From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help desk
< May 8	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 10 >

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 1 May 9 1.1 Inappropriate usernames 1.2 who are the people who edit pages 1.3 afd sockpuppet template 1.4 Tapas Acupressure Technique 1.5 How to submit the article: 1.6 Pages not showing on my watchlist 1.7 Suspicious logging trouble 1.8 wikipedia on cd/dvd 1.9 Unimportant Issue 1.10 Creating a previously deleted article 1.11 choosing categories for article 1.12 Citing Sources 1.13 Wikipedia updates 1.14 theresalopez 1.15 How do I edit a title? 1.16 Fancy signatures 1.17 media 1.18 PEO Sisterhood 1.19 Need Help On Meaning Behind Certain Context 1.20 The new virtual classroom lesson is... 1.21 Logged out 1.22 Shepard Smith 1.23 Arcade Fire: incorrect link 1.24 Maintenance Committee 1.25 Vandalism edit summary template? 1.26 How do you put pictures from the Internet to Wikipedia

[edit] May 9

[edit] Inappropriate usernames

Lately there has been a rash of inappropriate usernames being created to edit the Jenna Jameson and Masuimi Max articles. If you visit the histories of those pages, you'll see what I mean. Max history & Jameson history. I think they're the same person who has no life and nothing better to do than waste other people's time. So, is there anything that can be done to head this off or do we just have to wait till they get bored and go find some other hobby like kicking old people or whatever it is that these people do in their down time? Dismas|^(talk) 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You could request the pages be semi-protected, which would prevent IP addresses and accounts less than 4 days old from editing. If the person is really that bored, then they probably won't want to wait four days just to make a nuisance of themselves. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 00:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to block account creation for an IP. I don't know whether that would be justified and effective here. PrimeHunter 01:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I read those edits; YUK! Such a disgrace should've never been placed. But I have a question: Why didn't an administrator revert th edits? Meldshal42 Please ban those users and their Ip adresses! They don't deserve the chance to strike again! Meldshal42

[edit] who are the people who edit pages

Do you have any kind of policy that people who edit pages should say who they are? Give any information about themselves, so people reading wikipedia pages have some idea about the qualifications of editors?

For example, one editor of the social change page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_change is SiobhanHansa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SiobhanHansa

but he says on his page "I don't intend telling you anything about me" So people who use wikipedia don't know anything about whether siobhahhansa knows anything about social change. He could be someone who knows nothing and so might be totally unqualified to edit this page. Or he could be someone who knows something and could be very well qualified. But since he won't say anything about himself, no one knows whether he is qualified enough to edit this page.

It would be good if wiki editors usually gave some information about themselves.

thanks

gene shackman gsociology 00:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia used to have a policy here that specifically stated that information is not required. Since anyone can edit the encyclopedia, even without an account, it would be impossible to collect correct information about everyone. If user X really doesn't know what he's talking about, we require that all sources are cited with verifiable sources. Any non-sourced or unverifiable source can be challenged and removed at any time, often within a few minutes. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 01:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello gsociology. The idea is that because all additions to Wikipedia should reliably sourced and not be original research by the writer, the qualifications of the editor are irrelevant. Anyone can contribute to a topic provided they do so neutrally and can back up their additions with good references. In fact it is considered poor form to assert your credentials as a way of gaining an advantage over other Wikipedians in a dispute about content. It is important for information to be verifiable and that a consensus is reached among editors, but people are free to remain anonymous... WjBscribe 01:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia is edited by Wikipedians. :) Wikipedia is radically open to editing from anywhere and anyone, whenever possible. While that causes a number of problems, it is also one of the project's greatest strengths, and one of the main reasons we've gotten as far as we have. In particular, user privacy (and the ability to edit largely anonymously, even without registering) is actually one of the few "foundation issues" -- policy decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation and unlikely to be overturned without considerable discussion. Partly, there's not much point asking for personal information if we're not going to go to the trouble of verifying it, which brings up all sorts of privacy issues and other pitfalls. There are some other wikis (Citizendium, for example) that require all editors to identify themselves with a verified "real-life" name; you could have a peek and see if that's more to your liking. Not my thing, personally, but to each their own. :) Hope that answers some of your questions. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You also have to be able to assume good faith when people are editing - unless it's very clear they're here just to cause trouble, we like to assume that people are trying to contribute helpfully. If they make a mistake, as happens, we remove the error and help them correct it for the future. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 01:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is from Gene again, in response to the above. All of the anonymousness and reliable source stuff sounds good, and as you mention is quite useful very often. But there are, as you mention, problems. Again, I'll use the social change page, as that is what I know about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_change The ONLY reference given for material on this page is this Rajan, Chella. "Global Politics and Institutions". Frontiers of a Great Transistion. Vol. 3. Tellus Institute, 2006.

