Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Village pumps: Policy • Technical • Proposals (persistent) • Assistance • Miscellaneous
Village pump (assistance) archive  
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (assistance). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Contents

[edit] Better pic for Template:Conflict Analysis and Resolution Project?

Can anyone think of a better pic to use for Template:Conflict Analysis and Resolution Project? I haven't been able to find anything... Thanks, Sarsaparilla 04:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very Confused

I am very much a newbie at Wikipedia, but have been editing some pages. I'm fairly sure I'm doing stuff wrong or that is frowned upon. In an effort to improve my contributions, I sought out Help and Forums. Help is OK, but seems very specific and limited. What I mostly got out of it is to be "bold," which may be bad advice to someone like me. Are there any forums or newsgroups where people are complaining about how other Wikipedia editors are behaving? I could learn a lot about community expectations in a place like that.

I came to this forum with a specific question. I clicked on the link at the top of the page for Wikipedia:Ask a question, and was taken to a personal user page that seemed to have nothing to do with it. There was no mention there of even asking a question, much less any instructions on how to do it.

My question is, when I edited the page Egyptian cobra, the reference I created did not appear properly on the page. I asked why on the Talk Page, but no one has responded (big surprise). I can see no difference in what I wrote there, and other references I have written that worked properly. Can anyone tell me what I did wrong?

Apologies if I'm posting this in the wrong place, or am wasting your time. Prignillius 14:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference doesn't show up because there was no reference tag on the page. In general, ref tags are collected and displayed wherever the <references /> tag is placed. I went ahead and put the references tag on the page by using the template {{reflist}}. But a thumbs-up to you for knowing how to reference things properly. In the future, I'd advise you to use some of the citation templates listed at WP:CIT. Just take one of those templates and put it between a ref tag, and you're good to go. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for fixing that page! Also, thanks a lot for the pointer to the citation templates. I will go fix the citations I have made. Prignillius (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Most pages are watched by multiple people so that blatant errors will be recognized, so being bold is OK. But it is admirable that you have come here. Thanks for asking. If you ever need direct help, please contact me at my talk page and I'll do what I can. --Kevin Murray 14:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, this is a very kind offer. You may rest assured that I'm going to take you up on it. Prignillius (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Any time you have a question on a talk page, just click the little tab at the top with a + sign on it; this creates a new section header (the little box on top) and gives you a box into which you type your question, remark, comment, concern, whatever; and automatically puts it at the bottom of the talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the tip, Orange Mike! Prignillius (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non member needs page changed - personal information

I'm not a member of Wiki and I discovered today that someone had posted my name and the name of a book I wrote on the Xavier House Publishing (Kentucky)page on Wiki (I cancelled the contract on having them publish the book). I'd like to get the reference to the "sixth book" 16-3-3 and my name removed without joining Wiki. Can someone do that for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.3.8 (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done I've removed that paragraph from the article since it wasn't sourced and since the book was unpublished, it wouldn't really belong on the article about the publisher. Tra (Talk) 22:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design sockpuppet attack?

Suddenly, a number of different editors have taken to deleting whole sections of the Intelligent Design article, all using the same language. If somebody puts the section back, a different editor appears and deletes the section. I'm not a regular there, so I don't know what to do, and I don't know where else to report this suspected sockpuppet attack. Please help. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:AN/I. Thanks This is a Secret account 04:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lazy Journalism at the Toronto Star

Hi guys,

Don't know where else to put his but...

I noticed some striking similarities between this Toronto Star article:
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/279429
and the associated Wikipedia article, especially under the Financial Problems section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rogers_Centre&oldid=172826443#Financial_problems_and_fallout (01:52, 21 November 2007)

What's especially telling is the sentence containing "massively discounted", it's almost lifted word-for-word.
Chozan (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

After looking into it, I sent the following letter to the editor...

