Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 March 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help desk
< March 13 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 15 >
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.


Contents

[edit] March 14

hi

[edit] IP edits

I read somewhere that IPs contribute the majority of content to Wikipedia. Is there a page which backs that up? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true - Alltogether 17779467 edits were made by anonymous users, out of a total of 57880392 edits (31%), per this page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the IP edits are vandalism or extremely minor edits (such as correcting minor grammatical mistakes). AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that's what I was after. Thanks. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: crude counts of anonymous edits do not count the number of users who have registered accounts and merely forget to use them. Wikipedia does not require users to log in before editing; it's easy for a registered user to be reading Wikipedia without having logged in, and make quick typo correction edits to articles while reading them. Undoubtedly some fraction of those "anonymous" edits are actually by registered users (some of my edits have been inadvertantly "anonymous"). Also, the count of anonymous edits does not count the number of unregistered editors who would register if that was required for editing. In short, nobody can be entirely sure exactly what to conclude from the number of edits made by non-logged-in users. About the only thing we can be reasonably sure of is that most of the vandalism is by users who have not logged in, but again, that by itself tells us nothing about how much the vandalism would decline if logging in were necessary. The present Wikipedia policy of not requiring log-ins to edit is based on no conclusive data. --Teratornis 16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Userpages

Hello, I was just wondering how I can view all the pages that exist within the User Page, such as my Welcome template or the list of Users I respect. Thanks! --Sukh17 T • C • E 02:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Nevermind, I figure it out. Thanks! --Sukh17 T • C • E 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to disambiguate a new article.

I plan to contribute an article about a free service of a medical foundation titled "MultiGraph". There is already an mathematical article with the same title.

I think the policy is to disambiguate rather than change the title to something like "MultiGraph, plot your own medical history".

How do I go about this?

Thanks, JFistere 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Use different title such as MultiGraph (medical foundation) or something else that follows the WP:NC, and place a disambiguation note on top of the Multigraph article. If you need further help, just ask. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:NOT and WP:ATT, it's not clear that an entire Wikipedia article is appropriate for this free service. An external link, in the prostate cancer article, might really be enough. 20:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] i want Last of the Summer Wine back!

  Why aint the Last of the Summer Wine on.I want it back!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.29.7.3 (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Are you referring to the article entry? If so, it's here: Last of the Summer Wine AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I suspect this person is complaining a tv channel isn't showing the program anymore. We can't help there. You'd have to call the channel. We're an encyclopedia. - Mgm|(talk) 08:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Same IP user

What is the appropriate tag for noting that two IP addresses are used by the same person? I don't think {{sockpuppet}} is appropriate, or is it? -- Black Falcon 07:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would use {{IPsock}}, but that only applies when an IP user is a sockpuppet of a registered user. -- Black Falcon 07:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not really a problem unless the two accounts are being used as if they were separate people (for example, to evade WP:3RR policy). WP:SOCK doesn't forbid multiple accounts - rather, it forbids certain uses of them. And it doesn't matter if they are IP addresses (e.g., work and home) or registered address, or a mix - multiple accounts are acceptable only under some circumstances. If there is a problem, you can always post at WP:AN/I. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renewable energy

Not all of the "Renewable energy" article is being displayed. I went in to edit the "Renewable energy commercialization" section of the article, and found much more material there (on the editing page) than is being displayed in the main article page. Whole sections of material are missing on the main article page. This problem occurred after someone did some editing associated with the citations. Could some sort of problem have been inadvertently introduced?

I know this sounds wierd, but could you have a look at the page for me please.

thanks, john

PS. I thought there might be a problem associated with my computer, but all other Wikipedia pages and everything else is just fine. Johnfos 08:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It appears to have been caused by spaces within the reference formatting. I've fixed it and I'm going to inform the person who I think caused it. - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding photos?

How can I add photos to an article? I have photos that I have taken myself that would be relevant to an article in Wikipedia. Thank you. H. Cheifetz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamtone (talk • contribs) 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

First, you upload the images to Wikipedia. In order to do this, you will need to licence the image so that Wikipedia can use it without copyright problems; on the upload page, there is a drop-down box of possible licences, and you should choose a licence under 'self-made images'. Once you've done that, see Help:Image for how to include the image in an article. Hope that helps! --ais523 09:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Text Size Can Be Increased in Firefox

I was struggling with the size of editing text in Internet Explorer 7. Using IE7's enlargement made no difference to the editing text.

However, Firefox text enlargement does increase editing text.

