Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 January 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help desk
< January 1	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 3 >

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.

1 January 2

[edit] January 2

What happens when an article is added to the watchlist?Kingmanblah 02:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It gets added here - Special:Watchlist which you can edit (left click display and edit link) for example here Special:Watchlist/edit.

When a page (or its Talk Page) get edited then a new item comes up in the list at Special:Watchlist.

For more info see Help:Watching pages. Cheers Lethaniol 02:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Hi. Could someone take a look at this image that I uploaded:Image:Une1312.jpg? I was wondering if there is a specific category to use for images that are copyrighted have dispensations, such as on the UN web site that I took it from: "Images are available to journalists, magazines, book publishers, film and TV producers." Also, what would be a good rationale for its use? Lesgles (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Other similar UN-related images seem to use the generic fair use tag for images, providing they meet the fair use rationale, of course. Examples include Image:Ronaldo Mota Sardenburg.jpg, Image:KRNwithKofiAnnan.jpg, and Image:Cesar Mayoral.jpg. Those images, however, do not clarify fair use rationale, which you should be sure to do so that it is not deleted. That last link tells you the steps you need to take to do that. -- Natalya 03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion partner keeps using offensive expression.

I'm now discussing about Norimitsu Onishi in the discussion page, but the partner keeps using some offensive expressions such as "a nobody" or aggressive words in Japanglish (Japanese in alphabet). I asked him/her to stop doing it but with no success. How can I handle this situation? Is there any good way to prevent him/her from further actions? --Galaksiafervojo 02:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refer him/her to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, if this is unsuccessful, post a little note at Wikipedia:Administrators Noteboard, and see you can get an admin involved. Bjelleklang - talk 02:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He/she insists the expression like "you are nobody" is not offensive from the definition on the dictionary and never let him/herself to listen to my explaination of the connotation. But I'll try to follow your advice and notify him/her first. Thank you very much. --Galaksiafervojo 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of the Administrators Noteboard, take it to Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Another question. The person I'm discussing with asserts that the connotation should not be considered, so the phrase like "you are nobody" is not offensive, while I still feel in that way. I politely asked him not to use it in his talk page, but it seems declined. Is that true in Wikipedia only the definition on the dictionary counts? --Galaksiafervojo 07:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Thanks, Zoe, for your advice. --Galaksiafervojo 07:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's widely considered incivil (WP:CIVIL), or even in some circles, it shouldn't be used when the person saying it knows that and has been told that someone in the conversation find it offensive. I'd suggest ask him on his talk page to politely refrain (Especially if there's no real need for it in the dialog). As above, if you feel it's getting out of hand, you can bring it up on WP:PAIN. 68.39.174.238 08:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it looks really helpful! I'll let him know this guideline and ask him once more not to use the expression any more. Hope it works. --Galaksiafervojo 08:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: I've often found editors resorting to the definition of words when called on using them. In my opinion, you're within your rights to ask them to stop or remind them of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA regardless of the term used as long as it's intended as a perjorative. A responsible editor assuming good faith will refrain from using terms that offend someone regardless of what they particularly mean, unless there's a very good reason to do so (IE accurately labling a suspected sockpuppet, ect.) Wintermut3 05:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page design center

I've been constructing the User page design center but have run out of steam. It could use the creative energy of other editors. Please feel free to join in and contribute ideas, wikicode (it's really a wikicode library from which users can cut and paste elements right to their own user page), and there's a subpage for links to user pages which are good examples to follow. (To find example-links to add, see WP:UPA's page history for a source of cool links: the winners and the nominees). The Transhumanist 03:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] original creation date

how do i find the date an article was first created?

Easy. Click on "history", go down a little and clic on "earliest". Scroll to the bottom of the page, and that will be the first edit. --Samuel Wantman 07:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at the first revision of the page history. For an article created in 2001, there will not be a correct date for the original creation of the article. See also Help:Page history. —Centrx→talk • 07:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of article on corporate organizations

if i want to write an article about a particular firm then how should i go about it. I wrote an article and it got deleted twice when it was of the same formatting of about 6 other similar firms, on the grounds that it was blatant advertising for a firm. The funny thing is that there are references to this firm on other existing wiki pages.

I dont understand what constitutes wikipedia's content? If it is an encyclopedia then don't allow firms like GE, Mckinsey, Microsoft on it as well. If it is an open database then allow any and all forms of data, even advertising. I go to wikipedia for information about anything and everything and so I would also like to read about corporations in other parts of the world as well such as Vietnam, India, Mali, Congo and more. If only public domain data can be added then this is not exactly doing anything new or innovative as I can google, yahoo or lycos it and get the data as well.

