Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 November 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help desk
< November 24 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 26 >
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] November 25

[edit] how do i make my own article?

how do i make or type my own article so every one can see it on wiki. this is a really awsome site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Souljagirl6295 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Your first article. Happy wiking! NF24(radio me!) 00:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
But if you thinking of writing an article about yourself, you can't. --teb728 (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well it's not that you can't create an Autobiography, but doing so is strongly discouraged (see Wikipedia:Autobiography as to why). VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 06:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pages are automatically being added to my watchlist

I do vandalism reversion and sometimes I notice pages I reverted vandalism on being added to my watchlist automatically. Is their anything I can do to prevent this? Thanks.--Miss Pussy Galore (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you use twinkle, then there is a configuration available that stops this. If you are just doing it manually, then you must set your preferences to where it does not add pages by default. I (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links to Amazon?

Is it desireable to link pages of books and DVDs to Amazon? I look in Wikipedia if I want to know more about a book (customer ratings are not neutral enough in my opinion) and it would be convenient for users and probably profitable for Wikipedia.

Generally speaking, Wikipedia does not link to commercial sites. Please see WP:EXT for more information. Jeffpw (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:ISBN. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If ISBNs are properly linked they already link to every possible site imaginable. Linking to Amazon would give them an unfair advantage over all the other booksellers, so that is not desireable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Aclinton

SHOCKING!--144.82.106.145 (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question is about, could you please clarify? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 06:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I think hes referring the fact that he was editing for a "newspaper" to see how fast that it would get reverted. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 07:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact, 144.82.106.145 is so shocked he goes on a vandalism spree himself before being blocked. Perhaps this vandalism by journalists is only encouraging other vandals. Astronaut (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

How do you make those table like things on the side of cities with their population... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Write me (talk • contribs) 02:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You can for example use {{Infobox Settlement}}. There are other possibilities like many country specific infoboxes in Category:City infobox templates. You can see what an existing article did by clicking "edit this page" and looking at the source. The bottom of the window will have links to used templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My user page was deleted

I took the time to create a user page. There was a lot of content put on it. My user page was DAnglFrd. I saved my last changes and it logged me out, when i logged back in everything was gone. There was nothing in the deletion log. I was just wondering what happened.

Fred —Preceding unsigned comment added by DAnglFrd (talk • contribs) 02:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be the gremlins. Seriously, that is very frustrating but I checked the deletion log and no one deleted the page; it never saved. Always make it a habit of highlighting your text and copying it before clicking save and this will never happen. For really long posts or articles, it's advisable to save it for sure to a document on your computer. As for why you were logged out, that could be many things. I'm no computer expert but I can tell you they do some pretty random things at times. In any case, make sure your computer is accepting cookies, and make sure you click "remember me" when you log in. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I don’t know why you were logged out. But the fact that you were logged out explains why your page was not saved, for you can’t create a page unless you are logged in.
I’m sorry you lost your text. In addition to Fuhghettaboutit’s suggestions, you might have been able to recover your text after the logout if you had pressed the Back button of your browser. (If you had previewed your text that is—this doesn’t work for me unless I preview.) --teb728 (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP Fundraising

Hi, i just wanted to comment on WP fundraising. Sure the site is great and all but to say that without donations there would be no WP is a bit far fetched in my opinion. At worst if WP didn't have enough funds to operate then it would probably get bought out and be turned into a profit making business through ad revenue. So really you should say "donate to WP today to keep it an ad free zone". That is all. --79.72.5.42 (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • How can someone "buy out" Wikipedia? Not only would it go against all the foundation's principles, it would be a great problem for our non-profit status and could potentially lead to lawsuits from people who donated in the past. Also, there is no company that is "in" in the sense of owning Wikipedia stock or part of the organization, so no company is in the position to buy the foundation out. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] i am done

sombody please help me with a hard days night! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.198.153 (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

