Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 September 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help desk
< September 15 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 17 >
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] September 16

[edit] How do you link inside your page to your references

Hi, I am trying to find out how you make your references in the text look like [1] [2] etc... and then when you click on the number it automatically scrolls down to your reference list? Someone please help? Isa Alcala 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Add a section near the bottom of the article with text like this:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
Now, where you want a reference link to appear in the text, cite your source like so: <ref>text of reference</ref> Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
For a specific example, just go to any random article with a reference and take a look how it was done there. Useight 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article on antarctic ice shelf

This heading was added by 172.166.159.35 with no text. Do you have a question about an article? If so then please give the exact name. There is no article called "Antarctic ice shelf". PrimeHunter 00:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a Ross ice shelf article. Also see List_of_glaciers#Antarctica. --Teratornis 02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] authorship

how does one determine the authorship of any given page? Martauwo 01:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Click on the "history" tab at the top of the page. That will show you each edit that has been made. Most pages have hundreds of edits by different people. -- Kesh 01:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Click the "history" tab at the top to see contributers to a page (there are often many). People who ask this are often interested in how to cite a Wikipedia article. Click "Cite this article" in the toolbox on the left to see how to cite an article in different styles. See also Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. PrimeHunter 01:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks Martauwo 02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

me again, all i seem to be able to find when i look at this history is the history of the discussion, not the actual authors of the article - can you please advise? thanks Martauwo 02:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Each line of the history (though they may have edit summaries describing their changes) is actually a change that was made to the article. Discussion of articles takes place on their talk pages (see discussion tab at the top of the article). Happy editing. Into The Fray T/C 02:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. To figure out from whom an article originated, generally speaking, you can simply scan all the way back to the oldest edit and there's the original editor. Sometimes this doesn't work if the page has been moved, though. Into The Fray T/C 02:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are a collaborative effort. There's no single author: every person who has ever edited the article is considered one of the authors. Like PrimeHunter mentioned, if you're looking for this information to cite a Wikipedia article, you should instead click the "Cite this article" link on the left-hand side of the page for the correctly formatted information. -- Kesh 02:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If you're getting the history of the discussion, make sure you're clicking on the history tab from the article's main page, not the talk page. --YbborTalk 03:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] images

What is happening to all the images? Some of them include the flags of certain countries, but seriously. What is going on?!Kitty53 01:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

See above. There's a minor problem with the servers. It's being worked on. -- Kesh 01:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] editing page and it keeps going back

every time edit a page it changes back to the way it was?

why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverickgallser (talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the article you are trying to edit, someone is reverting it. He seems to think you are vandalising the article by changing some of the information. I don't know if the information you're changing it to is true, or if the original info is true. If you cited any info you change, perhaps that would help keep your edits.

Also, don't forget to sign your comments by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the comment. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

An editor seems to be considering your edits to be vandalism. I'd suggest you check the edit history of the article you've been editing to see who has been "reverting" your edits (they'll usually leave an edit summary with the words "RV" or "revert" in it) and contacting them for the reasoning. You may also want to check our policies on biographies of living people and conflict of interest. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Will you please let me know when the "Okiayu" redirect is ready?

Kitty53 03:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You are able to create the redirect yourself - go to the Okiayu page, and type #REDIRECT [[target page]] on the first line of the edit box, then save the page. You don't need to go through Articles for creation, as you're a registered user. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the [edit] tag

Hi. I messed up my userpages. I'm transcluding a header page onto my other userspace pages, but since I've done that the [edit] link found next to each section title has disappeared. Is there a way of including the link manually? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 03:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it. You had a "__NOEDITSECTION__" magic word at the top of your header, which was causing all pages using that header to remove their section edit links. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halle Berry formatting problem

Help. I can't figure out how to fix the screwed up formatting at the bottom of the article. Clarityfiend 03:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

All fixed. :) Someone had removed a bracket at one point or another. GlassCobra 04:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orobanchaceae page