To: Publiced@thestar.ca

Sent: Dec 3, 2007 13:44 Subject: Wikipedea not cited

Dear Editor,
Although we at wikipedia love to see our work recognised, especialy with all the bad coverage we have gotten, Lisa Wright neglected to properly cite us when she cut and pasted our article for Rogers Centre (I am refering to the history archives, November 21) into a report she did on November 24, 2007 titled "Sky Dome was profitable when Jays Won World Series."(http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/279429). With few changes in word selection, and no changes in order this article is more our work than her's. Now we do offer tutorials for citing our web site, and mabie your staff would benifit from such a training.
Although we havn't done an extensive serch for other uncited collaberations between our orgonizations, I am shure that shuch a serch would prove many writers have benifited from our shared interests.
Finaly, since wikipedia is a hobby for us, if you should choose to add us to your payroll the web site gladly accepts donations which can be given through the link on our home page, anyone who wants to donate will be welcome to.
Wiki editor "coffeepusher"

They said they were looking into it...no word on the donation, but it dosn't hurt to ask.Coffeepusher 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it might have helped if your letter to them had been in better English. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Dislexia+Blackberry(no spell check), it can be a pain.Coffeepusher 20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand; didn't mean to bite, but it gives them a perfect excuse to ignore your mail and even criticise us. They don't know what you (and now I) know. Let's hope they're too lazy to make a point of it. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 20:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism is a very serious issue in newspapers and could easily get this reporter fired. Is that what we want? Maybe it is, and I am sure some kind of damage will be done to this woman's career. On the other hand, maybe she is not cut out for being a journalist, or maybe she is just an intern. We shall see. I am sure that the newspaper will not just ignore your letter. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 22:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If it matters that much, email the Foundation and they can take the necessary steps. It's not so serious because of the GFDL, but we do ask for a credit. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily want this woman fired...but the editor needed to be informed, at least so they could check. Can you imagine what would happen to the reputation of a paper if it leaks out that they published a Wikipedia article ("why buy the [insert paper name here], I can just look it all up on Wikipedia"). So although I feel like this is a minor infraction, and don't want anyone to get hurt, The editor needs the information that this has happened in order to protect thousands of jobs. and I am not in a position to judge what their actions should be.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with a certain page working

Hello.

On the page Moshe Shmuel Glasner, there is a problem getting the page to display properly.

In the first section, "Method of Study", there is an entire first paragraph that shows up on the edit but not on the normal page.

Sections four and five, in their entirety, show up under edit, but do not show up on the normal view.

Additionally, several pieces of information under "Resources" and "References" do not show up.

In other words, there is content that DOES show up under Edit, but this content does not show up under the normal viewable page, and I cannot figure out why.

I have been able to determine, however, that if I paste this same content elsewhere on the same page, or on the Sandbox, it does not show up there either. Therefore, the problem seems to be not with where the text is, but rather the text itself contains some character that prevents its being displayed properly.

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much! Sevendust62 (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought I found a missing </ref> tag but it was fine. I counted the paragraphs and they are the same for edit mode and article mode. Thus, I suspect that you are continuing to see a prior cached version of the article. Try bypassing your browser's cache (ctrl+F5 on many computers) and see if that doesn't solve the problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I had already deleted all my Temporary Internet Files, and this did not work. I also just now tried the ctrl+F5, to no avail. The fact is, new edits DO show up. If I edit section 2 or 3 or 6, etc., the new changes do show up. It is only sections 1, 4, and 5 that have these errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevendust62 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If you go to the page, and look at the table of contents at the top, you'll see that sections 4 and 5 are nameless. Click them, and you'll be brought lower in the page, where you'll see two section division lines, without any text. Click Edit, and you'll see that indeed, there is a large amount of text to be shown. Similarly, in section one, click Edit and you'll see an entire paragraph missing in the normal view.Sevendust62 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
When I say paragraph, I mean in the convention sense of two blocks of text with a blank line between them. When there is a section flanked with the two equal signs, I refer to this as a section. Thus, sections 4 and 5 show no text at all except in edit mode, and section 1 shows an entire paragraph in edit mode, that is missing in normal view. Sevendust62 (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite several attempts at solving this problem, and almost as many claims that it is in fact fixed, this problem continues. I have tried totally retyping the text from scratch, but this accomplished nothing. Any help is tremendously appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevendust62 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just discovered that in printable view, all the text shows up. Therefore, I invite anyone please to compare the normal and printable views; one will notice that the printable view has text (in sections 1, 4, 5, resources, and references) not present in the normal view. Sevendust62 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: Apparently the problem is only on my computer. I have fully up-to-date IE7 and Firefox. The following screenshots show what I am using, but what no other user sees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rabbi_glasner_problem_one.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rabbi_glasner_problem_two.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rabbi_glasner_problem_three.JPG 15:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "I know I'm right!"