We have attempted to help. Replied on user talk. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Please say what you mean. What is your question if it isn't in the article (and do you know to click on the article's name in blue to find it?). Julia Rossi (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] problems registering as user

my IP address appears to be blocked. I have a home wireless network protected with a WEP and am sure that no other "casual" users apart from my direct family would be able to access the network. However, I edited two entries on the "House of Sorgo" page because that is my family, what is written on the page covers a minor branch of the family - anyhow please let me know how to register in order to update information, and also please advise how to add pictures so that the modern coat-of-arms, and family portraits to match the historical entries can be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.120.68.69 (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are able to edit this page, your account is not blocked. For more information on creating an account, see here. I don't see that you've made any edits to the page at House of Sorgo, so perhaps you didn't save the page. For more information there, see Help:Editing. I hope this helps. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the last two edits to House of Sorgo were from IPs 192.169.41.47 and 203.120.68.66, both different from the 203.120.68.69 you used above. So it looks like your ISP (Pacific Internet?) constantly changes your IP. I suspect that may be your problem. Perhaps someone else can confirm and if so tell you how to deal with the situation. --teb728 (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional events

I added "The Great Silence Epidemic" from The Phantom Tollbooth to 1712 in literature under a ===Fictional Events=== heading and had it removed with a comment "real-world events only." I wasn't sure if that was just one editor's opinion or if there was a guideline on this beyond the more general rule not to write in an in-universe style. So I posted a query at WP:BOOKS back in July and got no responses whatsoever.

Any thoughts on how I could best work to establish a consensus on this? Matchups (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with its removal. It is indiscriminate information in my opinion, and trivia. The title, the context, the way encyclopedias work, begs real events; things that actually ocurred in 1712, and not any thing at all which has literature and 1712 in common. It is akin to an almanac entry in which we would never expect to find a random tidbit about a fictional listing. And we would be opening up the doors to every fictional event that can be placed in any particular year. Then there's the larger context of weight. That article starts with the text "The year 1712 in literature involved some significant events" (emphasis added). Anything and everything that ocurred in 1712 is not fair game. Likewise, the Phantom Tollbooth is a wonderful book and very notable. A segment from it is very likely not and shouldn't, by extension, be listed in that article even if fictional events were proper.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The editor was indeed correct. You probably misunderstood the page title. If we were to include all sorts of fictional events in such articles they would become impossible to maintain. "in literature" means the page is for events about literature in the real world. - Mgm|(talk) 10:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the others. Category:Fictional timelines has some timelimes for well-known fictional universes but I don't think an isolated book should get an article for it's timeline. There is no Fictional events in 1712, and Timeline of fictional historical events was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Resolved.

Thanks, all. Although I was hoping for a different answer, I'm glad to get some answer so I can move on and contribute in more permissible ways. Matchups (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sharing a project

How can Share my project with Wikipedia?

I have few pages in constuction (I am doing) for Fruit Trees: How to Improve Trees and Grapevines, To Better and Faster grow. How to graft then with different kind of grafting, I have Pictures and Designs. How to Care Trees, Grapvines.Some of these cannot be found in Books, or see in TV.!

So for me it is inpossible to understand all your Rules.! But if some one want to help me, I think these are impotant to Share for Amateurs and Students, even to be learned in Schools, or Share in Developing Countries.?

I even can find Wikipedia e-mail to ask them, if they want to put in Web site.

Thank you

Koteli

24 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.92.183 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The pages at Help:Starting a new page and Wikipedia:Your first article should have most of the information you need. Before you begin, please carefully read through our policies and guidelines on notability, citing reliable sources for verification, neutrality, and formatting and article layout, where many new users commonly make mistakes. You may also want to consider checking out what Wikipedia is not, the deletion policy and criteria for speedy deletion so you know specifically what to avoid when writing your article. I hope this helps. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In addition to that, also notice that you should not post articles of your original research. Such articles or information will be promptly deleted or reverted and also read WP:V carefully. DSachan (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how the verifiability rules are in WikiBooks, but the titles of your articles suggest they are better suited for WikiBooks than for Wikipedia. Perhaps WikiHow is another suitable outlet. - Mgm|(talk) 10:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The "how to" suits WikiBooks, so off you go and contribute freely.Julia Rossi (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alumni referencing

I notice a lot of educational institutions list notable alumni sections and it got me wondering about the technical aspect of referencing each individual alumnus. Is there a commonly accepted way of doing this? If so could you provide an example from WP? Many Thanks --Jamesmh2006 05:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As a rule, we only list those alumni who are notable and have existing articles on Wikipedia. We do not list all alumni from any given university or other institution, and doing so would not only require a massive technical overhaul but also (most likely) violate a few privacy laws. If there is someone notable who does have an article or is very likely to have a substantial article created about them in the near future, you are welcome to add them to the list by adding the respective page. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles translated from foreign language versions

I need a third opinion.