I have done some editing on the Orobanchaceae page, including adding all the genera in that family (now 90 instead of 20 as was previously posted). Two genera automatically link to other pages, but they need editing. The first is the genus Centranthera that, for some reason, links to a page on orchids. This is not correct and it should not point to that page. The second problem is with the genus Melasma. This also refers to a skin condition. So, it needs a disambiguation, with the plant version of the word pointing to the correct page. The genus Striga also goes to a disambiguation page, but maybe could point directly to the plant page. Sorry, I don't know how to do these things! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickrent (talk • contribs) 04:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Editing for general editing instructions. See Help:Link for instructions on how to edit links. See: WP:DISAMBIG for information about disambiguation pages. If you are very new to Wikipedia editing, a more experienced editor will probably have to assist you with these problems. Tip: your question will be easier to understand if you add links to the article names you mention: Orobanchaceae, Centranthera, orchid, Melasma, and Striga. --Teratornis 07:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with tables

I have noticed a lot of the deletion and editing template boxes aren't appearing properly any more. Has there been a change to them which my browser (the latest Mac OS version of Firefox) won't accept, or has someone been playing with them? JRG 05:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this may be related to the server problem reported above. It'll be fixed soon enough. GlassCobra 05:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess you didn't intend to write "tables" in the heading. Many template boxes have changed look recently after using {{Ambox}}. This is unrelated to the server problems and can be discussed at Template talk:Ambox.PrimeHunter 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding purchase of XO-1

Hi, My name isTanya and I live in Australia. I recently heard about these great little laptop computers and as I have 2 young boys of my own, I am wonderering if you could tell me if these are availabe for purchase and if so what the cost is? Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.21.155 (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia cannot help you with your personal needs in this case. I would recommend you investigate locally, or you can order laptops online from sites such as Amazon.com. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Since wikipedia is not for advertising, I doubt a particular brand laptop would have an article, so try google.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 06:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
See: One Laptop per Child. --Teratornis 07:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we do not help with that sort of thing. If you have any questions relating to wikipedia, feel free to ask:)--SJP 07:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually the One Laptop per Child article should tell Tanya everything she needs to know about the XO-1, and indeed that is a fascinating project; the article even mentions that Wikipedia will be one of the featured applications on it (thus helping to fulfill the Great Leader's dream of providing a free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every human on Earth). While the XO-1 itself is not available for sale to individuals, similar computers such as the ASUS Eee PC are or will be. The instructions at the top of the Help desk say this page is only for questions about using Wikipedia, but the complexity of Wikipedia tends to overwhelm the short term memory of many visitors who are new to using it, rendering many of them temporarily blind to some of our instructions upon the first exposure (this is the psychological basis of the programmer's dictum, "Users don't read instructions," which isn't actually true, because the users are reading them, just not comprehending them on the first go; nonetheless, as Daniel Dennett says, every time we see or hear a message, our brains make another copy of it. It's just that anything which is sufficiently unfamiliar may need a number of copies before it sinks in to long term memory). Thus we get "inappropriate" questions on the Help desk every day, and we try to answer them nonetheless. In the case of Tanya's question, the answer was straightforward. I happened to watch a segment about the XO-1 on the 60 Minutes television show a few months ago, and at the time I looked it up on Wikipedia to get the details, so I knew the answer to her question. --Teratornis 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizenship of India for a foreign national refugee woman married to an Indian citizen

A Indian national male, has fallen in love with an iragi refugee in thailand. He wants to marry her and take her to India as his legally wedded wife. Can she get indian citizenship quickly on the basis of the marriage as well on the grounds that she is basically a refugee under UNHRC ?

The time frame required for the same may be advised too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sainath kv (talk • contribs) 07:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

See the reference desk, or here is a thought, your local Thai embassy.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 07:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello:)
This is not the place where you ask questions like that. You are only suppose to ask questions about wikipedia here. I hope that you find the answer to your question though:)--SJP 07:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings for external links

A number of months back, I saw where someone had removed warnings from some external links that stated that the links contained adult content or nudity. I seem to recall them citing some Wikipedia guideline or policy but I can't remember which one. It was basically some sort of NPOV guideline or some such thing. Can anyone point me in the direction of what it might have been? I removed some similar warnings the other day and they were put back. So if I remove them again, I'd like to have something to back up my actions. Dismas|(talk) 07:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Was it this? That is the only policy I can think of. It does not say that we do not need to have warnings though. All it says is that wikipedia is not censored and may have content that is offensive to some people. I hope that helped:)--SJP 08:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I had forgotten about WP:NOT and that led me to a few other arguments for the removal of the warnings. Those were namely Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Thanks again, Dismas|(talk) 08:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem:)--SJP 08:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's reasonable to assume people know what they're gonna see if they search something in Wikipedia. If adult content is unexpected in said link, a warning may be a good idea to avoid embarrassing situations. - Mgm|(talk) 22:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to organizations in the Samael Aun Weor article