but this is a reference for only a very small part of the page. As it happens, I wrote several parts of the wiki social change page, years ago, before there was a lot of the newer requirements about reliable sources. The sources I cited were my reports (which of course I consider reliable, and if you take a look, I'm sure you will too). For example, the wiki social change page says "These changes did not happen equally throughout the world, however. For example, in 1960, infant mortality rates were more than 4.5 times higher in developing countries than it was among industrialized countries. In 2000, infant mortality rates in developing countries was about 10 times higher than was IMR in industrialized countries. That is, infant mortality rates declined faster among the more developed countries." This is directly from my summary report http://gsociology.icaap.org/report/repsum.html but my report is not cited, and in fact there is no citation at all for most of what is on the WIKI page. Other material on this page is also from my reports. The people who edit the page evidently don't know much about where the material on the page came from. I made some comments on the 'talk' section of the social change page, writing that since the material is from my reports, then my reports should be cited, or the material should be removed, unless someone got my permission.

The problem is that since the people who edit this page don't give much information about themselves, no one knows whether they know anything about social change, and thus cannot tell whether their edits are reasonable. The page cites only one source, for a very small part. The rest of the page has no references. Thus, the -impression- is that the people who edit this page don't know enough to cite appropriate sources, or really any sources.

Some of the people who edit the page signed in to edit, so they have 'talk' pages or their own page, and again, it would help if there were some minimal information about who these people were.

thanks

gene gsociology 01:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're placing far too much weight on "qualifications." Wikipedia is meant to be edited by anyone, and thus you will get laypersons editing articles on specialized topics that may fall outside their pervue. However, to compensate, any edits are subject to verifiability. If a statement in an article is not cited, you can tag it with {{fact}} at the end of the sentence to indicate it needs a citation. Or, if you know of a verifiable source, you can cite it yourself! That's the best part about Wikipedia: if you can find something that's A) wrong or B) unsourced, you can correct the error and/or cite the material yourself to improve the article.

The downside to this would be citing your own works, which you have indicated. This could be seen by some as a conflict of interest, so it would at least be worth mentioning on the Talk page for the article to see if anyone objects. Further, we cannot include original research in our articles, for verifiability purposes, so the research would have to be published in an established journal or magazine before it could be cited on Wikipedia.

Hopefully that helps explain Wikipedia's policies a bit more. Please continue to contribute, as all input can be helpful in expanding Wikipedia's articles! -- Kesh 04:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] afd sockpuppet template

I think I've seen a template used in AFD discussions that a voter has made few or no edits before the AFD. Does anybody know what the template is? Thanks. --JianLi 01:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

template:spa. PrimeHunter 02:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tapas Acupressure Technique

This Technique is listed by the wiki as a pseudoscience. A study was recently published which would negate the use of this comment. Please remove the false statement.

Following is a summary of the recent study on TAT:

NIH STUDY ON TAT ®

Short summary: In 2005, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded a pilot study with scientists from the Kaiser Center for Health Research and the University of Arizona comparing TAT for weight loss maintenance with two other approaches (Qi Gong and behavioral advice). Each group was given 10 hours of instruction in the method they used. The TAT group gained little weight whereas the other two groups gained at least six times as much. The authors were impressed with TAT and recommended further study. Below is a summary of the preliminary report by the research team. A full write-up including interviews with participants is planned for publication in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2007.

Mist, S., Elder, M., Aickin, M., & Ritenbaugh. 2005. A randomized trial of Tapas Acupressure Technique ® for weight loss maintenance.