I'm trying to help a newbie editor who's changing a lot of articles because, well because... "I know I'm right and the reference works are embarassingly wrong!" Is there a policy essay I can refer him/her to that covers this? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:RS, This is a Secret account 17:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN. Corvus cornixtalk 18:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

When I was doing stuff like that, I had an editor explain the rules to me (which I am shure you have done) and then invite me to contribute with cited articles that reflected what I thought was right. he kinda worded it like "that is a really interesting point, however we need a citation to back it up...what do you have?" needless to say, I couldn't find anything that held up, and what killed most of my arguments was WP:SYNTH.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of fictional historical events

Would some kind sysop please send me a copy of the deleted article Timeline of fictional historical events or tell me where to find a mirror? Or just undelete it of course, but I don't suppose you'll go for that. Thanks. -Itsjusttheonce (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is User:Dynamite XI/Timeline of fictional historical events.--Patrick (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! -Itsjusttheonce (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how can I get a word added to the dictionary?

affectionate...to show physical signs of affection by kissing, cuddling, patting, etc. affectionated....to have been the object of physical affection,ie, kissing, cuddling, patting, etc. affectionation...the act of showing physical signs of affection, ie kissing, cuddling, hugging, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.140.159 (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a place to publicize something you made up one day. To get a new word into use, you need to use it, and urge others to use it. Dictionaries report what words are used, not what words somebody thinks should be used. (And "affectionate" is already a word, an adjective, with an entirely different meaning; your chances are pretty much zero here.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this the correct image license?

Image:Twinkle-rollback.png This is the first time I've uploaded an image, and I need to know if it has the correct license. Any help is appreciated. --EoL talk 01:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with Anonymous IP Vandalism - What should i do?

Hi, i have read the WP: Vandalsim page and still didn't figure out exactly what i should do with an anonymous IP adress i could trace and everything, but didn't know what to do. Can you help me? I'm quite new and beggining to edit and want to help fight vandalism :)

The question is: exactly what actions should i take after correcting the vandalism? Creating a userpage with the IP adress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warkos (talk • contribs) 09:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

After reverting the vandalism then you can create a warning message for the user. If it is an IP address then use that as the page name or when in diffs on the vandalised article click on the red Talk link and the page with be created for you. Add a level 1 warning message, selected from the available ones on Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. If they vandalise again then use level 2, 3 & 4 as appropriate. If the user continues to vandalise after you have issued a level 4 warning then make a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and thats all you can do. An administrator will come along and review the user's activities and if appropriate will issue a block of the IP address.
If you are wanting to go further then look at the other contributions the user has made and see if any of them need reverting. Keith D (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] What to do with 'fake' User pages??

I found 'real' User pages at User:Phil bianchi/User talk:Phil bianchi, that redirect to 'fake' user pages at User:Phil Bianchi/User talk:Phil Bianchi (note no 'User contributions' link), but have no idea how much of a problem it is, where specifically to report it, what the relevant policies/guidelines are, or anything like that. Anyone know? Should that simply be considered a username change request, or what? Ravenna1961 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems the user didn't understand the naming policy. I'll leave a note for the user to take care of it. Keegantalk 06:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
In this case, it's good to talk to the user about it and about his options, such as changing his name. There seems an obvious reason for this one. :) In terms of policies and where to report it, in some other cases (for instance, if there was not a user attached and somebody had created a vanity article in userspace), you might tag it {{db-nouser}} for speedy criterion U2. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy/paste and derisive edits

