarks says it should not be fully capitalised. We do not, for example, write Dell as DELL, even though that is how the name appears in their trademark. Gandalf61 (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a companies title is in all caps, then when they market their company/product, they will do so with the name in Capital letters.
Anyways, "Omgpop" was just an example. I still feel this is unnecessary but I have no control over the capitalization of letters/words since if I do change titles to all capital letters then someone will just revert the letters back to lowercase =/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.44.10 (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In those cases, you should start a discussion on the talk page of the article. But, if many other editors thinks that the name shouldn't be in all-capitals, then please respect that consensus. Everyone has their own opinions on style matters, which is why we discuss things, and try to come to an agreement.
I have total respect for peoples opinions. When someone says something which is considered or can be classified as "negative", then I respond with my thoughts on their "negativeness" with words which support my thoughts.
I am not talking specifically about "Omgpop" (although I mentioned it a few times), but rather words not being capitalized in general.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.44.10 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 27 March 2011
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.
We avoid the caps mostly because it can give undue emphasis - and it can make an article look "spammy". Consider which looks more encyclopaedic; for example,
CHZZ SAUSAGE COMPANY was established in 1878. CHZZ SAUSAGE COMPANY produce CHZZ SPICY SAUSAGE, CHZZ WILD BOAR SAUSAGE and CHZZ HOT DOGS. There are currently 12 people working for CHZZ SAUSAGE COMPANY.
Whilst my company may well write its name and the product names with all caps, it isn't a very Encyclopaedic tone.Note, this 'company' is entirely fictitious Chzz ► 07:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, when I said product I did not mean the products of the company. I just meant the company name...sorry for the confusion.
If the company feels that their title should be capitalized as that is how they market their company, are you going to allow capital letters (in that situation), or are you going to tell the actual company what I am being told.
Is this capitalization "rule" new? When I say new, I mean within the past few months or so. If I am not mistaken the "Omgpop" page used to be "OMGPOP", as well as some other pages, but I may be thinking of something different and this rule may have always been in affect (since my time on Wikipedia).
To justify full capitalisation of Omgpop, I think you will have to show that it is an initialism. We fully capitalise IBM and IKEA because they are initialisms; we do not fully capitalise Dell or Zanussi, even thought these companies write their company name in capitals in their logo. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) guideline is not new - it has been a Wikipedia guideline for at least 5 years. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May the LORD be with you all!
Hello GMA, I am a Professional worker here in abroad and my family was a fans of GMA since I got married. But when my 2nd daughter was delivered last 1998, we (my wife and I) notice that she has difficulty in hearing as well as in speech. Then I decided to bring her on a specialist in ENT. Hence, the result was profound hearing loss. Meaning she can not hear anymore.
But my wife and I decided to bring her in a Special School here in Pasay School for Deaf. And now she is she improving in her communicationto other person that can do the Sign Langauge Method.
She already now going to 13 years old and I am thinking " How can she appreciate music if she can only read?". "How can she wacth and understand TV if there is no WORDS Written on screen?".
I am doing my best to help my 2nd daughter improved her knowledge in communication. And I am suggesting from your good company to help us as well as other deaf person to understand more of your GMA programs.
I am suggesting that if "YOU (GMA) CAN PUT WORDS UNDERNEATH YOUR TV SCREEN ALL PROGRAMS YOU ARE SHOWING" It will help not only the Normal but also the the DEAF.
Thank you and GOD bless your company
Your appeal seems to be addressed to GMA, which is not us. I am guessing that you found the Wikipedia article GMA. That article contains a link to the GMA corporate site, which may tell you how you can contact them. --ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem called "Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text" in the ref list.
I think I have fixed the problem but the error still exists in the ref list. Is there a way to make wikipedia re-survey the ref list for a certain article, or otherwise remove this error notice which is no longer correct, as I have deleted the reference which caused this error? Roger491127 (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried reading the page "Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text" but it said nothing about how to get rid of the error message after fixing the problem. Maybe it should enhanced to include how to run a bot to renew the ref list after fixing the problem. Roger491127 (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first effort did not fix the problem. The bot fixed the problem and the message automatically disappeared. No refresh is needed. Please leave discussion on the help talk if the help page needs enhancement. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk18:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you erase the crucial editing I made in the article about JFK, and mainly about his assassination ?
Rather surprising.
Kind regards,
Johan F. Hel Guedj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantx (talk • contribs) 12:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply which is questionable to say the least.
What is a reliable source ?
A government commission whose conclusions are notoriously flawed and misleading ?
You should ask yourself a very simple question : is it an acceptable thesis
to say two brothers, most prominent figures of the most powerful country in the
world, have been assassinated by TWO lone nuts four years apart ?
general de Gaulle famously replied to the US ambassador announcing him JFK
had been killed by a lone shooter : "Not to me, monsieur l'ambassadeur, please,
not to me. I beg to differ"
If you were cognoscenti in roman history, you would know Caesar is never
been assassinated by a lone nut.
There is no such thing at the head of the state.
I'm displeased to see Wikipedia propagating pure propaganda about this,
without leaving space to knowledged contradictors, and describiung them as
"conspiracy theorists".
Poorly thought out.
Kind regards,
JFHG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantx (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If, for example, there was an article in the New York Times supporting your claims - then you could cite that. Otherwise, it is original research - which Wikipedia does not do. We don't synthesize information - we only publish facts that can be verified. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS.