If an article is translated from the foreign language version, it has to be listed on the bottom of the page, hasn't it? Seven (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It says nothing. Wikipedia talk:Translation has something though.
Copyrights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Translation#Copyrights Seven (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion at your last link (putting something to the effect of "translated from the xx-language wikipedia article xxxx" into the edit summary) is a good idea. This puts the translation notice in the article history for anyone interested to see. Putting a translation notice in the body of the article doesn’t make sense, for the entire translation might be replaced as the article evolves. --teb728 (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In the case of an editor neglecting to mention that he translated an article from a foreign language version, is there a standard procedure to correct the problem? Seven (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about a standard procedure. But you could make a dummy edit with an edit summary like “this page appears to be translated from the xx-language wikipedia article xxxx”. --teb728 t c 22:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] translation of infromation from French to English

i would like to translate articles from the French wikipedia section to English. can i do it? i am a French professor living in India. at Present I am doing my Ph.D. in French literature. i also hold a Master's Degree in English. also why there are no wikipedia sites in Indian Languages? could you answer me please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.11.44.177 (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you might want to check out this page: Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Of course Wikipedia is glad to accept your offer. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 07:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
There are Wikipedias in Telugu, Hindi, Marathi, Tamil, and many other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 07:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, we would be glad if you help us. For your information, there are existing wikipedias in many indian languages like Hindi, Assamese, Sanskrit, Punjabi, Marathi, Tamil, Kannada, Gujarati, Bengali, Malayalam, Urdu, Telugu, Pali and Kashmiri. The only problem is the lack of contributors in those wikipedias and thus lack of maintenance and lack of good content. If you want to contribute here, you may want to open an account first and then start doing your work. Though you have to remain within the guidelines of wikipedia while developing the articles. Hope it helped. DSachan (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
See List of Wikipedias for the languages we cover. You are now viewing the English Wikipedia, which is the largest, and one of the best-developed, and thus more likely to show up in search engines and so on. To learn about organized translation activities at the Wikipedias, see: WP:EIW#Transl, and Wikipedia:WikiProject France may have information about translating articles from the French Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mic Wright

The article 'Mic Wright' has been flagged with an autobiography warning.

This is not the case - the article has been written by the subject's father - so is, by definition, a biography and, should not contravene any of Wikipedias's rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmike (talk • contribs) 08:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • That probably happened because the article failed style guidelines. It contained several instances of promotional and flowery language and opinions (like: "After cutting his teeth on... he got the opportunity to move..." and "his witty style".). - Mgm|(talk) 10:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
My concern is WP:Note, whether this article follows it. Though I am not sure. DSachan (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
See WP:PEACOCK for an explanation of what promotional language is, and why it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Most people write with promotional language most of the time, so learning how to write objectively enough for an encyclopedia takes time. It's easier to write our way about topics one does not have a personal stake in. --Teratornis (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If the article was written by the subject's father, there is a clear conflict of interest. Perhaps if Mic Wright is notable enough, then other people who are aware of his work would contribute to the article. Astronaut (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unfortunate redirect

admin, i accidently redirected my page created on 2:39 PM 25/11/2007 with user name SAMK SRS on MBCET, CROSSROADS to an older page of Mbcet. can you help me remove the redirection. Its important.Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMK SRS (talk • contribs) 09:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I undid your unintended edit.--teb728 (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
There probably should not be two articles on the same subject: Mar Baselios College of Engineering and Technology and M.B.C.E.T. --teb728 (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] move article

Resolved.

Please move BAFTA Award for best editing to BAFTA Award for Best Editing, see British Academy of Film and Television Arts. Thanks --Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.116.178 (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! --89.247.116.178 (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mailing address

I want to contribute information WITH DOCUMENTATION. What is your USPS mailing addrtess? What do I do now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.73.100 (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but current contact information for the foundation can be found via the Contact Wikipedia link in your sidebar. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to contribute to an article, you don't mail your contributions in. See Wikipedia:Introduction or Wikipedia:How to edit a page for some information on how to make contributions. Raven4x4x (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Article content should be verifiable through published reliable sources. Those sources can be cited. If you have unpublished information then it should not be added to Wikipedia and there is no reason to send paper documentation for it to Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writing big numbers

Resolved.