My article was on Technopak Advisors, a management consulting firm out of India. It is the only one in India.

I don't know where the article is, but a general response. The topic of a Wikipedia article must be the subject of multiple reliable published work that are independent of the subject and of each other and that cover the subject non-trivially. This includes books, magazines, and academic journals that have the topic as their main subject. IBM, for example, has at least two several-hundred page books written by independent authors that are devoted to the topic, in addition to the thousands of less substantial sources on the topic. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia articles must also be in a neutral point of view, written in an encyclopedic tone and formatted as a Wikipedia article. Articles that do not meet these standards are deleted, sooner or later. —Centrx→talk • 07:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Moved here from the reference desk Rockpocket 08:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I chose to ask this question though AOL and off my username for a bit of (hoped for) anonymity. I started out on Wikipedia as a Wikignome, making minor edits and such. I finally sat down one afternoon and made a contribution in the form of a new article. I completely sketched it out, citing sources and checking and rechecking the content, spelling, grammar, etc. I think it was a good article and added to a topic that is not thoroughly covered in Wikipedia. It was not a stub, and did a lot more than just define the topic. The article was submitted for deletion and promptly removed from Wikipedia. The user who removed it gave little reasoning why and by the time I found out about it, the article and its talk page were both removed. I've thought about contacting the administrator who deleted it, but I wonder if he/she even remembers it. The deletion log mentions no reason for the removal.

I understand that Wikipedia is a 'community,' and that 'my' article was never really mine. However, I've been rather bothered since the article was removed. I specifically asked users who take actions like this to leave a reason why and offer suggestions for improvement on my talk page. Sadly, the user who marked the article for deletion did neither. Since the deletion, I’ve almost felt like I’ve been ‘put back in my place’ as the newbie.

The whole process that the article went through during deletion seemed rather bureaucratic and not at all 'community' oriented. My talk page explains several times that I am new to Wikipedia, and that help is requested and appreciated.

The way the article was dealt with seemed to go against the basic Wikipedia tenants of ‘don't bite the new people’ and ‘improve before deleting.’ And - as I'm sure would be argued, I used several templates to aid in the production of the article.

Since I started using Wikipedia about three years ago and editing it about six months ago, I've read lots and lots about how 'user-oriented' it is. How I'm supposed to 'be bold' and how my contributions matter.

If after following the rules of Wikipedia and giving regard to its style, tenants, and morays, my article is still deleted - why should I even bother?

My question is, why should I even bother putting in another afternoon worth of work if that work can - and has been - thrown out completely?

I'm not asking for a pity party, but honestly, I've seen some (please pardon the swearing) shit articles on Wikipedia that contribute nothing to the value of it (Wikipedia) as a resource, lack proper form editing, are POV, etc. and have and do remain.

I apologize for the length of this question, but really - why? I'm sure it sounds like I've made my mind up, but I haven't. I've read the dissent's side - that Wikipedia is chock full of bully editors who stomp on the newbies because they can. So, I'd like to hear the defense. Why should I stay and contribute anything more?

209.247.21.179 06:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've moved this from the reference desk to the Help Desk. First of all let me apologize on behalf of the community and the administrative corps, for what has clearly been a breakdown in the process.

To be perfectly frank, there are too many occasions where "experienced" editors are way too quick on the trigger finger when it comes to deletions, and not quick enough with newbie friendly explanations or advice. I've been an administrator for a few months now and, on reviewing speedy deletions, I've been concerned with the number of editors who tag an article for deletion and issue a blatant vandal warning to the creating editor, even though it is highly possible that it is a novice Wikipedian who has simply misunderstood our policies. I've also seen both editors and administrators who take a very liberal interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria to immediately tag and delete articles that have been created in good faith. In their defense, there is so much crap being generated that one can almost understand how the process breaks down and new editors get bitten, but It does happen far too often for my liking. Especially when I have, personally, seen contributors of such articles - with a little encouragement and advice - blossom into great Wikipedians.

So, why should you stay and contribute. Well, because you have taken the time and effort to write this suggests to me that you would be a great credit to the project, and we need all the good editors we can get. Because if you stay, you can help change the culture by welcoming new editors yourself, and guiding them. And because - believe it or not - I'm convinced that the majority of the community would be appalled to hear your story and would hope that you would give us a second chance.