Published in : Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies.10.38-39 [a quarterly review journal presenting evidence-based approaches to health care]. Abstracts of 12th Annual Symposium on Complementary Health Care. 19-21st September. 2005. Exeter , UK .

Location of research : Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, 2800 N. Interstate Ave. , Portland , U.S.A. & University of Arizona , Tucson , Arizona , OR 97227, U.S.A.

Description : This scientifically rigorous, randomized and controlled study provides support for TAT as a helpful approach for people with weight problems. The aim of the study was to compare TAT with two other interventions for helping people maintain weight loss after they had successfully lost excess weight (at least 3.5 kg) on a behavioral program. TAT was compared with Qigong and Self-directed support (a simple cognitive-behavioral approach with advice and encouragement). All three approaches involved 10 hours of instruction over a 12-week period. The outcome measure was weight gain. 92 adults were involved in the study.

After three months, the group using TAT had not gained any weight, but the Self-Directed Support group gained an average of 0.35 kg. At 6 months the Self-Directed Support group had gained 1.5 kg., but the TAT group had gained only 0.25 kg. Qigong was found too difficult for the participants to practice, and this group gained the most weight of all. There were no adverse effects of TAT.

The authors conclude: "TAT was a feasible intervention, warranting further study as a potential weight maintenance intervention." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.196.197.125 (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

If you notice an error with an article, Be Bold and fix it. For more information on how to cite sources, see WP:CITE or WP:FOOT. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 11:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I see this information is now in the article. I have done a little work to balance the two conflicting study findings in the introduction and add standardised references. However, Wikipedia articles cannot just contain abstracts of articles like the above, with or without permission. It must be rewritten in encyclopedic form, with citations. I will have to leave this to someone with more familiarity with the subject matter, or at least someone who can figure out from the above what specific journal to cite. Notinasnaid 11:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Occasionally, preliminary studies appear to support pseudoscientific or paranormal claims, or even potentially scientific claims such as cold fusion, but then later studies fail to replicate the results. This is particularly true when the systems under study are as complex as human beings, with enormous numbers of potentially confounding variables that are difficult to enumerate, let alone control. That's why the authors of the study say their results only prove that more study is warranted. It takes more than one study to convince the scientific community of something, because anyone who has done scientific experiments knows the field of experimentation routinely produces some irreproducible results, particularly when investigating phenomena for which there isn't even a testable mechanism being proposed. For something like TAT to get promoted from pseudoscience to science would require more than mere empirical observations of its effectiveness, unless perhaps such observations were so earthshakingly obviously as to be undeniable. It would also need some theoretical mechanism which itself is testable in isolation. Instead what we have is:

• The underlying theory is that trauma leads to a blockage of energy and that by applying light pressure to one of four areas (inner corner of either eye, between eyebrows, or back of head) this energy is released and the trauma resolved. Throughout this process, the person concentrates on the objectional material or need for illness, thus resolving the blockage and offering healing.

This "theory" does not appear to define the special meaning of "energy" in the first sentence, nor does it propose a mechanism whereby this "energy" can be "blocked." Scientists have, over several centuries of work, come up with a pretty specific definition for energy (for example, energy has been comprehensively shown to be a conserved quantity), along with a whole range of ways to measure it, and to use the word as sloppily as is common in the field of alternative medicine strongly suggests vitalism and pseudoscience. The consistent trend over the past two centuries has been for vitalism to have been increasingly discredited; as scientific techniques have improved, and scientists have become able to look ever more closely at the processes of life, all they find are molecules behaving naturally, just as they do in non-living systems.

Consider the caloric theory of heat, and how Count Rumford discredited it by constructing experiments to test the proposed mechanism. This was possible because the caloric theory gave rise to some testable predictions, which, upon testing, did not hold. For a theory to be "scientific" it must be similarly testable (i.e., falsifiable). If the theory stands up to every possible test over a long enough time for scientists to become confident in the theory, it becomes provisionally regarded as "true."