I'm not sure what's the Wikipedia policy here:

3,000 = three thousand

6,000,000 = six million

9,000,000,000 = nine (?)

12,000,000,000,000 = twelve (?)

15,000,000,000,000,000 = fifteen (?)

18,000,000,000,000,000,000 = eighteen (?) Admiral Norton (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Page on long and short scales might be helpful. DSachan (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Also MOS:NUM, MOS:NUM#Numbers in particular. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Motors Car factory in Ste Therese/Blainville Quebec?

Can't find a thing. Anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.105.119 (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suite sure what you are seeking. From our article, Sainte-Thérèse, Quebec: "Until 2002, when General Motors shut its doors, it was also the home of the only Canadian automobile assembly plant outside of Ontario"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
And there are sources in a Google search.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Robert Riddell of Glenriddel, the history of Friars Carse in Scotland and Robrt Burns

Why is there no proper article on this very important subject?

Friars Carse started as a monasic cell belonging to Melrose Abbey. In the 15th century it was granted to the Kirkpatricks of neighbouring Ellisland (the property later farmed by Robert Burns). From them it passed to the Maxwells and then, in the 18th century, to the Riddells. The Kirkpatricks built a tower-house on the site in the late 16th century(illustrated by Francis Grose and Adam Cardonnel). This was demolished by Captain Robert Riddell in 1772 and replaced by a modern house, which in turn is now incorporated in a large baronial mansion of the 19th century. It is now a country house hotel (see website).

Apart from its history, the principal interest is that Robert Burns, the famous Scottish poet, was a close friend of Robert Riddell and a frequent visitor at Friars Carse. He used to sit in The Hermitage, a small hut on the estate, and wrote some of his poetry there. He had a key. It was at the same time that the famous antiquary, Captain Francis Grose, stayed at Friars Carse, and the three spent many an hour together. At the request of Burns, Grose included the old kirk at Alloway in his 'Antiquities of Scotland' (1789-91), on condition that Burns wrote a poem for the volume. The result was 'Tam O'Shanter', one of Burns finest and most famous poems.

Alastair Maxwell-Irving, FSA, Telford House, Blairlogie, Stirling, FK9 5PX, Scotland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.7.201 (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

People without a Wikipedia account can suggest articles at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If you do then please include evidence that the subject satisifies Wikipedia:Notability (see WP:BIO for biographies), and reliable sources to the given information. Most suggestions are not accepted. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
not accepted because they lack that information. - Mgm|(talk) 18:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Person of significance add was deleted

How do I start a page about a person of significance (world champion professional athlete) recognized by the Smithsonian Institution? I linked a new page from his sponsor page and all info was deleted. Please assist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynergetic (talk • contribs) 19:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming you are referring to a skateboarder. You need to create an article that sticks to the facts and cites each fact with a reliable resource. For an example on a similar topic, see Nude Bowl. There is almost nothing reliable on the Internet, but it is cited from many different sources and sticks only to the facts. So, the article survived a nomination for deletion. -- kainaw™ 19:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] snausages deletion

to prefix: i didn't write the snausages page, and i don't have any particular affection or nostalgia for snausages. i don't even have a dog.

however, several months ago i found the page after having a conversation that somehow wound its way to the 1980s dog treats. there was some piece of information (i can't even remember now what it was) that seemed in desperate need of a source. i put a note on the talk page asking for a source for that fact. i just looked at the page again to see if there'd been a source added.

and the snausages page had been deleted.

here's the note: 09:28, 24 October 2007 Anthony Appleyard (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Snausages" ‎ (content was: '==Importance (?)==I think the importance is mostly pop-cultural and nostalgic, at least for the generation of Americans exposed to the meme-ic Snocra...')

now i'm sure Anthony Appleyard is a well-intentioned editor, and i tend to agree with him regarding the importance of snausages. but is it really an editor's place to make a decision about importance? is "importance" an acceptable criterion for deletion? doesn't that fly in the face of the whole notion of the "long tail" and all of the stuff that makes this wikipedia so good?

