Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 June 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help desk
< June 1	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 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 June 2

[edit] June 2

[edit] Exceptions to categories added by templates

I have a template that has a category in it. For example, a Template:Edit that is applied to pages that need to be edited in some way might include a "Category:Pages to be edited". So every page that includes that template is part of that category. That's good in almost all cases. But then I want to have a guidelines page that describes how the template is used. On that guidelines page I would like to have an instance of the template appear. But then my guidelines page will be categorized as "Pages to be edited", when there is nothing wrong with it.

Is there a way on my guidelines page to tell the wiki to exclude that page from the category, even though it includes a template that automatically puts that page in that category? -- Llarq 00:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

One way would be to add an optional input value to the parameter to the template, for example you might call it: nocat, along with template code that would conditionally exclude the category link if nocat has some value. See: m:ParserFunctions##if:. I don't know if that is the best or only way. --Teratornis 11:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That did the trick, and gave me the opportunity for an enjoyable excursion into the world of parser functions. Thanks for the tip, Teratornis! -- Llarq 22:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleteing Account

How can i delete my wekepidia account?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorx14 (talk • contribs) 00:33, June 2, 2007

You can't. -- Kesh 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Right to vanish. The only registered edit by your account was asking that question. PrimeHunter 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted history

Could someone take a look at the Rabbit calicivirus history and tell me how to fix this? The article rabbit calicivirus had existed for some time, and today I see some changes in it on my watchlist. To my surprise, I see the history only goes back a few hours, due to some odd moves. Looking at Rabbit Green, an unrelated topic, the history of rabbit calicivirus is there instead (prior to June 1). I can guess what happened (rabbit calicivirus moved to rabbit green, via a different redirect, Green Rabbit Syndrome, at which point the editor realizes they made a mistake, and cuts and pastes the material back to rabbit calicivirus over the redirect), but I have no idea how to merge the page histories back together. Thanks. --Joelmills 01:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I already removed the redirect from Talk:Rabbit calicivirus and replaced a project tag that had been there. Hope I didn't make this more complicqated. --Joelmills 01:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, don't touch anything else :) Here is where the article changes, correct? Prodego ^talk 01:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, should be good now. Prodego ^talk 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that fixes the rabbit calicivirus history. I see that you also deleted Rabbit Green, which is not a problem for me, but it doesn't need to redirect to rabbit calicivirus either, as it has no relation to it. Thanks again, I really appreciate it. --Joelmills 02:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos uploading blank

I've tried several times to upload a photo at Image:M1887 Shotgun.JPG, but I can't see any visible image after doing so, nor is the image showing up when linked elsewhere on WP. I'm using Firefox 2.0 with all the latest updates, if that helps. Anyone know what's going on?--Commander Zulu 02:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see it using the same browser. Try purging your cache and/or restarting your browser. --YFB ¿ 02:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Tried that, still no luck. The image isn't visible in Internet Explorer, either. --Commander Zulu 02:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's weird. I can still see it and it shows up, at the image page and in the article, in Internet Exploder as well. Have you tried clearing your browser cache/temporary internet files? If they've got a dead image stuck in there, they may not be loading the new version. Otherwise, I'm out of ideas... sorry. --YFB ¿ 02:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded the image using a different filename, and now its working just fine. I'll have to get the non-working image deleted now, in the interests of not cluttering up the server. Thanks very much for your help, though! --Commander Zulu 02:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My User Page

I have a warning on my User Page from something I didn't do. Should I be worried? Please help. --69.134.117.202 02:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That isn't your user page. That is a page for the IP address you are currently using. Create an account and you will have your own user page and you won't have to deal with anonymous IP problems anymore. --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If another user had the same IP address as you now do (and most ISPs change IP addresses pretty often) you may well get msgs intended for that user. The best solution is to register and use an account. DES ^(talk) 02:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Triple braces

I know that putting a word or phrase into {{double braces}} indicates a template, but what do {{{triple braces}}} do? Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 03:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

{{{nothing}}} Dismas|^(talk) 03:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we use it for parameters in templates. See [1] and the various triple braces being thrown around. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] School being Slandered on Wikipedia

An anonymous user keeps writing slanderous, and entirely unreferenced content in the article on my school National Academy For Learning. Marking the article as biased, or NPOV, and even nominating it for deletion simply results in the anonymous IP removing the tags, with no mention whatsoever in the discussion page.