I have a question concerning external links. In the Samael Aun Weor article a lot of links to different organizations and schools are added from time to time, and I'm not sure whether they should be there or not. Some of them also contain information that could be useful. As far as I can tell there are currently only two links there which are not at all about any particular organization. There is one organization that calls itself official, which is directed by the son of the subject of the article, but there has been so many divisions and splits so I don't know if that is relevant or not. I have tried to use WP:EL for guidance but can't find a resolution there. What would be the correct thing to do? Thank you. Anton H 09:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a person with the same name as an existing article

I was trying to create an article on wildlife artist neil cox and there is a footballer with the same name so how can I create an article with an artist of the same name?? thanks -the saint —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdambaek (talk • contribs) 10:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:DISAM#Disambiguation_pages. The short of it, move existing page to say Neil Cox (footballer), create your article at Neil Cox (artist), use Neil Cox then as an disambiguation page. KTC 10:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
In such a case, as well as moving the article, is it desirable for the mover to update all the links to the article as well? DH85868993 22:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags images

At Bad_Girls_(TV_series)#Bad_Girls_around_the_world I don't see the actual flag of Belgium, nor the flag of Finland. It's just a border with inside written text "Flag of Belgium". Anyone else seeing this? Venullian 10:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add a new section header when asking question. This is an ongoing issue with the server that the developers / sys admin is aware of, and am looking into. KTC 10:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thought I did make a new section, sorry, I do know my way around wikipedia ;-) thanks for your reply, as long as they're aware of it ;-) Venullian 10:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope [1], I added the new section header [2]. :-) KTC 16:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with credibility?

I have the following questions to Wikipedia administration which I hope to be answered. Background:
” I say this: BellMJ, in the month or two you have been here you have not contributed to any articles. I suggest you get some actual expeience researching and making contributions to articles that stand the test of time, and have more experience collaborating with editors working on aticles, before you try to comment on our core policies. SIrubenstein | Talk 11:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ”

1. Apart from the normal and civil conduct and behavior outlined by Wikipedia as stated in its policy: Are there other certain rules for the right of making a contribution with an opinion in Wikipedia? Am I missing something? ”try to comment on our core policies”? ”try”? Seems holy ground here.

2a. Are there certain places I must refrain from taking active part in?
2b. Am I expected to navigate in Wikipedia by my own interest, or by a pre set guide?

3. Must I have made a certain amount of contributions in Wikipedia to have the right to make a submission to a debate in any place in Wikipedia?

4.Must I have spent a certain time being registered in Wikipedia to have the right to make a submission to a debate in any place in Wikipedia?

5.Are there any COLLECTING POINTS OR SCORES in Wikipedia I must have collected first before receiving the right to make a submission to a debate in any place in Wikipedia?