when i found that page several months ago, i was heartened to know that the wikipedia had grown so thorough that EVEN SNAUSAGES had a page. if individual wikipedia editors get to be "importance" police, then isn't something lost? doesn't this become some form of elitism? i know that the hierarchical structure of the wikipedia is hardly anarchic at this point, and that there is some degree of power and discretion built in, but wasn't that power and discretion supposed to be used for objective editing? isn't choosing what is important and what is not important thoroughly subjective?

in the case of snausages, yes, most of us can agree that they are probably not so important. still, i'd like to see that page there. as a longtime wikipedia reader and fan, i would be incredibly disappointed to learn that the mission has evolved to the point where a small percentage of the population is making decisions on what the rest of us should find important. assuming you're not running out of server space, what harm is it having a snausages page? just like with first amendment law (here in the U.S.), we need to protect the speech that we don't think is necessary in order to set a precedent for the speech that we do think is necessary.

i'm sorry for the rambly comment/question here, and, perhaps, for having missed a larger change in the wikipedia's mission, but i sincerely hope that you will reconsider the "importance" criterion for deletions. the role of editors should be to promote objectivity and the neutral point of view, to prevent vandalism, and to clarify the prose of the articles. it should not be their role to determine what we should and shouldn't be allowed to waste our time with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conflationary (talk • contribs)