The entire article is poorly written, and offers little to no actual content. It has a heavy bias, and this is just a small excerpt: 'It has been the experience of a few parents during the years 2002-05 that such new-age remedies for little children was being administered under an earlier Principal Mrs. Benjamin and an incompetent kindergarten teacher (IMHO).'

I would like to re-nominate the article for deletion, but I don't believe I am permitted to do the same. Please advise Tdinkar 03:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and POV edits are no reason to delete an entire article. If we did that then every article would be gone by now. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism for information on dealing with vandalism. This will probably lead you to WP:REVERT which has information on how to revert an article back to the "good" version before the vandalism was posted. Also see, WP:BLOCK for info on what you can do to get anonymous IP vandals blocked. Dismas|^(talk) 03:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of the obvious junk, but not knowing anything about the school I don't want to proceed further, so I've left the {{cleanup}} tag there to alert readers and editors of problems (it's still quite badly written). I'm not sure whether there is a rule about whether you can re-nominate an article for deletion, so if you want to re-nominate it, I think you can go ahead. (If you do, I suggest the best process to follow in this case is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.) However, my opinion is that the article should stay as the school appears notable and that's all that should be considered. Also, blocking anonymous users and continual reversions won't help in the case of a persistent, dedicated vandal/POV pusher; instead, semi-protection may be the best course. --A bit iffy 09:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have had the same problem with my school article. Wiki.user 20:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this would be less of a problem if school attendance was voluntary rather than compulsory. As it stands, there seem to be many disgruntled students out there, and they constitute a vast reservoir of potential Wikipedia vandals, particularly as it only takes one disgruntled student at a given school to discover Wikipedia and then alert all his peers (I assume most of these school article vandals are male, but I have no data). There is even a {{Schoolblock}} template for use when vandalizing a particular school article becomes a fad. Naturally, school article vandals share the general vandal preference for editing without creating accounts. --Teratornis 23:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Font Issue

I recently removed some system fonts from my system using Adobe Type Manager. I reinstalled them again but now I am having a problem. The wikipedia website must use a font that IE cannot find. The type is so ugly I don't want to visit wikipedia until it is fixed. To see what I am talking about look here.

If you know how to fix this please post to my talk page or here.

Thank you! Joneboi 03:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia specifies the CSS 'sans-serif' default font, which is easily configurable to whatever font you like in Firefox or Opera, but not in Internet Explorer. It seems to be a well-hidden variable (its not even in the registry), but it's one that IE has changed automatically -- because you deleted Arial, the default -- but has not changed back when you restored Arial. Thus, the way for us to proceed is to delete the new font it has latched on to (which appears to be Agency FB), which will hopefully make IE search around for another one and snap back to its default, Arial. So follow these steps:

Close Internet Explorer
Open 'Control Panel' -> 'Fonts'
Double-check that Arial is installed
Find and delete the Agency FB font
Open Internet Explorer.

Hopefully, that should have fixed it. If not, please contact me at my talk page. Thanks! -- Simxp 04:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro vs. Contra

Does anyone know where I can find the templates for pro and contra when used on a discussion page debating whether an article should be added and such? — Supuhstar * §

I am not familiar with these templates, but you can find a lot of templates on WP:TEMPLATE or the pages linked therefrom. --Teratornis 10:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't help — Supuhstar * §

[edit] Security Firewall

What are the types of Security Firewall? What is the purpose and configuration setting for FORITNET Security Firewall?

This question belongs at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk desk. Specifically in the computers section. The help page is only for the editing of Wikipedia. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 05:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Help

Sorry, but I do not know if you could help me. I have to develop a webpage for a Newspaper and it is my first experience with it. I'd like to know which is the best way to develop the page so the users do not to duplicate efforts re-typing the data twice. It is, they have a software to edit the News and I want to take the information from the generated file and uploade to a dynamic web page. So how can I develop that dynamic page so they can do their job that way.

Again, if I am out of context with my question please I apolozige. But if some one can help me out I would appreciate it.