Regarding the specifics (should you choose to stay, of course) Might I recommend the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User programme to you. This would team you up with an experienced editor who could help you through some of the problems you have encountered. I'm a member of the programme, and my experience with it has been very positive. Also, if you believe your article was wrongly deleted, you could go to Wikipedia:Deletion review with it. However, I would be happy to talk to you about the specifics on my talkpage and we can see if we can get to the bottom of what went wrong, to stop it happening again and perhaps even get your article back up if it passes our criteria. Even if you do choose to leave, It would be very helpful if I could get the details from you. I'd like to speak to the individuals involved, if only to explain to them how their actions has resulted in the loss of an editor and allow them the opportunity to review their process for the future. Rockpocket 07:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A few points, 209.247.21.179.. First, your article may have been well written, well researched, etc. but are you sure the topic was notable? Lack of notability is the most likely reason for your article being deleted. I don't know how anonymity helps you here, but maybe you're not willing to share what the topic was. But if you are, let's hear it, as that could help us figure out exactly what happened. Second, you say you won't ask the administrator about it just because he might not remember it?? That's a pretty defeatist attitude. You're more likely to get a solid answer from the admin than from us, especiwlly when we don't know any of the details. Third, you say there a lot of shit articles out there in Wikipedia, and you're right, but when you see one, by all means you should tag it or nominate it for deletion! But the fact there are some lame articles that have flown under the radar has no bearing on whether your article should have been kept. SubSeven 08:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if the admin who deleted it doesn't remember the article, they will be able to find its content and deletion details if you give them the exact title (with the same capitalization). If the subject was notable and the admin was too quick on the trigger finger, you can try convince them to undelete it, or get to WP:DRV. Whatever it is, sharing the article, is your best bet at a response with a reason for the deletion. - 131.211.91.150 08:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of the reasons for deletion, SubSeven, my greater concern here is the breakdown in process. For example, deleting administrators should always leave a justification, in policy, in the deletion edit summary. Editors should always - especially when the article was created in good faith - leave an justification for the nomination for deletion with the creating editor, and explain why there is a problem. I don't believe this editor is simply saying "I want my article reinstated", but instead is rightly aggrieved at how unwelcoming the Wikipedian experience was for them. Makes me wonder how many potentially great editors felt the same but left without bothering to make their feelings known? Rockpocket 08:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is why they should kick the anonymity and contact the admin in question. If they don't say something to get the actual article reinstated, the admin probably isn't going to bother changing the habit (if it's not just a one-off occurrence. - 131.211.210.16 09:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be angry, 209.247.21.179. Newbies aren't the only ones making mistakes; everyone makes mistakes, and by all means you should point them out (as the above editors said) even if the editor might not remember. --Bowlhover 09:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

if you believe the deletion was inappropriate, you can bring it up at WP:DRV. But what do you mean by "submitted for deletion and promptly removed from Wikipedia"? Did one user place a "db" tag on it an admin removed it, or did it go through AfD? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the original question above. The original reason I wanted the anonymity was so that I would not be labeled as a 'snitch,' whiner or whatever else. I simply wanted an explanation as to why I should keep trudging on. I got that from Rockpocket, who was very nice about it. I also appreciate the rest of the comments and guidance.

I spoke to the admin who deleted the article, and to be honest, I can kind of see why the article was deleted. I wrote on scuff marks, and I could have added more to the topic. This would, however, in my opinion qualify it as a stub. The scuff mark article was deleted because it would have 'fit better' in Wikitionary. I would disagree, because my article gave explanations on how the marks form and how they are removed - much larger scope than what would be discussed in a dictionary. Therefore, I would have been satisfied had the article been labeled a stub. I can certainly understand why the community would want to see my article on Wiktionary, but why delete all of the work? Why not put up a stub requesting that I transfer it to the dictionary? Why not, again, be bold? I am angry because articles such as the one on intestinal varices that are much shorter and would fit better in a dictionary are given stub status and left as is. It may be possible that the scuff mark article was made a stub and I did not notice it, but I likely think that it was simply summarily removed from Wikipedia with little chance for improvement.

When I decided that I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia as more than a Wikignome, I wished to add articles on janitorial and cleaning topics, which are sorely absent in this realm. It would be easy to dismiss these topics as not being 'noteworthy,' as someone did above. Let me ask this, are aglets noteworthy? I do not tend to think so, yet Wikipedia has an article on them. I also do not think that Percy Pringle is noteworthy to Wikipedia, yet I am sure that many professional wrestling fans would disagree with me.