I would be most thankful if these questions could be answered in clarity.
wkg/BMJ 13:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator; nevertheless, I hope that my input may be of some value to you. First, all users are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia in the manner that suits them best as long as they respect the core policies. Second, while I can understand how you might read the words "try to" as belittling, one of our policies requires us to assume good faith. That sometimes means biting back our first responses and seeking clarification directly from the other editor. This ties into my third point: the first step of resolving disputes is always talking to the other editor. It would probably be better if you addressed the other editor him or herself. We need to be careful about unnecessarily escalating disputes. Good luck resolving this issue, and please remember that "raw text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you." :) --Moonriddengirl 13:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Moonriddengirl. You seem to be a reasonable soul. In Wikipedia policy is (howevwer) also recommended this: before apelling to an obvious provocation: don't answer the insult. Take a break. Contemplate the situation, and try to find out eventual incepts for a friendly resolution. Then, be offensive when you think you know how to do it.
I would still like to know the Wikipedia administration answers to the questions.
NOTE: SLrubenstein and I, am in no way in a dispute, and I will refuse to initiate a such. It's just that I made a submission on the talk page No Original Research and which was met by the above quoted form. Obviously, SLrubensteins does not want my presence on that page. And I just wanted to know whether he is justified by Wikipedia administration to set out such a program.
Thanks anyway Moonriddengirl. --BMJ 13:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Good luck, then. :) I'll just note that Wikipedia's administrators may or may not monitor the help desk; it's a volunteer force. If you don't get an answer from one of them, that may well indicate that your question has been unseen. --Moonriddengirl 13:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Jises. Thank you again, Moonriddengirl. I might disappear, then, altogether in our famous cyberspace. Good Lord. Do you have any suggestions how to make my presence more Bright and Shining in front of the Wikipedia administration, my questions? --BMJ 14:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
First let me add with regards to Administrators that "the tools they are granted are technical and do not convey authority" (from Wikipedia:Administrators). However, if you want to seek one for feedback because of their experience, you can locate one to ask your question at list of administrators. --Moonriddengirl 14:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I will try on that way. wkg/BMJ 14:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Realize that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have already been extensively debated, and those who do not study history are sure to repeat it. Therefore, before suggesting any sort of foundational change to Wikipedia, you need to arm yourself with a solid understanding of how the policies came to be, and all the arguments and counterarguments that occurred in the past. (Try not to be like the theists who debate atheists without realizing all their arguments for the existence of God have been refuted for centuries.) Fortunately, Wikipedia is a tool for writing documents, and we use it to document just about everything we do. See WP:EIW#Pol for a list of links to pages describing Wikipedia's policies, how they came to be, the history of rejected proposals, and the mechanism for proposing changes. To gain credibility, first you must demonstrate that you already know the specific arguments that led to your proposal being rejected in the past, and you have some compelling new arguments. In any case, it's a lot harder to change a Wikipedia policy than to find a wiki with policies you like better. See for example WikInfo. --Teratornis 17:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Teratornis. Thank you very much for your response. I really appreciate it. But this is also true, If you would care for a few moments: Long before I ”checked in” on Wikipedia I was studying its content, policy, articles and talkpages for about a year. I had (then) only a cell phone with Windows Mobile, not really suited for editorial work, but I could collect basic information, make citations, collect quotes and blocks from many talk pages, and it was indeed the most fascinating and interesting I yet ever had experienced. But I also, soon, discovered the weak points in Wikipedia, especially its so called ”core policy”.
Honestly Teratornis: I am not a person who flags with merits. Wikipedia is said to be respectful to your OPINION. Not your merits, your ”personal level of intelligence” or ”the number of days or articles you have contributed to”, if your skin is black or white or other, if you are a Buddhist or a Christian or other. All those things are irrelevant and have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, or submitting with carefully weighted opinions on carefully selected talk pages. I thought ”Wikipedia” also MEANT it. But perhaps both you and I agree (now) that THAT ”Wikipedia” really does NOT exist.
If you have (further) suggestions to my improvement on familiarity with Wikipedia history, policy and general content, you are of course welcome with proposals. I will watch this topic.
Thank you again Teratornis, and take care. With kind greetings, former BMJ.--85.89.80.140 11:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] exam preperatrions

how should i search pin point search for preperations of exams such as UPSC etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.106.160 (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You might find what you are looking for in the articles about the exams, like Union Public Service Commission. If that doesn't help, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's reference desk. They will be glad to answer questions about anything in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). Good luck, and I hope this helps. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising Deal

Looks like a repeat of the earlier trolling. -- Kesh 19:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] om namah shivay!

I'm logged in. I have an article I want to add. I've done it before and can't remember where to go to simply get started. Without reading through all of the directions, babble, etc. Cant you tell me exactly where to click to get started?? I can't find it! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncensoredinfo (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your question seems to have been interrupted by someone else. Your article is now here, I think. Does that answer your question? AndyJones 17:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If you are asking how to start a article type on the search box the name of the article. Then if it does not exist it will show a search page. On the top there will be a redlink to the article name you searched go there and write the article and save it. Make sure it meets WP:N, WP:RS, and all the other "babble." --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there an inline tag for requesting clarification of a term?

Is there something analogous to [citation needed] that can be used, inline, to request clarification of a term, at least in the specific context? In IPv6, there's a new edit including "Linux gains alpha quality IPv6 support. As a software developer, I'm familiar with the use of "alpha" as meaning "in an early version", but I believe that a specific definition of the usage here is neeed. Unfortunately, it's an anonymous user, so I can't put a note on the user's talk page.