Best Regards,

Radhames Lopez

You can try CuteNews which is a PHP-based news system for most websites. As for the other things, you can also most likely use the same software that Wikipedia uses, called MediaWiki. E ^talk 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Data conversion between incompatible application programs is often a nightmare, and MediaWiki is incompatible with almost everything else. Your options depend on the capability of the "software to edit the News" you mention in your question. What is the name of that software? What file formats can it write? Do other users of that software publish their news on Web sites? If so, you could ask some of those other users how they do it. --Teratornis 11:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table help

I'm working on the Appalachian State Mountaineers page and using tables for the records for teams (football, basketball). The table is the sort that should be hidden with the tab that says "show" on the side. However, on mine it is always open (showing) when I browse to the page. I copied the table info from the North Carolina Tar Heels page. On that page the Season-by-season records box is always closed. Can someone browse over there and see what's preventing mine from starting closed? It's driving me crazy. Thanks =) Geologik 05:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this guide to tables here: Collapsible tables guide. The specific section dealing with your problem is here: Wikipedia:NavFrame#NavFrame_divs. Hope this helps! -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 07:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried fixing it but it still dosen't hide. Could another editor try fixing it? -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 07:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that you need 3 of those tables there for the show/hide to work.--User:Rock2e ^{Talk - Contribs} 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sharing Maps

Hi, I copied the map for Cranbrook, British Columbia onto the Fort Steele, British Columbia article, (which didn't have a map at all), as the two towns are only ten miles apart. But do the coordinates or anything else need to be changed?CindyBo 08:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the coordinates are different and will need to be changed. You can leave a note on the talk page and let someone else do it that is more capable of recording accurate coordinates. In regard to the map, you might want to request for it (the original author is Qyd). Hope that helps. E ^talk 10:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing the notification message for messaging bar for MediaWiki?

Hi, I was wondering if there was a MediaWiki:(link) that allows you to change the message being displayed when a new message is posted on an talk page? I am running MediWiki on my [rivate server and was wondering if you had any ideas?

P.S: Wikipedia's messaging system (orange u have new messages) bar isn't working. Just to let you know, is it disabled?

For the changing of the 'new messages' message, it would be at MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessages. And, there is no current errors with the message bar, it seems to be working for everyone else. E ^talk 10:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not working for anons, this has been known for some time, but there is no fix yet. If you want to change colors, use Mediawiki:Common.js and add .usermessage { <attribute changes> }. Prodego ^talk 18:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

I have no idea on what to call the question thing, but what I'm trying to get it the signature, on how to make an extra part that links to the talk page right beside your username. I've been having a look around, but so far, I can't seem to find anything on it at all. Captain Drake Van Hellsing 10:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You may want to use the special 'title' template for that. The required template for your username would be {{User:1ne/Title|User:Drakehellman ([[User talk:Drakehellman|talk]])}} - try that and see if it works. E ^talk 10:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So far, it still comes up with the whole thing being linked to my userpage, no matter what I seem to enter in the raw signature area, unless of course, that's not suppose to be where it goes....but so far, I don't know of any other areas where it goes... Captain Drake Van Hellsing 10:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh your after a signature extension! Simply replace the whole signature box with

[[User:Drakehellman|Captain Drake Van Hellsing]] <sup>([[User talk:Drakehellman|talk]])</sup>

and the signature will appear as this: Captain Drake Van Hellsing ^(talk) 10:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC). E ^talk 10:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's real odd, as when I put that into the signature box, it turns out like this: [[User:Drakehellman|Captain Drake Van Hellsing <sup>([[User talk:Drakehellman|talk]])</sup>]] 11:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Am I doing it right at all? Or is there something that's missing from there? Captain Drake Van Hellsing 11:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, never mind, I figured it out, stupid check box...but thank you for the help regardless ^^ Captain Drake Van Hellsing ^(talk) 11:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, nice signature :) E ^talk 11:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though there is one small problem I've been seeing if I can it right, but it's proving to be a pain, is changing the colour of the links, so to speak, you know, so that, say, one word is orange, one is yellow, ect, ect. Not sure if this is right here or not:

[[User:Drakehellman|Captain Drake Van Hellsing]] [[<span style="color: #ff0000">[[User talk:Drakehellman|Parley?]]</span>]]

And that gave me this: Captain Drake Van Hellsing [[Parley?]] any advice for that sort of thing? Captain Drake Van Hellsing 11:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got it ^^ Captain Drake Van Hellsing Savvy? 11:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do I find your prize winning pictures?