You must be joking. Do you know how many official reports (including from the HSCA in 1978) official conclude there was a conspiracy ? Wikipedia author seems to present HSCA conclusions as subject to caution , which they're not. Did you review the official videos of the HSCA sessions ? I did. Members of the commission did conclude there was a conspiracy, beyond any doubt. Its seems this has not reached Wikipedia pages. Well, maybe Neil Armstrong has not landed on the moon either, who knows ? It must be Oswald instead. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantx (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I use Wikipedia very often and thought for sure that a policy of yours was to add in a "page history" page that showed any changes to an article and by whom for that page?
I ask because your page on Summation had early in its write-up an image of an example of Induction ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/d/1/5d1ba66a7aca2c258985399ff22410ef.png ) ... odd that that very image wasn't there just a few days ago for another image that was the exact same equation but in different form.
I looked for the history of why and who changed that image because its odd I been coincidently writing a paper on the example of Induction used of the original image and linking this very page for that image and sending that paper to leading Set Theory specialists and other university piers and that image was very helpfull in dealing with the issues the paper regarded. Now suddenly someone changed the image to a different example of Induction and I find the timing very peculiar. It doesn't change anything about my paper except for it to be easier to understand for anyone needing to see the example of Induction I was using from here but is now changed. I only linked to the page on Summation.
Anyways, how did that image change on the Summation page without anyone ever knowing it happened in the pages history??
The current state of the article shows an equation that matches the image referred to by the OP. The previous state (before March 25) showed a different equation. The OP apparently believes that at one time, instead of a code representation in the article, there was an actual image, and the image apparently was removed. I'm not sure what the OP bases that assumption on, but I suppose he could replace the code with the image. I have this vague recollection of deja vu, but maybe it's about some other article. In any event, because this is definitely not my field, perhaps the best way to go about any change is to raise it on the Talk page of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Loool, ok well ya so I've learned that someone made a change but did not put it up on the Talk page of the article ... so isn't that not allowed on Wikipedia? I thought you hadto make a comment on the Talk Page about what changes you are making before making them??? I just find it peculiar when the image that was originally there was an image I was using for a deep paper about Set Theory I sent to some prestigous math scholars.
No, there is no need to discuss every change on talk pages - only if you think the change might be controversial, or if you are unsure. We encourage editors to be bold.
A useful concept is bold-revert-discuss - ie, if you think something needs changing, just go ahead. If somebody objects, they can just 'undo' it. As long as, at that point, you discuss the change - and don't fight over it - then all is well.
On the other hand, if you suggest an edit on the talk page before doing it, it could take weeks to get any answer.
As noted - that doesn't apply to controversial edits. But for an article of this type - sure. Please, go ahead and edit.
Whether source code like <math>\sum_{i=1}^ni = \frac{1}{2}n(n+1)</math> renders as an image or text can depend on both the precise formula and the Math settings under "Appearance" at Special:Preferences.
At the end of Malvern, Worcestershire#Post dissolution I have put a list of poets. I would like to indent each name, but have not been able to figure out usage of  . I would prefer not to number them, or to put bullets, because this would create imbalance with other material that might be displayed as list. Also, I will want to put in corresponding lists of painters, musicians. Is what I have done ok as regards general WK style? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At WP, we generally shy away from using HTML coding like your use of line breaks. If you want to indent something, you can put a colon at the beginning of each new line like I have done with this response. Dismas|(talk)18:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Santiago de Guayaquil has the traditional coat of arms, the image is not in display in the your webpages. Can I send you that coat of arms (.jpg file)?
It depends on the copyright status of the file. If it is in the public domain, it may be uploaded to Commons; if not (and the copyright holders do not release it under a suitable licence) it may be possible to upload it to Wikipedia under a fair use rationale. Once it has been uploaded to either Commons or Wikipedia, it can then be inserted into an article.
In order to upload it, you would need to register an account - which has other advantages too.
It's probably something in your browser. If it's Firefox, try "View, Zoom, Reset". For Internet Explorer, maybe "View", "Text-size", "Medium".
Failing that, try turning off and back on again - that fixes most things. Unless it's something set in your skin... is it the same logged-out as logged-in? Chzz ► 20:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of the page in edit mode is a drop down box enabling editors to choose between Latin, Cyrillic, Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, symbols, Wiki markup, IPA etc. It's always worked fine for me, until recently.
Now, when I log in from work, it's stuck on Symbols and no matter what other choices I click on, it won't move. When I log in from home, it's stuck on Cyrillic.
But when I log out and then go into edit mode, it's fine. Full functionality.
So it seems to be an issue with my user account. Yet I can't see that this is an optional feature that I can turn on or off, or in any way adjust.
OK. I've changed my skin from Monobook to Modern (and I think I'll keep it, I prefer it to the old one). I've bypassed my cache, and also cleared my cache. I've logged out and in again. The problem is still there. I'm using IE8 as far as I know (I'm at work). Any more ideas? -- Jack of Oz[your turn]02:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've gone back to Monobook skin (I didn't like Modern as much as I thought I did). Still the same original problem persists, both at work and at home, but only when I'm logged in. Anyone? -- Jack of Oz[your turn]01:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When creating sortable tables, there can be issues with how a column sorts. See Help:Sorting for a complete overview.
Resolved