Noteworthiness is a very subjective phenomenon, and if we are going to decide to consider janitors and their equipment blasé enough to not be considered noteworthy, why stop there? Are medical tools most people cannot pronounce noteworthy? What about the things we take for granted - subatomic particles, electricity and the like? Some would argue that Mr. Spock from Star Trek is not noteworthy simply because he is a fictional character. That does not seem to stop him from being considered 'noteworthy' on Wikipedia, though. Thus, if this is the sole reason an article is being deleted, I think Wikipedia is in need of some wiser editors (present company excluded, of course).

All I am upset about is that the article was deleted in a very assembly line way without regard to improving the source - me. Also, I think it is important to remember that I am a human just like all of you. And while I submitted 'my' article to the realm of free knowledge when I clicked 'save page,' it was still my work that ended up being deleted.

So, I do not expect my article to be brought back. I am not asking for that. If the community feels the removal was fair, than I will not disagree. All that I want is to be promised in the future that I can expect more guidance (God knows I have asked) and that my articles will be given a fair chance for improvement before being removed altogether.

Thank you for your time and your thoughts,

Teh Janitor 21:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expert Needed for Fixed Wireless, aka WISP

Hello...

I have just located your encyclopedia service and noted that you are asking for help from experts in WISP's. Well I have over 15 years in this field. and own www.hyperdsl.net which services the Vallejo, Napa, & American Canyon, Ca. areas.

I look forward to doing another term paper.

JC Randall jc@hyperdsl.net (707) 643-0105

I'm not familiar with the request to which you refer, but I presume that it relates to a WikiProject on this or a wider parent subject in the I.T. field. We have many projects ongoing at any given time. If you can locate where you saw this request, there should be a talk page (the discussion tab at the top) on which you can post a message for interested parties to see and respond to. As you are new to Wiki, you may like to view Help:Contents and browse through the advice to get you started. You will probably want to sign up to Wiki - you don't have to do so to contribute, but it is very much recommended both from your standpoint and from that of other members with whom you will collaborate and communicate. Anyway, welcome to Wiki, and I hope that you find using it and contributing to it enjoyable and worthwhile! Adrian M. H. 15:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viewing Images

I find that, when I view most articles, images do one or more of the following:

a) Do not appear and collapse in on themselves or are replaced with just the caption text

b) Appear in scaled-down form, but clicking on it to view full takes me to Commons where the image "cannot be displayed because it contains errors".

c) Animated images are static even though my internet options are set to view them normally.

I am using Firefox 2. 217.43.243.232 10:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I've no idea:-( Do you have the same problems when using another browser? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What are your security settings? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My settings are pretty normal. All problems go away in IE7, but I don't want to use that. 217.43.243.232 10:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the problem does not occur for you in IE7 on the same computer, then it must be something to do with your Firefox configuration. If you have any extensions installed in Firefox, there's a chance one of them could be misbehaving, or at least behaving in a manner that you may not be aware of. Try starting Firefox in "safe mode" (this should be an option under the Firefox program folder on your Start menu). This will run the browser with all extensions disabled, so you can see what happens. If the problem still persists, I suppose you can always try reinstalling the browser. --Nothlit 02:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate Images - what to do about it?

Hey,

I've been making some minor edits to various pages, and I happened to notice that two images on Wikipedia, where in fact the same:

What is the best way to deal with this kind of thing? Is there some sort of official policy to merge them together somehow, or should I just ignore it?

Cheers --DWZ 10:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Two steps. First, switch all uses of the image over to one or the other. Second, mark the now-unused image for speedy deletion by adding {{db|Redundant image, see <link to other image>}} to its description page. See WP:CSD for more information on speedies, and the various speedy tags and criteria available for your use. Luna Santin 10:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Use the second one, it has a more detailed fair use rationale. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

heh, I had just changed all the links to the first one. No worries, I will switch them back. Many thanks to both of you :) --DWZ 11:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can I log into my Wikipedia account on any Wikipedia?

I was wondering if I could log into my English Wikipedia account on say, the German Wikipedia. - Patricknoddy 8:22am, January 2, 2007 (EST)

No. Neither Wikipedia nor MediaWiki has that type of function in the software. You have to register an individual account on every Wiki. Terence Ong 13:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at the moment, no. The developers are working on something called m:Single-user login, which should allow users of any Wikimedia wiki to login to any other Wikimedia wiki, but the feature is a little overdue. For the moment, if you create any accounts, make sure they have the same username and e-mail address; this will ensure that they are synchronized when SUL arrives. (Btw, you can easily sign your username and date by typing four tildes: ~~~~). Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists......