Perhaps Wiki could alert Microsof to the issue and any future edition of IE do what might reasonably be expected?

Paul Burns / Wendwell

Wikipedia's run mostly by volunteers; I'm not sure if any of us would have any more influence with Microsoft that you do. --ais523 11:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats why I use firefox - especially with add-ons it has much greater functionality and flexibility that IE7 IMHO. I doubt Wikipedia can influence Microsoft on this issue - it took them years to catch on to the tab idea. Cheers Lethaniol 12:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] meta file for wiki

Recently we started a wiki and I have been adding articles etc. Now I'm wondering in HTML you can create metadata to summarize the page content. Can I do this for wiki page? Lets say I have a page called eggs. When I search for egg the page wouldn't be found. Can I tell the wiki to redirect the search for egg to the page eggs?


Carnelain 12:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Redirect. If you have reasonably new wiki software, you should be able to do the same. - Mgm|(talk) 12:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] templates

I'm working on another wiki then wikipedia. On this wiki I can't use templates or at least not babel. How come? What can I do about it? Carnelain 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

They probably don't have those templates defined. On the other wiki you'd have to create a page "Template:babel" copying the source code of Template:Babel, which should then let you use it over there. --Maelwys 15:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I defined some templates in the wiki babel; en-x etc but it isn't working. I started copy templates like :! :- etc but it still doesn't work what other templates do I need. Carnelain 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You really should take questions about other wikis to either the administrators of those wikis, or the Wikipedia:Reference desk. This page is intended to help people who want to know something about editing Wikipedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Another place to ask is: mw:Project:Support desk, but here is some general advice on copying templates to other MediaWiki wikis.
  1. Compare Special:Version on the source wiki to the same page on the destination wiki; the MediaWiki version numbers had better be close (Wikipedia tends to be ahead of other wikis, because the MediaWiki software gets tested here before the rest of the world gets a new version). Also compare the installed extensions on both wikis. A template might need an extension which is on Wikipedia but not on your wiki.
    • For example, many complex Wikipedia templates use various operators that fall under the heading of parser function extensions. Examine the wikitext source of your desired extension to see if it uses any operators that require installing an extension on your wiki. If your wiki needs another extension to be installed, you have to contact the wiki administrator and see if they will do that.
  2. If your destination wiki checks out on the version and required extensions, then you have to determine all the additional templates your desired template itself transcludes (what programmers call its "dependencies"). You can get the first set of them by editing the template, and looking below the edit window for the list of templates your template transcludes. You have to copy all of those, check each of them for dependencies, and copy all of those that you haven't copied yet. You're done when finally none of the templates you copied are trying to include yet more templates.
If this all sounds like quite a chore, welcome to the pleasures of MediaWiki administration! As time goes on, and more people set up their own MediaWiki sites, programmers will probably come up with tools to simplify copying useful from things from well-developed wikis such as Wikipedia. But for now, it involves lots of grunt work. If you can't figure out how to export a particular template to another MediaWiki wiki, you might ask on its talk page for a list of extensions the template uses. --Teratornis 03:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks guys I contacted a moderator and waiting for his anwser. I was probably going ahead of myself. Carnelain 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove "minor edit" designation?

I just entered a change that was not a minor edit, but I forgot to uncheck the box that says it is. Is there any way to remove that designation on the History page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AmateurHistorian (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

No. Just make another inconsequential edit and explain what you actually did. Xiner (talk, email) 16:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The 'minor' designation (as well as other data associated with the edit such as the edit summary) can't be changed once the edit is saved. Don't worry about it too much, though – provided the edit was constructive, nobody is likely to care or even notice. There is no universally agreed-upon definition of what exactly a minor edit is anyway, so different people mark different things as minor. Also, anonymous users can't mark edits as minor – meaning that, all in all, the minor edit indicator isn't really that helpful and people tend to ignore it. It's still worth trying to use it properly, though, as it makes your own contributions easier to review (since you know what your own definition of 'minor' is) – Qxz 16:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much, folks. AmateurHistorian 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self warning for vandalism

I edit from this IP address, as I don't want to log into my account from here, I tend to patrol recent changes for vandalism. This afternoon I was checking the user contribs from my IP address, and noticed an edit that wasn't mine. Having checked the diffs, it was obviously vandalism, so I reverted it.