Consider how continental drift earned its promotion from pseudoscience to real science: the discovery of plate tectonics provided a credible, testable mechanism, and then the theory was able to explain a whole range of geological phenomena (such as orogeny) that previously defied explanation.

For another example of the importance of mechanism, the germ theory of disease is part of science because it proposes a mechanism with definite, directly observable meaning (we can view actual germs under microscopes). Knowing that germs are involved immediately creates a whole range of testable predictions which scientists can explore in isolation from each other. For example, scientists can culture microbes in petri dishes, isolate the toxins they produce, inject those toxins into laboratory animals, and duplicate the symptoms of an actual infection.

The laws of Mendelian inheritance were initially worked out by large-scale empirical observation of whole organisms, long before scientists had any real idea what a gene was. Later the discovery of DNA reduced genetics to chemistry, and allowed each step in the complex process of inheritance to be isolated and independently tested, and the whole thing fits neatly into a gigantic structure of scientific knowledge.

The above examples from thermodynamics, geology, medicine, and biology illustrate the importance of mechanism to theory. For TAT to earn scientific status, it needs a theory which makes some independently testable predictions apart from the practice of the technique itself. For example, the "energy" which is being "blocked" must somehow be measurable directly, or it must manifest itself in other ways which can be tested. In particular, since we know energy is conserved, this "energy" must originate somewhere outside the human body, it must ultimately dissipate into the environment, and these energy exchanges must be measurable (for example via calorimetry). --Teratornis 15:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to submit the article:

––I have question for you ,I need to know and Please help & guide me how to use and submit the article through you.And I need your phone # Please.

Sincerely Zohreh Tamjidi

WWW.ZTAMJIDI.COM <email removed> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zohreh Tamjidi (talk • contribs) 05:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

For help starting a new article, see Help:Starting a new article. As far as getting anyone's phone number, that won't be necessary. Dismas|^(talk) 09:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also not a good idea to post your own private info here, as that could open you up to spam and other unpleasantness. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 11:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pages not showing on my watchlist

Occaisionally, I'll make an edit to an article (well, the two or three times I've noticed it I think they were all at the Ref desks), I'll then look at my watchlist, and the article is not shown on my watchlist at all. If I go to the page, my edit is still there, the page says that I'm watching the article since it has the "unwatch" link at the top but it's simply not on my watchlist. I have not clicked "Hide my edits" or anything like that. As a matter of fact, I just made an edit to the Science desk and noticed this phenomenom. Then I clicked "Hide my edits" and then "Show my edits" and this still didn't jar anything loose and list my edit. Does this happen to anyone else? Dismas|^(talk) 09:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's watchlist lag. Normally, this is too small to notice, but occasionally it gets sufficiently big that there are complaints about it on WP:VPT; it calms down after a while. (The same happens on Special:Contributions; if you make an edit and then hit your contribs straight away, sometimes it won't show up on your contribs.) --ais523 09:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. At least I know there's a reason now. Although it's weird since I'd expect a lag of a few seconds. Maybe up to 30 or so. But the page is still not showing up even now. I'll just wait though... Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 10:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There's another possible explanation specifically for Help Desk and Reference Desk edits. If you watch one of these pages, and then edit a question over a day old, it doesn't show up on the watchlist because you're actually editing a transcluded archive page (which keeps the edit-page sizes down), for much the same reasons that commenting on an RfA doesn't show up just because you're watching the RfA mainpage. --ais523 10:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think there is a problem. I haven't had my watchlist work for weeks. I have a macbook pro (firefox). Tkjazzer 05:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspicious logging trouble

I'm unable to log in, the system doesn't recognize my password. Has anyone experienced the same trouble recently?

Regarding the new anti-hacking notices appearing at the logging page, I suspect that my particular account has been hacked to prevent me from editing. It should be noted that many people which I'm in editing conflicts with are IT-experts in their real life.

I requested new password and going to ceize editing until the problem is solved. Ukrained —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.232.147 (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

There's more funny things: my Web-mail service in Ukraine is "temporarily unavailable". Just in time when I need it for receiving a new WP password. As far as I understand my mail address is stored somewhere close to my account data at the server. And crushing down a relatively small mail server is much easier than breaking WP.