There are a fair fewlists with little or no content (see List of people from Berlin, now I could fill this up with People from berlin, but there is already a list...right there..so the list is useless right, or..is something else going on...(Fethroesforia 13:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Neither People from berlin nor People from Berlin appear to exists. Are you talking about a category? In that case you should consider if a list could provide something the category can't like additional data or annotations, or other ways of sorting besides alphabetical. Lists can be kept without any problems if they can provide something a category can't, if it's a simple category duplicate with no added value, it can be nominated for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, my mistake, category:people from berlin, maybe sorted by birth date? or..well..i cant think what a list could give that a category cant off the top of my head, Im sure there is something:) (Fethroesforia 13:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes probably has your answer. BigNate37_(T) 16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing User Name

When I signed up, I misspelled the user name I want.

How can I change the username? WHen I try to change it, because teh computer remembers me with the cookies, it will not accept the new name.

Thanks

71.75.170.136 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Coach Fletch

Just forget the old one and register again. Notinasnaid 15:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username has information about the circumstances under and the process with which one may change their username. BigNate37_(T) 15:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] religion

what is the differences between a sunnis and a shia?

This is the help desk, for technical questions about how to use Wikipedia. You should ask your question at the reference desk. BigNate37_(T) 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

See Sunni and Shia — Lost^(talk) 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian copyright law, in reference to Centennial of the City of Toronto

Okay, something published in a defunct Canadian newspaper in 1934, that isn't credited to any particular author, would that be PD no, or do I have to wait two years, until 75 years have past? -- Zanimum 16:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In Canada, the copyright expires 50 years post mortem auctoris (after the author's death), which is difficult to determine if you do not know the author of the published work. However, the U.S. has not adopted the rule of the shorter term, and I think it is exclusively American law which applies to Wikipedia, so that's a moot point anyways. See Wikipedia:Copyright situations by country, Wikipedia:Public domain. Mention is made that several countries have special rules for handling cases where the author is unknown, but I couldn't find anything specific. BigNate37_(T) 17:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the try at it. -- Zanimum 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contents List Moving

The contents page on an article i was editing appears to have "Right alighned itself, but I can't see where in the code this occurred. Could anyone tell me why this happened, and possibly move it back to the left?
The article is Long Stratton.
Woodgreener 17:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, User:Saga City added the {{TOCright}} tag. This causes the table of contents to appear, right aligned, at that point in the article. You'd need to discuss the matter on the talk page of the article in question if you two disagree about the TOC positioning. See Help:Section#Table of contents (TOC) for more information. BigNate37_(T) 17:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to Wiktionary in articles

I've been reading the article The Taming of the Shrew.

In the section for Act I it says:

The wealthy merchant Baptista Minola enters, with his daughters, the shrewish Katherine (called "Kate") and the sweet-tempered Bianca.

I don't like the appearance of the link to the Wiktionary article.

I've seen other examples of editors linking to Wiktionary by putting two square brackets, a colon, the word "wiktionary", another colon, and then the word they want to link to. So then we would have:

The wealthy merchant Baptista Minola enters, with his daughters, the shrewish Katherine (called "Kate") and the sweet-tempered Bianca.

However, I've never seen an article which linked a word directly to the Wiktionary definition, and I wondered if it's proper to do so, and also if it should be done by putting the whole link between one set of square brackets or by using the double square brackets and :wiktionary: so as not to have an arrow appearing at the end of the word.

Thank you. Grandad 17:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The best way to link is the second way, or something like [[wikt:shrewish|]] which does the same thing. I don't think the leading colon is necessary per meta:Help:Interwiki linking, but it is proper to hide the wiktionary prefix in articlespace. As for whether it is proper or not to link to definitions of obscure words, I don't know but I can guess that it's bad form and I would tend to remove them where I see them. Who decides which words are difficult or unfamiliar? It's far too arbitrary. I couldn't find anything specific about it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), but I do know there is a {{wiktionary}} template for use mostly on disambiguation pages (see Wikipedia:Sister_projects#Wiktionary for more on the template and related things). BigNate37_(T) 17:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new Definition of "Cookie"... I am having difficulty negotiating the entry process...

I see "cookies" like they're kind of a little portable electronic door that websites can install into your computer, so they can wire you their electronic presentations...

And sort of like solo pingpong.. in which you send the ball out, through a cookie doorway, into a chocolate room, and it bounces back with a little chocolate on it from bouncing in your chocolate computer's room, and the website tastes the chocolate on the bouncing ball, and sends a whole cake back to your computer... And you taste it, and maybe eat some.. and save some for later, and toss the rest in the trash...

It's like your computer is point A.. The website is point B.. B shows A what it's got.. A tells B what it wants.. and B sends some C to A... Simple as ABC...