I've been working on a page with several other editors for several months now. An SPA has come in and is trying to add undue weight on one section. The user has copied and pasted a paragraph from one page into the one we're working on, and I reverted the edit, saying that it's unnecessary for it to be duplicated into this page, given that it's already on another. The user then reverted my edit and, in the edit summary, wrote "section is too short anyway, stop being a revert whore." I reverted the edit and told the user to stop being hostile. What sort of action should I take from here? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Replicating paragraphs from other articles can serve a limited purpose; however, if the consensus of the editors at an article opposes the inclusion of the information that is the salient point. I would say that good judgments need to be made on a case-by-case basis. As to the hostility, maybe a third opinion might temper the personal focus. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems that you are discussing the Steam article. It seems that disputed passage is comming from a more general article to a specific article on the steam product. The more specific article does seem to be the more approriate place for specific critisism of a product, so if redundancy is deemed inappropriate I would choose to leave the paragraph at Steam. This is a long article, thus I don't see the critisims section as being outscaled to the article, and it appears to be well referenced if the sources are credible. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The passage was taken from the Half-Life 2 article and brought into the Steam article. The editor has since condensed the paragraph into two sentences, which in a paragraph of now five sentences, seems like too much critique for that section. I posted on the talk page so I'll see what everyone else thinks. I was unsure if there was a Wiki policy against copy/paste, but I suppose there isn't. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Beyond the content issue (and the civility question), copying & pasting a paragraph from one article to another without including a proper reference to the source in the edit summary is problematic in terms of copyright. It deprives the authors of the material of due credit. This issue needs to be clarified to the editor who moved the material so that he or she does not do so again without proper acknowledgment; as an uninvolved editor, I'll address that. Beyond that, as Kevin Murray says, its positioning seems to be a content dispute issue. The civility issue is a different concern. If the editor has been cautioned about incivility and continues to display uncivil behavior, you might want to bring up the matter at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
If HelloAnnyong actually discussed it with me properly before asking other users for help then we could make progress much faster.--Zorgness (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the question about wikipedia statistics

Hello, I am a graduate school student of MBA from Taiwan. I and my advisor, Professor Chu, are interested in the diffusion phenomenon of your famous wikipedia website very much. I and my advisor and have some questions about the diffusion data from this URL below,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia


we hope we could apply the formal diffusion model from management science to figure out your successful story. We believe your wonderful experiences could provide people a lot of great intuition if people could apply a proper academic research to figure it out.


At the bottom of this website, there is a data set, describing the

shape of Wikipedia growth in the domain of English. It make me have two questions from this data set. First of all, faced with this data set, I can hardly distinguish the numbers of size is from auto-posting robot, the Rambot, or from the real people. Could you help me to

obtain the data which have already disassembled those two different

processes of data (edited by program and editing by human being)?

Second, what makes me so confused is that the formation of dates is

irregular. I was wondering why the pattern of the data set appears in that way. Is there anything happening inside those irregular data? Could you provide me further story or idea which may help me to figure it out?

Thank you for your response in advance. I hope I can get acquainted with the statistics of Wikipedia which can help us to explore the nature about the diffusion condition of Wikipedia.

Once again, thank you very much.


Best wishes, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiewi (talk • contribs) 06:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. It's not easy. A manual count of all of Rambot's edits from a certain period may be the best bet - see Special:Contributions/Rambot.
  2. I believe that data harvesting is taken whenever a user thinks it is required, which is more often sometimes and less often sometimes.
The full statistics, albeit outdated, are available at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm - noting that it appears to be over a year late for the English Wikipedia. There's also Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, which now does not list bots any more (a list is available at Category:Wikipedia bots).
The easiest way may simply be to download a database dump and then run software on it, harvesting your own statistics - you can get instructions here. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not possible in many cases because there haven't been any complete dumps in over a year. Partial dumps, suitable for some questions, are available though at the link you give. See also User:Dragons flight/Log analysis. Dragons flight (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question on notability

  • Is someone who has been elected to a public office notable enough to warrant an article?
  • Is someone who has been elected to a quasi-public[[1]] Maryland office notable enough to warrant an article?