Actually, the page has been deleted twice: [2] [3], and so has the alternate title, Snausage. Anthony's reason is clear: "04:28, October 24, 2007 Anthony Appleyard (Talk | contribs) deleted "Snausages" (content was: '{{db-spam}}{{Unreferenced}} Snocrates, mascot for Snausages since 1984.Snausages are ...')" Thus, the reason it was deleted was it cited no references, and was written like an advertisement, rather than an encyclopedia article. It is possible that an article could be created about the subject, if proper sources were found and cited per the manual of style, but ultimately, Wikipedia is a historical project, and the importance of such a thing as a dog food, could be questioned by some. I have no real opinion on the article personally, but Anthony was operating under the guidelines and policies of administrators, by deleting an article that did not conform to Wikipedia's standards with regards to importance. Ariel♥Gold 19:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the reply. i'm in complete agreement that the article needed sourcing (which is why my only involvement in it was to request sourcing on its talk page). wouldn't a better way to get sourcing be to strip out the unsourced claims and make the article a stub? deleting it discourages further contribution. some articles do get to be stubs while awaiting further contribution; articles deemed "unimportant" apparently do not. that brings us back to my original concern, that this article was deleted because of someone's perception of its importance. i don't want to debate whether snausages specifically are important (nor would this seem the place for that debate), or even whether advertisements themselves are historically and culturally important (i think they are), but i do want to raise the issue of the danger of letting individual editors decide what is important. the notability page you've linked discusses (particularly in footnote 2) issues of importance/unimportance, but the documents that page references as guidelines -- What Wikipedia is not, Five pillars -- do not explicitly talk about the importance/unimportance disctinction or who gets to make that decision. seems like it might be a de facto policy that has started up for practical reasons. while it may seem practical to have editors strip out "unimportant" articles, a select few choosing what is worthy of people's time is worrisome. why not just clear out the text and turn the article into a stub?--Conflationary (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to take the issue to deletion review, but rest assured that administrators do not just delete articles because they personally think they are "unimportant", there is a specific set of criteria, (linked in the pages above) involved, and the notability criteria differ from article to article, based on subject matter. I would also like to note, that Anthony's deletion summary does not contain the word "importance", and I'm unsure where your copy/paste is from, but the deletion log I linked above shows the deletion summary and reason. Administrators are chosen in part because of their knowledge of policy and guidelines, and this is not simply "some random editor" choosing to delete an article they don't personally think is important. Editors cannot delete articles (although administrators are also editors, of course). Take a look at requests for adminship to see the discussions involved in becoming an administrator, and you can also ask Anthony directly on his talk page, to discuss the deletion with you. You could also choose to work on the article in your userspace, such as User:Conflationary/sandbox, and once you feel it is ready, ask Anthony, or another administrator to review it to be sure it would not be deleted. Ariel♥Gold 20:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
again, i appreciate the reply. but i'm not sure i've made my point clear. i don't care about snausages. i don't want to write the snausages page. i'm sure that anthony is eminently qualified and, as i said above, well-intentioned. i'm sure that every editor and every admin here is great, and i know that keeping vandalism clean and point of view neutral is no small task on a project this huge. but i do have an issue with any editor or administrator -- no matter how qualified, experienced, insightful or well-educated -- choosing what is and isn't notable. yes, there are times when the distinction is easy, as with autobiographies, but as much as you want to think that what distinguishes notable from non-notable is always black and white, it most certainly is not. i very much enjoy the wikipedia, and i was thrilled to see that there was a snausages page, specifically BECAUSE i didn't care about it and it seemed something that wouldn't have an entry in britannica, precisely because of the elitism inherent in having an editorial hierarchy. i'm happy to contribute to the wikipedia when and as i have time (which i've done sporadically without a login since 2003), but this isn't a request to work on a pet page; this is a request for the admins and editors to uphold the five pillars of wikipedia, which do not, to my knowledge, include making judgment calls on what is and isn't important. (incidentally, the note that i pasted into my original message is what regular users see when they click on the deletion log for the snausages page.) one day this will be a better encyclopedia for all of your efforts, especially if you use your power to make user contributions better without discouraging them. deleting pages where the argument for them being non-notable is tenuous at best is not going to encourage anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conflationary (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me clear something up: The "importance" line you saw is from the article's talk page, [4], and it was a topic posted by someone else, not Anthony, but talk pages are deleted when articles are deleted. The article itself, as seen again, here and here was deleted for valid, standard reasons, as WP:SPAM (for the latest deletion). What you clicked on was the discussion page, where editors discuss the article, and evidently someone, at some point, had posted a topic that was titled "importance". When a page is deleted, the first few things in the page are shown in the summary. Please understand that this has nothing to do with the reason the article itself was deleted, and that again, administrators delete based on specific policy and criteria, not on what they personally feel is important, and if the issue is disagreed with, deletion review exists. I understand you aren't looking for a pet project, my suggestion was just a suggestion, but I think perhaps you feel that administrators delete just on their own opinions, when in fact, the process of deletion is governed by policy, and administrators delete based on the deletion criteria. I hope that helps clear up this "importance" issue! Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 21:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
good to know that's from a discussion and not the explicit reason for the deletion. of course, the process that admins use does eventually get to an issue of deciding importance. that's represented by point 7 in the article section of the deletion criteria you've cited, as well as the tricky issue of "notability," which is substantially similar to "importance." as the first footnote of the notability page makes clear, it's impossible to disprove notability. ultimately, then, interpreting the criteria for deletion involves judgment calls by admins. as i've mentioned previously, i think that discretion is dangerous. at any rate, thanks for your patience with the issue. hopefully the defining criteria for notability (which functions as a criterion for deletion) will end up getting defined more precisely as it relates to the underlying question of "importance," which is fundamentally a subjective issue no matter how much procedure is wrapped around it.--Conflationary (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unseen cost of illegal immigration i wish to submit a letter