Should I warn myself (well, the IP address) or not?

cheers 212.85.28.67 16:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Since whoever actually made the edit is unlikely to read it now, there's no point; don't worry about it – Qxz 16:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting a user

How do you delete someone who is clearly abusing Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kumorigachi (talk • contribs) 17:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

You cannot delete someone or User accounts from wikipedia as it goes against the GNUFDL, administrators can temporarily block them or indefinitely block them depending on the severity, if they are vandalism then you can use warning templates located here and if they vandalise after their fourth warning then you can list them for blocking at WP:AIV but they may not be blocked, they have to have received correct warnings. Hope this helps! Tellyaddict 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Registered email address?

I need to know which email address I registered for the username "ryanamacher" and if I can you change it to my current e-mail address. <email address redacted>

We are not capable of doing that, for technical (only developers have the ability) and legal (you can't prove you registered the account) reasons. If you can still log into your account, you can do it, but otherwise you need to make a new account. If you made no edits in your old account, you can usurp it. Prodego talk 19:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two articles with same name

I want to create an article on the California writer Idwal Jones. Wikipedia already features an article named Idwal Jones, who was a British politician. How can I create the new entry?

Thanks

Tbeers 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow this link: Idwal Jones (writer). Create the article there, and then at the top of the page, add:
{{for|the politician|Idwal Jones}}
which will produce:
For the politician, see Idwal Jones.
Then go to Idwal Jones, edit it and add this to the top of the page:
{{for|the writer|Idwal Jones (writer)}}
which will produce:
For the writer, see Idwal Jones (writer).
– Qxz 18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What if you want to add some information to an existing entry? I see that Every Nation Ministries is taking a lot of criticism, and I can only add to that. They are not clear on their doctrinal beliefs, and I wanted to add some information about a pastor who was recently fired for his beliefs.

This will further illustrate that Every nation ministries is not really distancing themselves from Maranatha, or from the Shepherding movement, but still have grave issues doctrinally.

Thank you,

To create an article about a idividual which is not yet there but a article with that name still exists for a different person the create an article with something like Idwal Jones (writer) or create a disamiguation page.Tellyaddict 18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
To add information to an existing entry, just go to that article and click the "edit this page" button at the top of the page. Make your changes in the box that appears, fill in the edit summary field, and click "Save page" – Qxz 18:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creating a new page

I have tried creating a new page for a charity that I think should be in here. I did all the work, but when I run a search, it says that there is no page. What am I doing wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamaristan (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Make sure that when typing into thr search box that you have capitalised the areas in which you did when naming the article, if this does not work then check the deletion log (type the name of the article in first into the title bar) then if nothing appears, it has not been deleted, if an administrator deleted it, it must of met the criteria for speedy deletion.Tellyaddict 18:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about The Global Fund for Children? Fastest way to find what you've worked on is by clicking on "my contributions" in the top right corner. If it's not there, it was probably deleted. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removing unsuported statements?

In the 'life' heading of GERALD B. GARDNER, the following statement is made,

"1951 he had received permission from others in the coven to discuss the tradition more openly in the two non-fiction books."

Yet the supporting evidence to this does not exist. This is part of the problem about Gerald Gardner's claims - did he invent Wicca or did he officially expand it from a coven he belonged to?

Without historical evidence, is permissable to delete that statement from the section of Gerald Gardners life?

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.107.153.184 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

If a statement or sentence in an article is not verified by the sources so making it not reliable then you can mark it with {{fact}} or {{or}}. Hope this helps! Tellyaddict 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have good reason to believe an unsourced statement may be inaccurate, I see no problem in removing it outright. Just specify in your edit summary why you're doing so. If you're removing a lot of content, it's a good idea to also post something on the talk page. -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright policy on "fan site kit" images?

This image has been tagged as being a derivative work of an image that was originally under the Public Domain. Does anyone know what's the deal with images included in a "fan site kit"? --Remy Suen 19:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on a lot of factors, but mainly the issuing company's copyright policy. First, if it was not issued by the company that created the characters, its probably a copyright infringement no matter what the website says. If it is issued by the creator, it would depend on their definition of a fansite. If it says anything about only non-commercial use, then it isn't public domain for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a fansite and does not promote products, so that may also need to be taken into consideration as fansites are effectively free advertising, while Wikipedia may also present the negative aspects of something, which the copyright holder may not like. If they say something alsong the lines of "This image has no copyright and is released into the public domain," then it fine. But right now, you have 2 tags on the image, a public domain tag and a fair use tag. The fair use tag doesn't apply though, 1320x695 is not low-resolution, a requirement for fair use. A quick look at the website though and it appears it is not in the public domain, and a simple photoshop collage of a few characters is still most likely protected by their copyright. I would say, by a look at the Flyff article, you have way too many images to qualify as fair use. Any game screenshot or picture from the website is copyrighted and for fair use, you need a linited number of low-resolution images. Right now, you have 12. I would suggest either removing some, or emailing the company and asking for permission. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NEUTREL VIEW POINT