--Nbahn (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly; it depends. :) Wikipedia:Notability (people) includes a section on politicians that may help. Note that even someone elected to a quasi-public office may be notable for other concerns or for exceptional activities in office. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please look at this

Please look at Joe Miller (Kickboxer) and it's talk page.
1) this article was created by a user named RealJoeMiller which certainly sounds like an autobiography which is not allowed.
2) Read the story and it does not seem that this person is notable enough for an article. A guy beat somebody they weren't expected to - big deal.
3) This article was written only to satisfy multiple edit-wars to add a non-existing article on this subject to the Joe Miller disambig page.
4) Look at the history. Somebody rightfully put a "no sources" tag on the article and this author just removed it without adding sources. (That's not allowed, right?) He then wrote a BS excuse in the talk page basically saying that he doesn't care that he has no sources because he swears by his story and will apologize if he's wrong. WTF?
5) it reads like a personal story which is not written in encyclopedia style.
This guy keeps refusing to play by the rules. Can somebody please set this guy straight.

Tagged for deletion. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar help

Please help by fixing the grammar/punctuation of the following sentence:

Players not only control combat units ranging from infantry and tanks to helicopters, fighters and bombers, armored trains, surface warships and submarines, stationary gun turrets; but—especially in the later—games—also many support units, including ammo and fuel transports, scout and radar units, road and trench construction vehicles, and others.

Thanks a lot! SharkD (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does this text appear? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Tactical wargame (note, I edited it a little, so the errors may not be as striking). I spliced the text together from bits found at Battle Isle series. SharkD (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
<proposed change>Players have the ability to control combat units of many types, including tanks, jet fighters, bombers, helicopters, armored trains, surface warships, submarines, stationary gun turrets and infantry. Especially in games appearing later in the Battle Isle series, players can also direct support units, including among others, ammo and fuel transports, scout and radar units and road and trench construction vehicles.</proposed change>--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Check the Tactical wargame article again and see if it's good enough. Thanks! SharkD (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] paper on economic-globalization, and human rights

hi, i want to write a paper on globalization and human rights- starting with, possiably, with the history of globalization since the Marshal plan; Marx's theoty of ailunation, the increase in poverty in the west and the harming of human (and labour) rights in unindustrial countries...

does anyone have any suggestions of what i should be reading?

regards, Alon Marcus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.200.14 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a question that should be asked on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. This page is for asking about assistance in using Wikipedia.--Eriastrum (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinion on link removal

User:Porta123 today went through removing links to a particular site. All of the edits were without summary. On one hand, consistently removing a possible spammer is good. On the other hand, 20-ish edits removing related information without edit summaries isn't all that good. Any more opinions?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 04:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I left a question for this user on his talk page. Curiously, he has nominated for speedy deletion both Toucan (software) and PokerTH, two applications that are hosted by portableapps.com. (This is all free software). He also removed text from Sumatra PDF that explained its hosting on portableapps. He has made no further edits since 10 December. One approach would be to simply revert all his edits, but it would be good to give him a chance to respond first. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Though I myself had never heard of portableapps before this discussion, we do have a free-standing article PortableApps.com. The sources for the article all seem to be web sites, but a page at SourceForge says that the program has been downloaded 10.7 million times, which should give it some credibility. Knowing whether all the links were justifiable would take more thought, but mass removal seems just as dubious as mass addition. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cancer Cells...help!

hi ummm... well i am dong a project in science on cells and I chose the cancer cell, I am having a bit of trouble because all the info I have found is either on things like what cancer is and how to treat it or what can lead to cancer but what I really need is the make-up of the actual cancer CELL and the function of it. I also need a diagram of a cell with all the organelles and parts labeled e.g. nucleus, mitochondria, vacuole, endoplasmic reticulum etc. If anyone could help please post it under something like cancer cell diagram or cancer cell picture. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.23.30 (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Try asking your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. This page is for questions about Wikipedia itself. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Cancer cells can look grossly like any other cell, or they can by shaped differently, but they still contain the same organelles, see Cancer cell#Cancer cell biology. Have a look at [2], and you will see how the cancer cells in the center are disorganized in comparison to the structured cells at the top. See Image:Biological cell.svg for the diagram you want. Rockpocket 05:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images & uploading question?