I looked at some earlier but can not get back to them.

Wikimedia Commons, a Wikipedia sister project, has over 1.5 million freely reusable media files. You may also want to look at the Picture of the Year contest or the Picture of the Day for some of the best images on the Commons. E ^talk 10:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also see: Wikipedia:Featured pictures. --Teratornis 10:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sign in woes

When I successfully sign in, then return to the page I want to edit, I again get the "Sign in/create account" link at the top of the page.

That sounds weird. Have you tried bypassing your cache? Please see Help:Logging in for some probable reasons and solutions to this matter. I hope this helps. Peacent 14:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles Written for Specialists vs. Those Written for a General Readership

Perhaps this is a philosophical question about the nature and intended audience of Wikipedia. Maybe it is easier first to explain the context. I am an IT professional in my mid-50s who is currently undergoing cataract surgery, so one of the reference points that I used in the searching around this condition is of course Wikipedia. There are a bunch of ophthalmology articles including one on cataracts and one cataract surgery within Wikipedia. These are good articles, but my concern here is that they were written by ophthalmic specialists for ophthalmic specialists using a concept framework and a vocabulary that they understand, but that the typical reader (who will be a lay cataract sufferer) will find it like a reading treacle pudding. What this readership needs is an article written in some form of plain English. I developed an example of this for cataract surgery in my | sandbox. If you look at this you will see that there is some overlap with the existing cataract surgery article, yet it is also in many respects quite different:

I have used common English terminology of the everyday English reader would understand (for example "shortsighted" instead of "myopic" -- after all, that's all that myopic means when you translate it from Latin into English).
I have cut descriptions down to the minimum that a typical reader who is a cataract sufferer needs to know, and have linked back to the technical article for those who want to know more.
I have posed and answered a number of questions that those facing this procedure would genuinely want to know, but don't really seem of interest to those writing the article.

I am not asking for a critique of the article as it still only a work in progress. What I am asking about is the principles that Wikipedia applies in such circumstances:

Does Wikipedia see its role as being a somewhat erudite encyclopaedia, or a valuable knowledgebase for the wider community? Or both?
When there are two audience community's who are interested about a single topic, is the correct thing to do to have interlinked but variant articles "talking to" each of those communities?
Or is the desired goal somehow to address both audiences within a single article? And if this is the case, how do we balance the governance in developing the article?

TerryE 11:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have thought about related issues. I think the way that this is dealt within most commonly is to write a good lead section that covers the main points in a manner that could be understood by a "smart forth or fifth grader"; for many readers they can get all the info they want from this lead section; those that desire more depth can read further. I think I understand that what you are describing is subtly different from this - in your situation I think you are a layman in the field of ophthalmology, who was actually interested in the depth of the subject, but found that the more in-depth parts of the article weren't written in the best way to help you understand. I agree that this is problematic. I don't know the answer, but I suggest that textbooks are more suited for this that encyclopedias. Textbooks are designed to introduce new material in an order so that topics are presented only after the necessary background info has been taught; encyclopedias are designed for providing less structured, random-access knowledge. I would be interested in your further thoughts on this subject (do we need to move this to a different page? It's not really a help desk topic) ike9898 14:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's for a general audience, although for confusing topics, there might end up being the case of General relativity and Introduction to general relativity. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ike9898, I agree that this may not be a helpdesk topic, but one more of editorial governance. However I am not yet a power Wikipedia contributor, so I leave it to you to suggest location. You are close in your analysis, but my primary concern wasn't so much about me understanding the content of the current pages but more about their utility to a general readership. For every ophthalmologist or other medical professional who looks at these pages, there will be hundreds or perhaps thousands of lay people (usually cataract sufferers or relatives of the same) who do so. I think that accessability to 99% of the readership is a valid concern, yet this concern shouldn't compromise the existing work. Picking up x42bn6's example, one way to address this would be to have to link pages -- one called "cataract surgery" and the other called "cataract surgery from the patient's perspective", much as the two views of General Relativity. I will raise the subject on a talk page of the original article to see how it's contributors feel here. TerryE 15:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Another route (that I am not necessarily advocating) is to create a parallel encyclopedia, with articles crafted to be more appropriate to someone new to the subject. A precendent for setting up a parallel project like this is the 'Simple English' Wikipedia; in this case the parallel project is aimed towards readers with only rudimentary skills in English language.