In the case of an Internet virus.. B sends some C to A, with some Z in it... is why we use Z-stopper software to keep A clean and healthy, for when B's are stinging people in the A's...

DonalJ email removed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.249.4 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's weird. I removed your e-mail address per instructions atop this page. Anyways, internet cookies are nothing like that and that's not even a question let alone a question about how to use Wikipedia. If you have a question about using Wikipedia, please be specific—if you have a general question about anything (including internet cookies), try the reference desk. BigNate37_(T) 18:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit section links

On Pint glass all the [edit] links seem to be bunched up underneath See Also. Is this due to the way the images have been placed? What's gone wrong here?

(I'm using Firefox 2). MrBeast 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The images are causing it, since there isn't enough room in the first section for the template and images. Check out Template:- (i.e. {{-}} and try staggering the images throughout the article on both margins to alleviate the problem. BigNate37_(T) 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You may also wish to consider using an image gallery, or simply using less images in the article. See Wikipedia:Gallery tag. BigNate37_(T) 18:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. MrBeast 19:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International or National?: What assumptions are made about what nation or culture is the default for a entry.

In the entry Wikipedia:Bank Holidays the main entry seems to list a UK oriented entry of these holdiays with bank holidays from other countries/cultures beling lists as sub-entries. I also noticed in the discussion that one person made the following comment:

Removing US-centrism. This article is about the UK. The US has nothing to do with it. -- ??????? 16:52 24 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand what assumptions are made concerning such things, should the primary entry be an international entry with specific entries referring to categories and or groups of countries / cultures?

I realize this may be free for all, however it becomes more confusing when I see that like in the entry above someone objects to entries made in the "wrong" culture/country.

In addition, when an article is orientated towards one groups, it becomes more difficult to get to a more intenational entry, and also, as see in this example, it makes it difficult to have a neutral entry comparing various cultural differences or similarities.

Can anyone clarify this without starting a flame session?

Thanks

--Hkjjr 18:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not see Wikipedia:Bank holidays. Do you mean Bank holidays? If so... well, the article begins "A Bank Holiday is a public holiday in the United Kingdom and also in the Republic of Ireland." As such, that defines what the article is about. However, if the term is used elsewhere in the world a suitable action should be taken, for example expanding the article (including its definition), or renaming it Bank Holiday (UK) with a master link page. "Turf wars" over the purview of an article should be conducted initially on the talk page. However, I observe the discussion here (on the talk page) was not about another country using the term bank holiday; rather a new text which added "The US equivalent is...". Now, this is clearly parochial, and should either be the start of a very long list of equivalents, or go to some master page. So, the decision to link instead to "public holiday", seems correct. And the discussion continued, all seemed amicable and maintained balance. Notinasnaid 18:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ultimate Superman Collection

How do I purchase it through Wikipedia?

Bill Millner Jr

Bill, can you let us know why you think we would be selling it at all? Notinasnaid 18:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Check http://Amazon.com. --Darkest Hour ^$_$^$_$ 19:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something happened to my myspace!

Hello something has happened to my myspace. See well my cousin made it for me and gave me a fake e-mail address and i didn't know how to change it! And on 12/22/06 i changed my password to (iforgot!) and when i tried it the next day it didn't work, and i know i didn't change it again, and nobody knew my password. and since my e-mail is fake i have nowhere to send my password! SO WHAT DO I DO?? PLEASE HELP ME!

This isn't MySpace, this is Wikipedia. We can't help you. You'll need to contact the administrators at MySpace. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in wasting time replying to an obviously irrelevant question. Most people of moderate intelligence would know that this is not the place to ask such a question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.57.104 (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Spell checker available?

Is there a way to check spelling during an editing session?

FloydRTurbo 20:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Go to Microsoft Word. Copy and paste. Correct. Correct the corrections. Microword is located when you push the start button in the bottom most left corner, go to programs, and it should be there if it isn't I can't help much except press control+E. But Word is much much easier to deal with.Also spell check has an uncanny way of not fixing mistakes. Check the link to see what I mean... spellcheck

--Darkest Hour ^$_$^$_$ 20:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, you can use a web browser that supports spell-checking in edit fields. I believe IE7 will do this, and I know Firefox and Opera do. -- Kesh 21:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Arrr, Microsoft Word won't be installed on this person's computer unless they bought / installed it. OpenOffice can serve the same purpose, freely. Using a browser that supports spell checking is probably the easiest way, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I cannot SEE