I've been trying to find the answer to a question about images without success. Pictures created before 1923 are copyright expired from what I can discover. Does that mean that I can download a picture of a (pre 1923) postcard from the internet to my computer, and then upload it to Wikipedia, or must I actually have the card in my possession, take my own picture of it, then upload my picture that I took myself? There are pictures that I want to add to articles, but I don't want to break the rules in order to do it! Mjroots (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a specialized page for questions like this: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions . (If I knew the answer, I'd offer it.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, have copied question there. Mjroots (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image use on Stiff Records article

I haven't seen any rules that would contradict the insertion of the logo so big as at the start of the Stiff Records article, but it does seem over the top. The earlier 'flexible' logo seemed quite sufficient - the included slogan being a truer indicator of Stiff style. Having both on the article seems unnecessary. I'm considering reverting. Please put any arguments on Talk:Stiff Records? Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help on article criticism

I've spent some time criticising The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (specifically, here), and was wondering if I could get some help ironing out some issues. I'm not sure my points are coming through clearly. I was wondering if any of you could take a look over the discussion and insert your own points on the material. SharkD (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to try editor assistance; they specialize in one-to-one advice. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll keep that in mind. SharkD (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia displays strange fonts in english Version on Mac

This is a really strange occurrence, and i'm not sure if anyone has had any experience with this...but today I noticed as I was surfing to Craigslist and Wikipedia that the sites both are displayed in this weird numeric language...everything looks garbled. I can't make any sense of it. Today I installed Adobe Fontfolio and have increased my font library to about 1000 fonts. I'm wondering if this has something to do with it. Strangely enough, i noticed that it seems to only be Craigslist and Wikipedia that are displaying in this weird numeric Alien language....i've taken screenshots of the Alien sightings...

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a145/doriansend/craigslist.png

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a145/doriansend/wikipedia.png

Would you please teach me how to solve this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.156.108 (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks to me like some Indian script. In any case this may help [3]. In future you may want to try searching before asking (I tried 'adobe font folio strange fonts craiglist' in Google), you'll often get an answer to your question much more quickly that way. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To me, it looks like Hindu-Arabic numerals and fractions and bullshit mixed together. —abadafa  19:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Assignment

Here's a proposed assignment, for you wonderful Wikipedia researchers:

Find out what the HECK this place is!

http://www.desteni-universe.co.za/

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/DesteniProductions (also: http://www.youtube.com/user/DesteniProdDemons ; http://www.youtube.com/user/DesteniProdCrossOver ; http://www.youtube.com/user/DesteniProdAfrikaans )

Here's a good video to start at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPKsS-FA2VU

[NOTE: The following thread on their forum (registration required) supposedly addresses the issue of the presence of her accent: http://www.desteni-universe.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1557 ]

With over 600 videos on YouTube, I'd say this is an internet phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 00:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Found an overview in the forums: http://www.desteni-universe.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2140 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More grammar help

Please reword the following sentence (from Real-time vs. turn-based gameplay) so that it is grammatically correct and reads properly:

"In real warfare, all the armies move simultaneously, therefore making illogical the fact that the other armies will wait for their enemy to finish their move. Likewise, all armies being active at the same time makes much more sense, making real-time games more realistic."

It was originally added by an anonymous user. I don't know how to fix it myself, as my grammar is not good enough. Thanks! SharkD (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It reads okay to me. Corvus cornixtalk 19:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
In real warfare, it is illogical for armies to wait for opposing ones to complete their maneuvers before acting; in the same vein, a game in which all armies are simultaneously active is sensible as this makes for a more realistic gaming experience. Just an idea Die4Dixie 03:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I like that less than the original. My questions regarding the original center around the words "making illogical" and the latter portion of the second sentence (i.e., "makes much more sense" seems too opinionated, even for an article about opinions). SharkD (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course I am not a gamer, so I defer to your better judgment.Die4Dixie 04:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

I am trying to put the raw signature /* abadafa */ May message po kayo? in my box, but says the HTML tags are invalid. How do I fix it? /* abadafa */ +C0 22:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the syntax is incorrect; try this: [[User:abadafa|<span style="color:#000;font-family:courier new, sans-serif;">/* abadafa */</span>]] <sup><span style="color:#228822" class="plainlinks">May [{{fullurl:User talk:abadafa|action=edit&section=new}} message] po kayo?</span></sup> — Wenli (reply here) 04:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy on television character pages

I am currently engaged in the discussion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy), which is a four time gag character on Family Guy.