P.S. My talk page is here. 195.137.232.147 12:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wikipedia on cd/dvd

can we get wikipedia cd's/dvd's to buy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.54.115.103 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

• A version with around 2000 checked articles can be bought on DVD here. The German Wikipedia also has DVDs available. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unimportant Issue

If you have something better to do, don't read this.

The yellow color in my archive is out of control. I do not know why.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 15:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page. Adrian M. H. 15:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creating a previously deleted article

An article was deleted because it did not establish notability. I have now fixed the article and notability is established. How do I go about putting the deleted article back on Wikipedia? Do I have to get permission from the Wikipedia community? Thanks very much. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 16:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you can just create the article. If you were building on content created by others, you can also request a history-only undeletion at WP:DRV#History_only_undeletion so the original authors are credited. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] choosing categories for article

I've written my "biography" for myself Victorya Micahels Rogers and it is just under the "basic" category. How do you choose the categories such as biography, people, etc?

Victorya 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)victorya

You seem only to have edited Wikipedia:Introduction, under "Test edits". This isn't an article: it's an area for you to test in, and will soon be wiped clean! This may be just as well. You should not in fact be writing an article about yourself in Wikipedia (see WP:COI guidelines). Notinasnaid 17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just refreshed that area after a more recent edit by an anon IP. Adrian M. H. 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Sources

I am writing an article in which I need to cite a lot of sources. It happens that some of the sources are cited more than once. Is there a way to get the ref tool to recognize that so that I dont have 5 different [#] all refering to the same source and just re-use the initial citation number?

Csblack 17:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Give the reference a name using <ref name="foo">...</ref> and then just add <ref name="foo"/>. See this page for an example. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia updates

Two weeks ago, I noticed that Reference.com updated their copy of Wikipedia to April 5. Answers.com's copy of Wikipedia STILL has not been updated; it still only goes up to February 10 (which isn't as bad as TheFreeDictionary.com, which still lists 2007 as an upcoming year). I wrote to Answers about it and they said "Different websites get their information from Wikipedia at different times". My question is: Why? Wouldn't it make a LOT more sense to send everyone who uses Wikipedia content their updates at the same time?66.218.19.98 18:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• We're not sending updates. They update when they decide to download fresh information. It's not in our power to speed it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, especially the See also section. The Transhumanist    00:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] theresalopez

how can i chat with theresa lopez-fitzgerald. can you please help me? she is from passions! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.54.131.135 (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Which one?

Theresa has been portrayed by Lindsay Hartley since July 5, 1999. During Lindsay's maternity leave in 2004, the role was temporarily assumed by Priscilla Garita from August 30 to October 8.

The Transhumanist    00:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do I edit a title?

Hi! I am a newbie. I just want to make the first letter of the last name uppercase. Thanks for any help! Danceswithwords 18:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)danceswithwords

As a new user, you can't. The process is to move the page to the correct capitalization. I've gone ahead and done it for you.

After you've been around for 4 days, there will be a move tab at the top of pages that you can move (rename). ~ BigrTex 18:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fancy signatures

How Do I get The Fancy Signatures that Everyone's Got? Lmc169 19:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Type ~~~~ at the end of your post and your signature will appear. Just as I did - Notinasnaid 20:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

When you go into your preferences, there is a box that says "Raw signature". If you want a fancy signature, you check the box and put the code into the box above it. If you look at the edit page you can look at my signature code for reference. LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 22:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#Sig for everything you want to know about signatures, and more. --Teratornis 06:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Im Being a pain here, Ive got this far but how do you put colours in it? _{Lmc 169} 14:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Viewing the markup that is created by users' signatures will reveal that. Plus, knowing the basics of CSS values. For example, Lara Love has used span tags with style attributes contained within them, while I use font tags in a similar way. Adrian M. H. 18:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You Lmc169 15:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] media

I would like to offer media files such as "fireball" for the deep purple page: how do i do this? These files are located in windows media player.

See Wikipedia:Media. If you have further questions, please let me know. Good luck. The Transhumanist    00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PEO Sisterhood

Hi there - For the entry on the PEO Sisterhood, there is information provided within the description that is very damaging to the over 100-year old traditions of this philanthropic group that supports educational opportunities for women.