What has happened too all the pictures on Wiki???????? How can I see them?????????? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Darkest Hour ^$_$^$_$ 20:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge they still work. Did you install a browser toolbar? Did you alter your security settings, what browser are you even using? We need some extra information to be able to help you. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'm using Mozilla, no toolbar no security differences. because I can still see the wiki logo.Also i just set th image settings to see all images. This did not happen till the Gift of Knoledge tablette showed up. --Darkest Hour ^$_$^$_$ 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but it must be something to do with your computer, because I'm using Firefox as well right now and It's working fine for me. I hope you're able to figure it out! Dar-Ape 22:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because you can see the Wikipedia logo doesn't mean that you can see all images as I'm sure you've worked out by now. Unlike the logo, all other images don't come from en.wikipedia.org. They actually come from upload.wikimedia.org. Be sure that this web site is allowed. Try looking under "Exceptions" in the Options dialog box somewhere (I have Firefox so I wouldn't know the exact place). Harryboyles 10:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand. I am experiencing the same difficulties viewing the images displayed, and im guessing, due to the fact that this was not a matter at hand only a few days ago, that a setting has perhaps been changed under my internet options. As far as having blocked websites and newly added toolbars, i am currently using msn live toolbar and i am almost certain there are no blocked websites listed. I feel like a fish out of the water. Keatonlawson 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good citations

Ahem. yes. In the Super transformation article, there is a bit about the character "Super Shadow" undergoing a processor error because of the Sega Dreamcast. This caused an alteration of his appearance. Right now it has a ^{[citation needed]} tag on it. I actually have the texture for the character on hand (extracted from the game) and a screenshot of the character in the game. A comparison of the two clearly illustrates that a processing error is indeed at fault. Would I be able to use these as citations to verify the claim? If so, how would I go about doing it?GrandMasterGalvatron 20:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that would count as original research. You'd need something like a magazine review that notes it. More details on sources in verifiability. Notinasnaid 21:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the claim itself was actually the result of research by the fans. This seems to be the way we find out a load of things about the Sonic games (it's how we know Super Sonic was taken out of the levels in Sonic Adventure). To be frank, there is nowhere that notes it. Does that warrant removal from the article?GrandMasterGalvatron 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you had a magazine or game website that noted the information, you could site that. Fan research on their own would not be useful for citation. So, yes, if you can't verify that information it should be removed. -- Kesh 21:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing while I'm here. There's something else along those same lines that's in the article. It actually points to a file that can be found in the PC version of the game it's concerning. Is that ok for the article, since a reader with the game could find said file (an audio file) and listen to it for themselves? Or would that have to go as well?GrandMasterGalvatron 21:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Create Article

Lots of famous people have articles about themselves, could i create an article about myself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.100.145 (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

This is not My space but if you create an account you can make a small biography about yourself. If you are "famous" then tell us who you are and tell of your accomplishments here or on your user space.

I did not sign my comment!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.233.147.22 (talk • contribs) 16:01, January 2, 2007 (UTC)

Several Wikipedia pages discuss this scenario; if you write about yourself at all I recommend reading the following first:

Failing to do so may result in an unpleasant experience, i.e. your work may be deleted with prejudice—that's not a good thing and I certainly don't encourage biting new editors, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. BigNate37_(T) 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Lots of famous people have articles, but they're generally not created by the person themselves. Wikipedia articles are about notable topics, so unless you're famous or others fit inclusion criteria WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc it's not a good idea to create an article about yourself. Also, remember that Wikipedia is not a free webspace. Registering an account with the soul purpose of creating a userpage about yourself will get it deleted at some point in the future. We're more lenient about userspace edits by people who make significant contributions to Wikipedia itself, so I suggest you start there. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor question

Does reverting vandalism actually have to be marked as minor? Simply south 21:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually disagree with it ever being marked as minor. I don't think reversions are minor edits. Anchoress 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be - the admin rollback feature marks it as minor automatically though. For simple vandalism reversion, I see no problem with it - perhaps if you're reverting over a content dispute though, it should not be. Trebor 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anchoress' opinion aside, Help:Reverting mentions that the built-in rollback feature (like a semi-auto revert for admins, I guess) marks reversions as minor. I know that elsewhere it is (or was) mentioned that reverts should be minor because the net effect of the revert and the edit(s) being reverted is nothing, but the reference escapes me. Help:Reverting doesn't make mention of marking a reversion as minor, however it does give the helpful instruction to use the word "revert" (or "rv") in the edit summary. BigNate37_(T) 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference you seek appears to be the paragraph at Help:Minor_edit#Exceptions. Jeff G. 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Use whichever you want; we won't bite :). Yuser31415 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts...) See Help:Minor edit for more guidance on when to use the 'minor edit' check box. To borrow the introduction from that page:

A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.