Obviously, I could put something on the IPV6 talk page, but, like [citation needed], this would be far easier to see inline. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd want to use {{clarifyme}}. Cheers, Arky ¡Hablar! 19:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Howard C. Berkowitz 19:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I edited it so that it now links to our article on software release cycles, which explains what alpha quality means. The need for clarification is one good reason to use an internal link. --Pekaje 21:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some images in established articles no longer appearing

Some images are no longer appearing for me (in both PC IE6 and Firefox) on established articles. For example, in the article on Breast cancer, the thumbnail of the image Breast cancer.JPG is no longer showing, even though the full-sized image is still there. In the article on San Francisco, the thumbnail versions of images San_Francisco_Landsat7_(Lg).jpg and Lombardst.jpeg are no longer showing. I've tried clearing cache, but this does not fix the problem. What could be the cause of this? -- Sfmammamia 19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I purged the page, so perhaps that fixed it however, Wikimedia is currently experiencing problems with images in the commons, and are working on it, so that is your principal problem. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can't I see correctly some images in the article on Orchidaceae. Neither Firefox nor Konqueror. Aelwyn 21:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto Albert Einstein & Lever - Is Wikipedia Broken ?

Levers can be used to exert a large force over a small distance at one end by exerting only a small force over a greater distance at the other.
Levers can be used to exert a large force over a small distance at one end by exerting only a small force over a greater distance at the other.


doesn't work

Levers can be used to exert a large force over a small distance at one end by exerting only a small force over a greater distance at the other.
Levers can be used to exert a large force over a small distance at one end by exerting only a small force over a greater distance at the other.


does work !

Third class lever
Third class lever


doesn't work SVG mime-type issue in Internet Explorer?

Purge this page's server cache doesn't help ... 195.137.93.171 22:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'signature' editor button broken

Another thing broken - the 'signature' editor button that should give four tildes !
(used to give -- and 4 tildes ...) 195.137.93.171 22:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring the deleted List of Entertainer's Nicknames Page

The page List of Entertainer's Nicknames has been deleted. Can you please find out who, why and when, and ultimately, restore the page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Comprendo (talk • contribs)

Hm..I can't seem to find any article by that name. What was the exact name of the article you're referring to? GlassCobra 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See deletion review What was the exact title of the article? I searched a couple, but don't see anything in the deletion logs. Also, please remember to sign your comments with four tildes like so: ~~~~ Into The Fray T/C 19:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
List_of_entertainers_by_nickname - You can try WP:DRV but I can tell you the result will go against what you wish to happen as this article was deleted earlier today after a AFD where it was a pretty convincing delete. KTC 20:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Entry Keeps Getting Deleted

Hello

My name is Don Reid and every time i put an entry about myself, some other Don Reid deletes it. Why is this allowed?

how do i prevent this happening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donreid (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You're editing an existing page about another Don Reid, an American Basketball player. Since he meets our notability guidelines and there aren't (currently) any more notable Don Reids with articles, he gets the page. Before you continue to edit, or attempt to write an article about yourself, please note that writing articles about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you believe that you meet our guidelines for who is considered notable, you should request an article be created about yourself here, to ensure that it is written neutrally and that you are indeed notable. I hope this helps. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If, by some dint of effort, you or another Don Reid became notable, you still wouldn't put that on his article. Instead, you would make a new article such as Don Reid (author) or Don Reid (kazoo player), as suggested at WP:DAB. Confusing Manifestation 22:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(after ec)Hi, Don. This is the second time you have asked this question in the last 48 hours, so I assume you did not understand the first time. Here goes:

You have a user page at User:Donreid. You can edit that as you wish, mostly. It's for you to tell others about yourself as a wikipedia editor. We also have encyclopedia pages (not user pages) about three additional people named "Don Reid". The pages are Don Reid, Donald Bartlett Reid, and Don Reid (music). I think you believe that we need a fourth encyclopedia page, one about the Australian e-commerce entrepreneur named "Don Reid" who happens to also be the Wikipedia editor User:Donreid. Creation of this page comes in two parts:

  • should there be such an article?
  • If so, how do we distinguish the article from the other three "Don Reid" articles?