I am a member of PEO and the literal translation of the acronym PEO is something that is private and kept to members as one of the special traditions of this organization. While it may not seem like a big deal to those not involved with this specific organization, to find this information readily available on your website is really upsetting to members as this is a special tradition. I don't think the public at large will be missing anything by removal of the statement in question.

I am requesting removal of the specific line under "Names" that states "Multiple published sources, however, state that "P.E.O." stands for "Protect Each Other".[1][2]"

If verification that the meaning of the acronym is never revealed publicly is needed, I would suggest contacting the organization via their website, www.peointernational.org

the link to the page is P.E.O. Sisterhood

kind regards, Amy Ebel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.154.91.225 (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

If it is verified, then you might have a hard time justifying its removal. Normally, you could be bold, but removing sourced material without discussion is pretty much classed as vandalism, so it might well get reverted. The article's talk page is the place to go if you want to raise the issue. Adrian M. H. 21:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. (See also Wikipedia's content disclaimer.) Since Wikipedia aims to compile all human knowledge, it does not omit facts simply because they are offensive to or considered insensitive by certain groups. It aims to have complete discussion of even potentially inflammatory topics, such as pornography or Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Calliopejen1 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by a group that claims to "support educational opportunities for women" while maintaining a policy which contradicts (even if just symbolically) the very basis of education, namely the free and open exchange of information. There have been, for example, exclusively male secret societies which maintained social advantages for their members by concocting all sorts of codes and insider knowledge, not to mention entire cultures that systematically kept secrets from women by denying them education. I can't imagine why a group of women, having historically been disproportionately victims of other people's knowledge hoarding, would want to mimic the tactics of their traditional oppressors. A main point of having computers is generally to make information more available to everyone, not just members of special groups who unilaterally decide amongst themselves what is proper for everyone else to know or not know (without consulting all those other people to see how they feel about being kept in the dark on something). And that means all kinds of information. I suggest to anyone who feels upset to see computers doing what they were designed to do - ripping down the deliberate barriers to knowledge that humans have historically used to oppress their fellow humans, along with the unintentional barriers that merely degrade our efficiency - it's time to bring those emotions in line with 21st century reality. One consequence of Moore's Law is that we can expect to see these kinds of shortsighted, unilateral attempts to prevent other people from knowing things becoming ever harder to sustain. See Scientology versus the Internet for one organization's attempt to fight progress with lawyers, and drag society back to the past when information was less available and thus easier for particular organizations to ration. --Teratornis 06:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need Help On Meaning Behind Certain Context

Hey, I have an article that's been nominated for deletion. It really needed cleaning up at first, and it looks like most of that is taken care of...except for "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance." But I thought I provided many valid sources in my article J.R. and Babe , and I need to know exactly what I am missing in the "real-world" context issue?

I mean, as for reliable sources, Wikipedia states that "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and I thought that I did that in my article. Reliabe sources are about a trusted publisher making the same claims as you.

I just don't see how my article differs all that much from a soap couple article such as Luke Spencer and Laura Webber, and I need help on this. I really want to save my article.

I don't mean to come off as slow in understanding things, but could you please tell me exactly what is meant by "real-world context" in this matter, and if the Luke and Laura article adds enough of this, so that I can better grasp to admire that article as example or not? Flyer22 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

J.R. and Babe are a fictional couple. Real world context would be things like:

• the actors who play them
• inspiration from their lives which the actors use for their characters (that is, what they bring to their roles)
• the people who developed the characters, the romance, and wrote their lines
• the inspiration for the couple and their ongoing relationship (how the writers came up with it)
• behind the camera politics
• the impact the fictional couple have had on viewers, politics, society... and the world
• the fictional couple's popularity
• number of posters, t-shirts, and coffe cups sold with the couple on them

... and so on.