WHAT WORDS IN AN ARTICLE MAKES THE ARTICLE SOUND LIKE AN ADVERTISEMENT, INSTEAD OF A NEUTREL VIEW POINT.66.153.116.53 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's usually more the totality of the words, than any specific phrases. Also, oftentimes it's a case of you know it when you see it. Oh, and please turn off the caps lock. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 19:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
In general, an article should not suggest that the reader do something, or that the person who wrote the article feels a certain way about its subject. Please read this policy for more details. GracenotesT § 19:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It isn't about particular words, but the whole way things are written. I like to ask myself this question when I write: can you tell my opinion from what I write? Do I think something is good or bad? If you can tell, I have failed as an editor. Notinasnaid 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are asking about Tridestined Studios. I did a little analysis. This may seem harsh, but this is how Wikipedia editors read stuff. Tri Destined studios is one of the major American film studios created to fill the void in the market place for quality entertainment that reflects all cultures of America with emphasis on exposing communities that are underrepresented yet craved in the marketplace.

Problem: "major film studio". MGM is a major film studio. [1] says this company has produced 3 films. This is an alert: clearly the writer is trying to make this company sound bigger than it is.

Problem: "quality entertainment", "craved in the marketplace" are subjective. Would everyone agree they are quality entertainment? Does everybody crave them?

The company also focuses on the hiring and development of talent, which are usually unable to gain employment or educational access in the world of media entertainment.

Problem: this sounds like an advert saying this company has a good track record. What does "usually" mean (see Wikipedia:Weasel words)? If there was a citation saying "According to Time Magazine, 75% of those hired go on to gain employment or - well what is educational access, too?

This group includes Women, Minorities, Senior Citizens and persons with disabilities.

Our subsidiary, Tri Destined Studios, is comprised of five Powerhouses: ...

Problem: "powerhouse" is just saying how great they are.

Huge problem: "our subsidiary" is written in the first person. This means that it has been written by the company about itself! This is enough, really: the article can have no credibility. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Do not write about your own company!.

Notinasnaid 19:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I have tagged it for deletion under CSD G11 and left a message on the creator's talk page. Though I don't expect any reply, since his/her userpage and talk page were empty. Adrian M. H. 20:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I would add that even "fill the void" and other such buzzwords and phrases add eo an article looking like an ad. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
In general, the vast majority of advertisements amount to prevarication at the very least, or outright lies at worst. That is, when an advertiser sticks to objectively true statements, the advertiser will typically mention only those facts which encourage the customer to buy the product or service, and omit facts which encourage the customer to do something else (except when required by law). For example, military recruiting commercials often depict scenes of heroic soldiering, but they rarely depict soldiers who have been disfigured or had limbs blown off, much less soldiers who are serving time in military prisons. Automobile commercials tend to feature attractive people enjoying drives on pristine, empty roads through spectacular scenery, but they rarely show traffic jams, potholes, drive-by shootings, roadside litter, obese drivers gorging on fat-laden fast foods, the immense human costs of automobile violence, or the impact of oil dependency on foreign policy and global climate. Almost everything has both "good" and "bad" aspects, and when people have some sort of a stake in something, they have trouble giving both the favorable and unfavorable facts equal weight. Cultivating NPOV is hard, and few people arrive at Wikipedia having had much real-life training in neutrality. The concept is really quite foreign to most people. Most people seem happier choosing sides, and then only telling half the story about a thing. --Teratornis 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snazzy block quote marks

I've seen somepages (forgotton now which ones) that have some very snazzy extra-large purple block quote marks. How do I do the same? Is it a standard wiki markup? Thanks peterl 21:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • See {{cquote}}, the template that produces that. It generally shouldn't be applied to articles, but they're pretty, indeed... I have them on my user page. GracenotesT § 21:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There's also {{Cquote2}} and {{Cquotetxt}} if you fancy. x42bn6 Talk 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Lovely. Thank you. peterl 23:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to Criticism