I will answer the second question first, since this is the one that is bothering you most. We call this "disambiguation." See WP:DAB, but the summary is this: When there are multiple articles with the same "natural" title, the first article to be created generally uses the "natural" name. Second and succeeding articles use a disambiguated name. Thus, your new article can be named e.g. Don Reid (e-commerce). Users looking for "Don Reid" will find the original article, and you can add a pointer to the top of the original article to point to the new "Don Reid (e-commerce) article. Once we have more than about two "extra" pointers of this type (as will be the case here), we create move Don Reid to Don Reid (basketball player) and then convert Don Reid to a "disambiguation page" that briefly lists all four of our "DON reid" articles. See William Kirby as one of thousands ofsuch pages.

Now for the first issue: do we actually want your article in Wikipedia at all? Well, yes, if you meet our criteria for notability. you must read and understand WP:BIO to decide. Just because you think you are notable does not mean that you can convince all the other editors. The single most important thing you must do is to assert notability in the article and cite reliable sources in the reference section of your article.IF you do not do ths, then you article will be deleted. Since you hap-en to be Don Reid, you must also be very carful not to violate WP:COI. The best way to aviod this is to create you article in a user subspace such as User:Donreid/Don Reid (ecommerce) and then ask for a review of your proposed article.

Hope this helps -Arch dude 22:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlist question...

Anyone know of a fancy way to set up multiple watchlists? I've seen some folks making category watchlists separate from their normal watchlist and am curious if there's a way to do it for specific articles. I'd like to keep a static list of articles I keep an eye on and one for my more "current" eyeballing. Into The Fray T/C 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One option would be for you to watch those "current" articles via its RSS feeds. KTC 21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you! Into The Fray T/C 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrol log

What is it? I know I'm an admin and everything, but what it is it?? Maxim(talk) 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You can mark edits as patrolled, so that other sysops see that this edit is ok and not vandalism. Larger projects disabled this in the software, as en.wp did. You can just ignore it. --Thogo (Talk) 22:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image visualisation problem

Why can't I see correctly some images in the article on Orchidaceae. Neither Firefox nor Konqueror. Aelwyn 21:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at the site notice (the small text line just below the tabs). Try to increase the width of the image by one pixel. It helps in ~80% of the cases. --Thogo (Talk) 22:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Plus, we are having a bit of a problem with displaying images from Wikimedia Commons at the moment. Cheers, Arky ¡Hablar! 22:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is funny! I enlarged them 1px and now they work! But why? Anyway, thank you very much Aelwyn 22:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

First one on Orchidaceae linked to URL "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Haeckel_Orchidae.jpg/200px-" but it's in a Taxobox so 200px is not explicit ! Still needs fixing ! 195.137.93.171 00:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Fixed "image_width = 199px" 195.137.93.171 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded watchlist

For some days now the expanded watchlist doesn't work any more (it's not expanded though I enabled it in the preferences). Does anyone know why? Is it due to the server problems or was there a change in the software? (in other wikis it works well) --Thogo (Talk) 22:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Presidential Election infoboxes (red vs. blue)

(I am posting this here, rather than on individual talk pages, because it concerns a large number of articles.) In the infoboxes for each U.S. Presidential Election, the portraits of the candidates are boxed in color, and the Electoral College maps are similarly colored, representing their political parties at a glance. A very good idea, I believe, except there is inconsistency. For United States presidential election, 1976 and all years prior, Republicans are marked in blue and Democrats in red. Starting with United States presidential election, 1980, Republicans are red and Democrats are blue. Is this deliberate? Why the change? Should it not stay the same over every article? And if so, which should be changed? (Fewer articles would need changing by making Democrats red and Republicans blue. But then, the current venacular of U.S. political campaigns is the opposite.) — Michael J 22:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy. You can comment there. PrimeHunter 00:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't know that page existed. I will go there. Thank you kindly. — Michael J 03:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I seem to have fixed the image problem. The disclaimer was talking about the problem, and when I hid the disclaimer, the images were working again. Kitty53 22:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you personally fixed it. :P It's good that it's been fixed, though. GlassCobra 22:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, the very moment you hid the disclaimer, the people over at wikimedia fixed it. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images?

I didn't fix all of the image problem, however. On some of the images, you have to click on them in order to see them. Kitty53 00:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kitty - which page ?
Follow instructions at the top:
click to see the image page
add "?action=purge" to the end of the address and load
Click the 'OK' - purge button
You may have to refresh the page in your browser to see the change. 195.137.93.171 00:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)