  1. When is a reoccurring television character notable enough or reoccurring enough to make a wikipage on?
  2. What are the wiki guidelines on television character pages? I can't find them. The closest I can find it television series guidelines. Odessaukrain (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You might look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters to get a better understanding of the bigger picture. --Jack Merridew 14:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I changed my vote to merge, based on the deletion policy I found while researching characters. Odessaukrain (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a discussion, not a vote. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image thumbnails (SVG) do not show up in article

Hello. I don't know if the problem is only on my computer (even tought I tried both browsers I have) but the article Rouïba District, to which I added two images (maps) do not show up, I only get a transparent space, but if I click on the empty spaces, I can normally see those maps. Can someone fix this? BTW: I noticed that all articles using Template:Infobox Algerian District have this problem, which they didn't have before, probably it's because of the template? TIA. --ESCONDITES 15:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that happen as well, but I'm not sure why. Sometimes when I drill down to see the SVG image, it then shows up when I return to the article page and do a refresh. So perhaps there is a bug with the browser?—RJH (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed "blank" images too, sometimes. I don't know what causes this. Maybe try Village pump (techincal) instead? SharkD (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry guys, I fixed it, the problem was that I changed the infobox without changing the syntax of the articles. --ESCONDITES 12:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] admins gone wild

How do I go about getting some help reining in an admin gone wild? I just had a page I created deleted within seconds of creation when it was pretty obvious that what was intended for the talk page had been pasted to the article page. The admin tagged it and waited no more than a heartbeat before removing the article. I'm all for cleaning out the cruft from the articles but common sense is a good thing too.

Looking at this admin's talk page, other users have had issues with this admin's bravado. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs) 14:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have not looked at the specifics in your case, but do have some general information for you about handling such events. The first step is to approach the admin civilly to discuss your issues—this is true whether you want to dispute the deletion or question the use of the admin tools. For disputes of the handling of the deletion process, if the admin is not open to discussion, you may pursue deletion review. After talking to the admin about them, questions of admin abuse can be handled through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and requests for comment procedures. You may make an open, informal complaint about admin abuse at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but it is always recommended that you approach the admin first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I've approached both the person who tagged the article and the admin. The tagger has appologized and I'm waiting for a response from the admin. My concern here is that admins and editors, while well meaning in the cleanup activities, need to slow down and think a little more sometimes.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Please consider this from the admin's viewpoint: Studying CSDs in detail might (say) double the amount of time that these deletions take, and there are literally thousands per day. If there is (say) a 1% error rate, it's easy enough for an admin to put the article back, and that's still a lot less work. And yes, that means a bit more work for editors, but it's not an unreasonable tradeoff to make. (I also think you'll get a better reaction if you acknowledge that (a) another editor thought this was CSD material and (b) because of your mistake - pasting talk page info to the article - that it is understandable that someone might not catch the mistake, so (c) would the admin put things where there should be?) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm an admin, and i think we could study them in detail, at least in those cases where it wasnt totally obvious. There are 1,400 admins, and there is almost never a substantial backlog at CSD, none that lasts more than a few hours. Saying we delete 1000 articles a day, there is enough time to do it carefully and properly. (there are backlogs at other processes, but not at CSD--though there were frequent ones a year ago--we have more admins now). People make mistakes, and new comers particularly should not be blamed for them. The continued growth, even the survival, of WP depends on recruiting new people and not discouraging them. DGG (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange

I'm in the process of fleshing out this list - obviously, the nature of a list like that is that it will always be in flux, but it was wildly incomplete. I'd done some clean-up work already on the similar list for the New York Stock Exchange, which is far more complete.

The two lists have different formats - the TSX list is all on one page, while the NYSE list is sub-divided into multiple alphabetical pages. I'm wondering which would be the preferred format? If the sub-divided approach is preferred, I'm wondering if I can ask for some help in making that change? I'm still pretty new at this and, while I'm confident in doing the things I've been doing - adding companies to the list, checking for existing articles on the companies and piping links accordingly, including the lookup template for the stock symbols, etc. - something that big would be a little out of my comfort zone right now.