I think the way Wikipedia articles are written causes them to become simulateously more technically correct and less accessable over time. Maybe the process for writing layman-oriented articles could be modified somehow to discourage this.

The biggest problem I see is maintaining quality when the development of an article forks into multiple articles on the same subject. ike9898 22:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Someday, computers will be smart enough to tailor content to their users, but that will probably require something like Strong AI so don't hold your breath. In the meantime, I like the idea of writing separate versions of articles for experts and laymen. However, I should add that often the main barrier to understanding expert-level writing is the specialized vocabulary, and appropriate use of links can go a long way to addressing that. For example, in the example given above, at least the first instance (and possibly any widely-separated instances) of a jargon term like myopic should link to its defining article. Wikipedia itself has articles for many jargon terms; other sources such as Wiktionary and various technical dictionaries can fill in most of the remainder. (Granted, in articles about higher mathematics, merely adding links to terms such as group, field, tensor and so on won't help the layman much, given that the linked-to articles are likely to be as opaque as the article that linked to them. But in medicine, at least most of the jargon is about reasonably tangible things, or things which are not far removed from reasonably tangible things, such as the patient's own physical sensations.)

I have found while reading some articles on various technical topics such as computer science and web mapping that often the newer ones feature a high density of jargon with way too few links on the jargon terms. It's an interesting exercise to hunt down defining articles for all the terms likely to confuse the nonspecialist and add the links. By looking up the defining articles, I can verify that the article I'm editing is using correct terminology (or at least the terminology that can be linked on Wikipedia). Sometimes various practitioners in a field will use different technical dialects, or use slightly different word forms. If it's hard for me to look up the most definitive article for a jargon term when I know something about the subject, it would probably be prohibitive for someone with no background at all.

Thus I would suggest to TerryE that while you are preparing simplified versions of abstruse technical articles, also examine the technical articles to insure that at least the first instances of any jargon terms unlikely to be familiar to the nonspecialist link to defining articles. While it may not be ideal for the reader to have to click a few dozen links to get through a technical article, at least that method works, and often by reading at least the introductions in the linked articles, the reader gains useful background that would not fit into the primary article.

Any way you slice it, however, this is an encyclopedia. When I was a child, the fact that I liked to read encyclopedias (much like the Great Leader, it turns out, and we even read the same brand) set me apart from many of my peers. The popular view seemed to be that encyclopedias were never meant for popular consumption, but only to be reluctantly consulted under duress, for example to complete a personally irrelevant school assignment. As Albert Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." --Teratornis 22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Teratornis, I agree with your analysis and points. If you have a quick look at my draft cataract surgery article then you will see that I have already anticipated many of them. Like Ike9898, I have very mixed views on whether this issue will be best served by a fork or by making the original more accessible. I also think that articles can be overworked in terms of technical detail and in the process of doing so lose their overall coherence. Maybe we should have a rule of thumb: spring clean every 50 edits.

I work as an IT professional and often write detailed working papers for senior execs and customers, and I have a rule: never use jargon where it adds no value over plain English.

As I said above, I will discuss my concerns with the authors of the current article and see if we can reach a consensus (and my draft will remain in my sandbox). By the way Professor Einstein was paraphrasing the famous razor of a countryman of mine William of Ockham :-P

Thanks again guys/gals TerryE 01:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories (lack of Preview)

Why is it that a Category tag cannot be previewed (to check a category exists) without saving the page, unlike main article content? Gaz (talk?) 12:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? When previewing a page, the categories are shown at the bottom of the window. PrimeHunter 13:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is easy to miss. When you are previewing the changes, the categories don't appear where you might expect them at first. Scroll all the way down and you'll see them. ike9898 14:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I found them now, thanks a lot. Annoying for checking edits, but at least I know they're there now. Thanks again, Gaz (talk?)