I've noticed a lot of pages have a 'Criticism' section. If there is a very, attributable response to that criticism, should I create a new section below the Criticism (called 'Response to criticism' or the like), have it as a sub-section to the Criticism, or some other technique? Thanks peterl 21:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the topic, really. You might want to have a "Criticism" and "Support" section if people are commenting about the topic itself. In other cases, you might want to put the "Response to criticism" content in the "Criticism" section itself, if the responses refer extensively to the original critique. There is no clear-cut thing to do, though, and best to use common sense, and make sure that an article isn't biased due to undue weight. GracenotesT § 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that there is a set standard way to handle this. In my own personal opinion, adding yet another section turns the article into a glorified list of bullet points and detracts from readability. I would personally try to meld all the information into one section. I think if flows better. Dismas|(talk) 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove the following content

> in the following article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Galaxies#SOE_blames_Lucas_Arts

one of your members states that:

"The President of Sony Online Entertainment, John Smedley, gave permission to a blogger to publish an email in which he states: "Unfortunately in this case we aren’t the only decision makers." The email was interpreted to mean that John Smedley blamed the decision to launch the NGE on Lucas Arts."

The citation given is #49 which links to my blog:

http://edgecase.net/devsite/blogs/a_clockwork_mind/archive/2006/09/18/Kudos-to-Smed.aspx


I request that you remove this article because the interpretation is unofficial, only my own, i am not associated with SOE or LucasArts and it is simply not the case that SOE has ever blamed LucasArts for anything, publicly or (to my knowledge) privately.

Frankly, this kind of foolishness is not something which any worthwhile form of encyclopaedia would ever publish.

Regards,

Richard Bryant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.12.207.220 (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Removed it. Blogs aren't considered reliable sources, and this is exactly why. -Wooty Woot? contribs 22:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, you could easily have removed it yourself. Anyone can edit, after all. Adrian M. H. 22:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with user...

I've had a bit of a problem lately - an anon 216.165.158.7 has been repeatedly redirecting (replacing with a redirect) the page Photoshop tennis to the page Photoshop contest, insisting that Photoshop tennis is non-notable. I have reverted the change several times (4 times total, over about 4 days), and repeatedly requested that the user explain on the article's talk page why he or she believes that the article should be redirected. The user has, each time refused, on the basis that "there's nothing to discuss." I have noticed that the user also changed Photoshopping in a similar manner. Since I don't want to escalate the conflict, but truly believe that the user is ignoring all attempts to communicate that I do not agree with his or her point of view, I ask: What can I do to resolve this situation, aside from giving in and allowing these articles to be effectively deleted? In addition, I suspect (but cannot prove) that this anon is actually a logged-out User:DreamGuy, based on similar edit summaries, patterns, and articles edited (see anon's and DreamGuy's, and similar patterns of talk page warning removal, see anon (iffy) and DreamGuy.) Regardless, I hope that this can be resolved, but I'm not sure how to go about accomplishing that - please advise me. Thank you, Nihiltres 22:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please respond on my talk page Nihiltres 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the IP on notability, but I will revert and AfD it for discussion. -Wooty Woot? contribs 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to delete wikipedia entry after successful friendly transwiki?

I moved Pinewood derby car modifications to Wikibooks:How To Build a Pinewood Derby Car and I need to get the WIkipedia page deleted. I tried an author speedy delete (G7 criterion) but an editor thought that there were too many non-author contributions. I tried a PROD, but another editor thought I should use speedy delete. Speedy delete for transwiki (A5 criterion) requires AfD discussion, but there hasn't been any discussion there since this is a friendly transwiki. So do I run it through AfD or is there something I missed in speedy delete? --Kkmurray 23:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if an unfriendly transwiki is possible, but it sounds like if you AfD this article, an admin will be able to delete it per process at closing. Xiner (talk, email) 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The criteria is CSD A5. However that requires the transwiki to have gained consensus at AfD, so you need to AfD the article. Prodego talk 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how change contributer name in edit history?

The last time I did an edit I forgot, didn't login, and in the edit history it just shows the ip address. How do I change that to claim that edit and have it reflect my login user name, etc.


the page edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marjayoun&action=history

my ip when I edited it: 216.63.136.193

My current user name: ChristopherMassad


the edits:

07:54, 27 January 2007 216.63.136.193

07:52, 27 January 2007 216.63.136.193 (added discription of area, photos, external links, including official web site for Municipality. CM.)


Thank You. CM.

Sorry, it is not possible to reattribute IP edits to a registered user. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well actually, reattribution is possible...but the service was suspended some time ago. See Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 06:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)