The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences not to display them. If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please do not mark it as minor.

Reverting vandalism is marked as minor because it is uncontroversial and restores a consensus version of an article. If you forget to mark a vandalism revert as 'minor' then no harm is done, but there's really no need to flag a vandalism revert as a 'major' edit. Be aware that 'vandalism' is fairly narrowly defined; if you're unsure about whether a revert you're making actually involves genuine vandalism, it's best to use a descriptive edit summary and not flag as minor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The numbers: 55% of reverts are marked as minor, 45% are not (that's as of November 2006, may have changed since then) – Gurch 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I think reversions should never be marked as minor is because there's a toggle on watched page lists that hides minor edits. Anchoress 04:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] admin

how do i become an admin

See WP:RFA. Note that very new users are rarely if ever granted adminship -- stick around for a few months, demonstrate dedication to and knowledge of the project, and you may want to consider it. Good luck. ;) Luna Santin 22:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user talk

is it ok to clear the user talk with warnings from admins? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falcon866 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

It depends. At times it can be considered disruptive, especially if the warnings are valid. Warnings given to you by vandals may be removed, but you should be willing to explain why to them. Yuser31415 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean my user talk--Falcon866 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I meant too :). I assumed you meant User talk:Falcon866. Yuser31415 22:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Only if you take them to heart, but it can still land you in hot water, because it usually leads to people assuming you want to hide these warnings from others because you're planning on doing something 'warning-worthy'. Avoid problems and go for archiving instead. Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] signature

how do i make something i add in discussion appear something like this

– user name here 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falcon866 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

See WP:SIG. Long story short, use four tildes (~~~~), or click the little signature button

that appears above the editing window. Luna Santin 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can TV Commercials be hosted on Wikipedia under "Fair Use?"

I have been working on an article about the history of Wonderbra. I have access to very old, vintage 1960's and 1970's television commcercials that have been converted to a low bit-rate OGG format.

Given the educational nature of the article, and the fact that these commercials can tell part of the story, these may fall under fair use. I've tried to find a position on this in the FAQ and help pages, but could not.

Is there precedence on this?Mattnad 22:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use is a slippery slope and it depends entirely on the context within the article and how much of the old commercials is still used in today's commercials of the product in question. I do feel obliged to tell you that 1960s-1970s material is neither very old nor vintage. At least not old enough for the age to have an effect on the copyright. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, videos themselves are not good sources as they would be a primary source. Better to find a news article which references those commercials and cite that. -- Kesh 23:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The commercials and their messages have not been used for 30 years. The only commonality is the name of the product. They are relevant to the article in that they are directly a part of the subject matter. I found a three separate book quotes that refer to this advertising campaign, so this is not primary research per se, but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Anyway, there are other means to convey the info and I think there's a simpler approach that will work for Wikipedia and the article.Mattnad 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

30 years is nowhere near long enough for the commercials to be public domain. Plus, there's the problem of hosting the files off-Wikipedia and the inherent problems that incurs. Since you have books to cite from, those would be preferable and fit into Wikipedia's encyclopedic format much better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kesh (talk • contribs) 03:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't think he's trying to "cite" the ads as a source at all. He's wanting to use the ads as illustration of how Wonderbra depicted itself in previous decades. -- Zanimum 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is a form of citation. I'm assuming it's being used to provide reference to something in the article. Otherwise, it has no real relevance anyway. -- Kesh 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're wrong there. There is a massive difference between illustration and citation. An illustration is information in itself whereas a citation merely supports the information already in the article. If you look at lion for example, the text does not cite the images (in some cases it could do, though it would be borderline original research.) The images simply present the text in a different, easier to understand way. --Cherry blossom tree 22:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor warnings

I have been editing a page that currently has editor warnings at the top: specifically, "ad" and "notability" warnings. I have done quite a bit of work on the page, and have noted my edits on the page's "Talk" section. I have asked how to remove the warnings, but have gotten no response from any editors. Can I remove the warnings myself? I don't want the page to be removed altogether.

Thanks,

Jeff Edsell —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffedsell (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

If you feel the topics of those warnings have been sufficiently fixed now, and no one else has objected on the Talk page, I see no problem wiht removing those warning templates. Anyone who objects would be free to re-add them and explain why. -- Kesh 23:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/e/l/Wikipedia%7EHelp_desk_Archives_2007_January_2_d830.html"