[edit] tag for an article that needs an image

It there a tag that can be added to articles to indicate that the article is special need of an image or illustration? ike9898 14:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can add {{tl|image}} on to the article talk page and then it will be brought to the attention of Wikipedians and an image may or may not be added. Regards --The Sunshine Man 14:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do I modify the main title of my article? I only want to change the case of one letter.

I was creating the article 'Active seating' but I wanted both words to begin with capitals as such 'Active Seating'.

Please let me know if I can modify the title, or delete the article and start over? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ergo360 (talk • contribs).

You can move the page to its new location (see the move tab up there?). Note that only accounts that are older than 4 days can move pages. Though I would suggest you redirect the page to Active Sitting instead, because they have the same meaning. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured images

Can commons images be featured images, the answer is bugging me. Francisco Tevez 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, images from the Wikimedia commons can be linked to all other Wikimedia projects but if an image is a featured image on commons it would have to go through the featured picture candidates process here on Wikipedia to be granted the featured picture status here, and the same if it wasn't a featured image on commons, it would still have to go through the same processs here. Hope that helps! The Sunshine Man 16:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Submitting pages

How would I submit a new page to Wikipedia?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shzam (talk • contribs)

You may wish to take a look at Help:Starting a new page, dont forget to make sure it meets the notability guidelines and is suitable for Wikipedia. Hope that helps! The Sunshine Man 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burmese fonts & reference

I edited or rather added more information on the article 'Sittwe'. It has some Burmese fonts. How can I edit so that the Burmese fonts will come into effect? I do not know how to put reference. So I just put it along with the text. Kindly enlighten me in these aspects. Thank you.

[edit] Religious Belife, forbidden depicting of holy person.

In the article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad, it shows maybe 2-3 pictures that kinda pictures Prophet Muhammad's body. [Physically] But what I was taught that it's forbidden to make any kinds of images of any type of prophet. [I think....] Can someone please help take down these images?

It might be for muslims but wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, while we don't go out of our way to cause offence, we don't observe the tenets of various world religions or censor content on that basis. --Fredrick day 19:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the policy on this is outlined in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. Prodego ^talk 19:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing for a religion to tell its followers what they may or may not do, but quite another thing for that religion to assert what everyone must do or not do. Given that religions appear to evolve much like other social contructs (e.g., language, music, politics, art, and fashion), it is virtually inevitable that competing religions will generate conflicting claims about what is proper behavior. When one religion tries to impose its notions of proper behavior on everyone else, the result is Religious war. It is disturbing that billions of humans continue to be so intolerant of people who disagree with them. Also note: even if Muslims succeed in controlling the behavior of all non-Muslims, there is still the problem that Islam is as vulnerable to schism as any other religion, with the result being Sectarian violence (for example, see the conflict between Sunni and Shia). The same result would almost certainly follow if any other religion were to gain supremacy through violence, for example Christian fundamentalism. As evidence, consider the centuries of sectarian violence during the time when Europe was mostly Christian. Indoctrinating people to settle disagreements with violence dooms them to fight forever, because there can never be an end to disagreements. I suggest it is better to leave Medieval values behind and enter the 21st century in which we accept the fact that people are diverse. --Teratornis 17:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Combination of Two Pages

I was wondering if Acra should possibly be combined with Acre, Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scout32 (talk • contribs)

No, Acra is a disambiguation page which means it links to other pages so merging the page seems unnecessary, hope this helped. The Sunshine Man 19:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is no reason to merge, but the two names could easily be confused so I have added a link at Acra per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The "See also" section. PrimeHunter 20:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I mis-stated the question. Should Acra (fortress) be combined or added to Acre, Israel? - Scout32

From Acra (fortress): "The Acra was a fortress or citadel built in Jerusalem". From Acre, Israel: "... is a city in the Western Galilee district of northern Israel". I don't see any reason to combine them. They have similar names but are in different places. PrimeHunter 22:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for looking! - - Scout32

[edit] Biography

Why can't I make a biography on myself?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Beefmasterson (talk • contribs)

Because it would not meet WP:BIO, however you can use your userpage to post a small amount of information about yourself but this is used mainly for the sort of edits you make on Wikipedia, please see WP:USERPAGE for more information. Hope that helps! --The Sunshine Man 19:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Try piczo or myspace Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 20:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sending finished article by mail

A retired professor has written a short biography of "Jean Charlot," at the moment described only in a short note.

