User talk:Nikki88
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi, and welcome! Is there any more that you can add to your recent contribution? It's pretty much teetering on the brink of speedy deletion for lack of content right now. Thanks and have fun! - Lucky 6.9 21:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] United States versus United States of America
Hi! I'm glad you asked. This actually comes up from time to time, most recently a few days ago: Talk:United States#Requested move. If you check the first sentence of the United States article, you can see that it starts out with the full name, then gives a list of short versions. But the article title is just United States. Most of the reasons are covered in the "Requested move" topic; the simple answer is just that the Wikipedia standard is to list countries by their most common name, as that's the name someone is most likely to type into the search box. Let me know if that helps, and please feel free to ask me about anything. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No problem....
Let me know if you have any other questions! -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] By the way...
You must have noticed that you can type in complete country names if you really like to type: For example, United States of America, or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or Federative Republic of Brazil, or French Republic. The long names just redirect to the common country names that people would be most likely to use. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article names
No, it's not as simple as editing a sentence. Every article has a unique name, for example United States. That name is what appears at the very top of the page. It can't be edited; it's an automatic part of Wikipedia. You can also create any number of redirect pages for an article. These are other terms that someone might use when they are searching for the same page, for example USA, U.S.A., United States of America, etc. If you click on any of those links, you can see that you still go to the United States article, but up at the top in small letters, it says something like "(Redirected from USA)". The redirection is an extra step, so the general rule is to name the article based on what most people are likely to type when they go looking for it. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Johnny Depp
Your edit was made under an anon ip so I wasn't accusing anyone in particular. Many celebs don't really know the facts about their distant ancestry (many normal people don't either). It is quite normal for biographies to provide more detailed info than an actor knows themselves. Jonny Depp has never claimed his name is german he just made a joke out of it by saying the same word means idiot. Arniep 21:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I wouldn't be sure that Johnny Depp would be the sort of person who would bother to get his ancestry traced- I think he probably wouldn't care that much. I am pretty sure it is right that the Depps do descend from Pierre Deppe/Dieppe- there is quite long discussions about it on the Depp family forums. The name originates in the place Dieppe in France and you can still see Deppes and Dieppes in the area at this site [1]. The things on my userpage are called infoboxes- there are some ancestry infoboxes listed at Category:Ethnicity user templates and some more info on how to use them here Wikipedia:Userboxes. Best Wishes Arniep 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Johnny Depp
Hi, can you take a look at Talk:Johnny Depp#Ancestry revisited when you get a chance? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, if you've come to an agreement that the citation is valid, disregard this. :-) -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem! It's probably better to have the discussion on Talk:Johnny Depp anyway; it gives other people a chance to add their opinions. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Email and skins
Hmm. If you go to Special:Preferences and click the "User profile" tab, does it say "Your email address was authenticated on...some date...."? When you gave Wikipedia your email address, it would have sent you a confirmation email; you need to click a link in it to confirm that you're really you.
For customizing your user page, try the different options on the "Skin" tab. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Try this: Special:Emailuser/Nikki88 -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, normally it's considered rude to edit someone else's user page, but just this once I went ahead and fixed your email link. Go ahead and try it now. Also, see if what you're looking for regarding formatting is here and here. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't even have a user page! Been meaning to get around to that. Your page looks fine; you can also look at other user pages for inspiration, and you can click "edit" on any page to look at the details, to see how they made it. My only suggestion about your user page would be to consider whether you really want to show your full name on Wikipedia. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As a quick test, I just checked google and phone listings under that name in the general vicinity of Evansville. Looks like you're ok. :-) -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, you should probably switch your user page image to the one that was already on Wikipedia; you can resize it like this:
- [[Image:Brooklyn Bridge Postdlf.jpg|800px|left]]
The image formatting details are here: Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dealing with vandalism
Hey Nikki! It looks like your friend is going to be taking a few hours off from Wikipedia (User talk:206.78.117.223). Sadly, vandalism is an ongoing problem. The procedures for dealing with it are described on WP:VAND. We have some standard templates that we post to vandals' pages, going from {{test}} (Thanks for testing Wikipedia, please use the sandbox for further tests), through {{test4}} (Last warning, you're about to be blocked). If someone ignores the full range of warnings and continues to vandalize, we post a summary of the situation at WP:AIV, using some standard templates that are available there, and including a short sentence explaining why you're reporting him. Something like "Continues to vandalize past final warning" covers the most typical case. An administrator will take a look at the situation and, if he agrees that the person needs to be blocked, he'll impose a block sometime soon after you file the report. The length of the block will be determined by the severity of the vandalism and the past history of the user; it can range from a few minutes to indefinite. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup, you can post the full range of warnings up to and including {{test4}} ("Last warning, bucko, time to stop this nonsense!"). If he ignores all of them, then goes on to vandalize more after the test4, report him to WP:AIV and soon after that, he will find that he can no longer edit Wikipedia. And no, since we're not administrators, we can't actually block people, so we shouldn't post {{test5}}, {{test6}}, etc. BTW, you can find a much bigger list of templates for all sorts of purposes on WP:UTM. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Future changes
Do you remember where you saw that? I don't think I remember seeing any discussion like that, and it seems unlikely; "editable by anyone" is a core value of Wikipedia. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:800px-Brooklyn Bridge Postdlf.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:800px-Brooklyn Bridge Postdlf.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