I hope that helps. The Transhumanist    23:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One difference between the article J.R. and Babe and the possibly similar article Luke Spencer and Laura Webber may be that the former article was asked about on the Help desk and the latter was not. One of the interesting if somewhat perverse unintended consequences of new users asking about their new articles on the Help desk is that this tends to draw the scrutiny of experienced editors, many of whom may be vigorous deletionists, and only a few of whom are likely to have an enthusiast's interest in the topic which might motivate them to repair rather than remove. Although the Why was my article deleted? article does not mention because you called attention to your article on the Help desk as a possible answer to its titular question, that might actually apply to a small percentage of cases.

I suggest that while your article is still up, you copy it to another wiki specializing in its topic area. Generally these "partisan" wikis don't go around rampantly deleting content in their topic areas based on complex hairsplitting policy rules that seem almost designed to baffle new users. I'd like to help by searching WikiIndex for a suitable wiki, but at the moment WikiIndex appears to be down. However, I see Soap Operas on Wikia. You might try stashing your article there for relatively safer keeping while you fight to save it here. They seem to have few articles at the moment so they are probably begging for more content rather than looking for any pretext to delete. --Teratornis 06:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The new virtual classroom lesson is...

What does it take to improve an article to featured article status? To find out, read...

Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates.

Enjoy.

The Transhumanist   

[edit] Logged out

Everything from user 38.96.151.250 is by me when the system logged me out. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shepard Smith

Why are you saying there's no article about Fox News Channel's Shepard Smith when there is? I've read it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bard28 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Who says there isn't? There definitely is... Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arcade Fire: incorrect link

Hello,

I just noticed that an article I wrote several years ago is now linked on the Wikipedia entry for the rock band, Arcade Fire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcade_Fire

The link is at the bottom of the page, in the External Links section, under "Chemistry At Work" However, it links to the wrong issue - it directs here: http://archive.cbcradio3.com/issues/2005_01_28/index.cfm?page=04

but the correct link is this: http://archive.cbcradio3.com/issues/2004_11_19/main.cfm?IssueId=162&page=08

I know that Wikipedia discourages people from making corrections to wiki regarding themselves or things they've written, so I just thought I'd let you know, rather than making the correction myself. Hope this is the proper place in helpdesk to submit this.

best, Helen Spitzer Guelph, Ontario —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.214.68 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the heads-up; I've fixed the link. Incidentally, our policy about making edits involving things you've done yourself is at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and while linking to your own site is discouraged there I'm pretty sure no-one would have a problem with you fixing an existing link :) Confusing Manifestation 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maintenance Committee

Is any one interested in starting a special group known as the Maintenance Committee? The Maintenance Committee is a specialized group of people that are just dedicated to cleaning up Wikipedia and making it a better and reliable place to be. If anyone as any comments about this please go to my User talk:Senators or write below. This could be huge step forward for Wikipedia. Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 22:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Committee" sounds too official/bureaucratic, like it has some special governing authority or something. Howabout Wikipedia:WikiProject Maintenance ? The Transhumanist    23:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to present your proposal on Wikipedia's proposal page at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals). The Transhumanist    23:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Or try Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals for a new wikiproject proposals Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 18:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism edit summary template?

Is there a quick template to use in the edit summary for vandalism reverts? Something like {{Template:Unsigned}}, so it gets all the info on there quickly without having to type it out? Tbone762 23:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but there is something else. For revert tools see Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups (which has a rollback feature), and User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof (for all the anti-vandal power you will ever need!). Vandalproof includes autosummary completion, and a whole lot more. The Transhumanist   

Also, templates don't work in edit summaries. If you're doing only occasional vandalism reverts without any tools, you could always use the shorthand "rvv" that many editors use. —Mitaphane _?|! 23:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Tbone762 23:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do you put pictures from the Internet to Wikipedia

How do you place pictures from the Internet to Wikipedia? I tried copy and pasting but it didn't work.AnimeGoddess 23:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. In a nutshell, each image on Wikipedia is on it's own page, and to include an image on another page, you simply provide a link to it's page, and the image is displayed automatically. In order to get an image on its own page, you need to upload it. Please see Wikipedia:Images for instructions. The Transhumanist    23:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunalty, however, copyrighted material cannot be placed on Wikipedia if material (such as a picture) appears on another website it may be a copyright infringment to place it on Wikipedia. Scottydude _talk 02:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)