Recently I have received numerous phone calls regarding the purchasing of local papers. I do not beleive them to be informative when forming an opinion on illegal immigration. To many of us this is the biggest issue facing America today, yet you fail to put fourth any information regarding the cost to communities locally or nationally. How much effect does this have on property taxes in lower income neighborhoods were the illegals reside? How does this effect the wages of local population or the cost to rent an apartment? What effect does this have on the black community who they are in direct competition with. The American labor force feels the impact caused by cheap illegal workers. We only wish to create a balance and control this run away train. Send the trouble makers home, no guest worker program. So no I do not want your papers. Thank you Mike rogersZise (talk)--Zise (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this page is for help using the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with your local newspapers or the phone calls you have been receiving.
As for your "no guest worker" rant, perhaps you would like to consider that the costs that so concern you are probably covered by their income tax and sales tax they pay. These immigrant workers are the same people that serve your coffee for minimum wage, stock the shelves for minimum wage, mow your lawn for minimum wage, and so on. Would you do that for under $7 an hour and still be able to support your family?
Astronaut (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
As much as I would agree with your views, answering his trolling only incites unnecessary discussion on the topic. Inform him that this is not the place for him to disseeminate his views, WP:DENY and move on. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I was only seeking to balance somthing clearly POV. But I also see your point and I did ponder if my comment might invite further unnecessary discussion. Won't happen again now I know there's a policy. Astronaut (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
On the Help desk, from time to time we get questions which only make sense if we hypothesize that the questioners read an article on Wikipedia that was about something (such as a newspaper), and they mistook Wikipedia as somehow being affiliated with that something. In a way, that's kind of a compliment, that the Wikipedia article about an organization can sometimes be more visible and accessible than the organization's own site. But now the question has me wondering: if the low wages of illegal aliens are causing problems, I wonder what effect the free labor we donate to Wikipedia is having? Perhaps the folks over at Encyclopedia Britannica could find common cause with Zise, and create a united front opposing free trade. Maybe they could get Bill Gates to join them in a rearguard action against the entire Open source movement. At least with illegals, you have to pay them to get them to work. Wikipedia somehow gets us to work for nothing. I wish I could think of a way to get people to mow my lawn and paint my house for free. Clearly, I am far less intelligent than Jimbo Wales. As far as a little off-topic discussion goes, it's fun, and if Wikipedia isn't fun, we will leave, and then there is no Wikipedia. Back to the original "question," I believe the following accusation must be incorrect, when applied to Wikipedia (which may not be what the questioner intended, but here we are so let's roll with it):
  • "you fail to put fourth [sic] any information regarding the cost to communities locally or nationally"
Wikipedia contains so much information that it's hard to imagine we wouldn't have something about the economic impact of illegal immigration. My advice to Zise is to read Help:Search and learn about how to find information on Wikipedia. There, that was somewhat back to our putative topic of using Wikipedia. Also see robotics, telerobotics, offshoring, and technological singularity for some possible changes to the economic "game rules" which may replace cheap human labor with even cheaper machine labor, and thus eliminate the incentive for illegal immigration in the future. --Teratornis (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] last modified

Please please please ((helpme)) i really need this now asap!!! when was the wikipedia last modified and who did it? please help me!! I need this in the next 10 minutes or so. ((helpme))!!! 216.158.164.2 (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Go to Recent changes page. Try pressing reload key in your browser and you will see that wikipedia is constantly being modified. So, your answer will depend on when you hit the repload key last time. I hope I understood your question correctly. DSachan (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
(conflict) :See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. As for last modified, the date of the last edit is on the bottom of all pages. NF24(radio me!) 20:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
A way to learn who made the last edit to a page (and also when) is to click on the History tab. The top line is the last edit. --teb728 (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • NF24 is right though. If you need to cite Wikipedia, then looking at the history won't help you. Since Wikipedia is constantly changing, attributing the article to the last editor would be woefully incorrect. - Mgm|(talk) 22:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If you (the questioner) want to know who added a particular passage in an article, see WikiBlame. If the constantly-changing nature of a Wikipedia article is a problem, that's why we have permanent links ("permanent" as long as Wikipedia keeps running, and the article does not get deleted). --Teratornis (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping my old username

I posted some information as "Wikiups" some time ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N-Nitrosodimethylamine&action=history

(cur) (last) 21:19, 4 February 2007 Wikiups (Talk | contribs) (undo)

(cur) (last) 21:01, 4 February 2007 Wikiups (Talk | contribs) (undo)

(cur) (last) 21:00, 4 February 2007 Wikiups (Talk | contribs) (undo)


I cannot remember my login password and it looks like my login information does not have my email address. I like my username and would like to keep it. Is there any way to do this?

Cheers, Wikiups

Oh dear. I don't think there's anything we can do at this point. NF24(radio me!) 00:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding more information on Something to Sing About page!!!

I need some help. I want to add more information on Something to Sing About page like Plot Summary, Trivia, Cast, Awards & nominations, etc. What can I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamgermany2000 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off, do not add trivia. It is prohibited per the Manual of Style. Next, click "edit this page" at the top of the page. There you can add things like summaries and cast. Be sure to cite your sources. Since it's a film, IMDb is a good place to start. Lastly, don't be afraid to make changes! You generally don't have to ask permission to edit. Happy wiking! NF24(radio me!) 00:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)