Can the author send the article to you directly for inclusion in Wikipedia? If so, to what address?

He will not be able to handle your instructions for submitting an article by computer.

Thank you.

John Charlot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.22.251 (talk • contribs) (E-Mail removed for security purposes)

Well, Wikipedia articles must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, it also has to meet WP:BIO. You will probably have to state here who the person is and say what context the article will have, unless this is provided I would say the article would not be suitable for Wikipedia. Please add what context the article would contain below. Please remember to insert ~~~~ at the end of you messages — this automatically produces your username/IP address, the date and time. Thanks --The Sunshine Man 20:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is also a potential issue of copyright here; the article cannot be published under a license that doesn't allow editing/alteration, and it must also adhere to the policy on original research. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 21:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Can you have an image which links to an external website without having clicking the arrow that comes beside it?Wiki.user 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes on other wikis but over here it's been dsabled--User:Rock2e ^{Talk - Contribs} 20:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ugly spaced in citation format

How do I fix the ugly spaces after the article title in this reference? I didn't add any, and don't see them in the article, so I don't know what is going on. [2] Thanks. KP Botany 20:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clifford

I'm trying to find out what store i can buy the movie Clifford starring Martin Short 1994 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.5.169 (talk • contribs)

If you go to an online store that sells DVDs and enter this code 027616902900, you can find the film Clifford directed by Paul Flaherty, and starring Martin Short, is available in DVD and you can order it from them. KP Botany 21:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what are chinese mitten crabs

what purpose can mitten crabs provide here in maryland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.99.94.52 (talk • contribs)

There is a Wikipedia article on Chinese mitten crabs. Click on the link to find out what you need to know. If you want more information than the article has, click on the Discussion tab at the top of the page and ask a question on the article's talk page, maybe an editor can help you out. KP Botany 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, article talk pages are for discussing changes to its associated article. If you want more information than the article provides you can ask a question at the WP:Reference desk. ssepp^(talk) 21:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite correct, asking questions on an article talk page about something not in the article is one method editors learn about changes or additions to articles. The reference desk should properly be refering questions about missing parts of articles to the articles' talk pages. KP Botany 21:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] creating account problems

After making a very minor edit of "proparoxytone" a day or two ago, I decided to add to the "monel" article because I have an object made of it. I made an image of the object and starting reading about how to upload the image, a confusing set of instructions in the midst of which was your claim that creating an account would simplify things. Now I am in a coil over that and have wasted more time than I intended to devote to the entire editing matter and still, apparently, don't have an account. Since the original edit (of text only) was so simple, I'm surprised that this day's trials have been beyond me.

Hello. You can create an account here. You just need to enter a desired username and password, and fill in the word you see in the image in the text box, to show you are not a bot. ssepp^(talk) 21:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who verifies links?

On a particular wiki, it states "DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. Links that have not been verified WILL BE DELETED"

Is this allowed and who is in charge of verifying the links?

For reference, the question appears to refer to the {{NoMoreLinks}} template. Read the text on the template page for more information. --Teratornis 22:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: Yes, it is valid to add this template. Occasionally, we'll have problems with people attempting to advertise their company/forum/blog/etc. by adding a link to a related article. These have to be deleted repeatedly. There's also problems with articles where people attempt to link to every possible site they can think of that has more information, whether or not it's appropriate to the article's subject. In any case, it's the other editors of the article who verify the links. Post the link to the article's Talk page, explain why you think it would add to the article, and let a Consensus develop there. -- Kesh 00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do I merge articles?

The game Naruto: Narutimett Portable now has a seperate page saying the English version is a new game. It clearly isn't, and needs to have the info for the English version moved to the Japanese version page.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kylemcauliffe15 (talk • contribs).

Do you mean Naruto: Narutimate Portable? I'm not sure what you mean by "English version" and "Japanese version" because there appears to be only one article on this game. Unless you mean the Japanese Wikipedia, but I don't know the Japanese equivalent of this article. Either way, do you have any more information on what needs merging? x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it refers to Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Heroes. If you want to merge those articles then you should probably propose it first as described at the link. PrimeHunter 23:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)