Thanks in advance, Mlaffs (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Following the example of Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange (A) and similar articles, it is better if you remove 'List of' from the title of the article. ('List of companies listed..' sounds awkward). Also, not every company name needs to be wikilinked. The NYSE list has a number of black-print (un-linked) companies in cases where a separate article is unlikely to be written. Your approach has been to wikilink every separately-named offering of iShares, for example, even though nearly all of them are redirects to iShares. Why not signal to the reader that there is no separate article in these cases, so they don't waste time clicking? EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Done, and thanks for the advice. Actually, the NYSE lists need similar pruning - a few my fault, but the vast majority from before I got there. Most of the blank-print companies there are ones with multiple stock symbols. Mlaffs (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Irshmun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshmun (talk • contribs) 23:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where does the "?" char come from in displayed pages ???

Hey Wikiwizards ..

I could use some assistance. I can't seem to find the magic to make my Wiki behave. At issue: when I enter the following text on a page I get an annoying "$" symbol at the end of some words:

After the script variables are set, the script executes a 'change directory' or 'cd' to set the CWD (current working directory) to the value of $BaseDir. The script then uses the $LockFile variable to check for the presence of a processing 'lockfile'. If a lockfile is found, the script assumes that another copy of the script is running, and it will exit and report the contents of the $LockFile by writing that value to a log

RESULTS in: After the script variables are set, the script executes a 'change directory' or 'cd' to set the CWD (current working directory) to the value of $BaseDir?. The script then uses the $LockFile? variable to check for the presence of a processing 'lockfile'. If a lockfile is found, the script assumes that another copy of the script is running, and it will exit and report the contents of the $LockFile? by writing that value to a log

If I remove the leading $ - I still get a trailing "?" char. I am guessing it must be something upstream, but can't seem to find any references to what may be causing this. Any ideas ??

Thanks a lot -

Irshmun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshmun (talk • contribs) 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you ask at mw:Project:Support desk. This page is for asking for assistance on Wikipedia only, while the MediaWiki support desk is just for asking for help with the technical aspects of the MediaWiki software, so you'll get more specific help there. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NDT and Molniya (explosive trap)

Question: Is the huge warning on the page really appropriate? It's not a template, exactly, but it seems to be headed in that direction. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal is warranted. That's all covered by Wikipedia:General disclaimer, at the bottom of every page, and the information that one shouldn't attempt to disarm old munitions on your own can be integrated into the article without an explicit disclaimer. - BanyanTree 05:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I got rid of the disclaimer stuff and partly worked it into the article. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Folkestone Academy

Please could you create Folkestone Academy as a redirect to The Folkestone Academy. I can 't, as I don't want to create an account. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.254.193 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Done DTGardner (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transclusion of Special Pages

Is there any way to transclude Special:Watchlist onto another page. I know you can do it with other special pages, such as Special:Newpages, but it doesn't work with Special:Watchlist. Any help would be appreciated. Billscottbob (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Some special pages can be transcluded; some can't. Unfortunately, Special:Watchlist is in the latter category. GracenotesT § 04:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with an AOL vandal

My talk page and articles I've edited (even this request) have been getting hit by the dynamic IPs of a determined AOL vandal lately, and I've been searching for a solution that doesn't involve the collateral damage of a range block. Any suggestions? Nufy8 (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Range block it is. Let me see here... Prodego talk 00:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
hmm. Did it stop? Prodego talk 00:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Nufy8 (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you email me. Prodego talk 01:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't AOL and Wikipedia begun collaboration so that AOL can find out the offender and turn them in to Wikipedia? I think the name, address, phone number, and credit report isn't turned over but enough information is turned over so that Wikipedia can seek retribution.Archtransit (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copying content from other Wikipedia articles

I have noticed that many Wikipedia articles copy information and sources directly from other Wikipedia articles. Is this permitted or is it against Wikipedia policy? -- Doug —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougTrumbell (talk • contribs) 05:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A certain amount of redundancy is acceptable, but copying large chunks of text and footnotes generally is not. Summary style sections is one way to address this problem. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essays: Notability/Precedent and Admin Abuses/Errors

I may be opening a can of worms here, but I would like to solicit assistance and additional help in touching up, expanding, and enhancing two essays I have been working on.
  • Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists is designed to address precedent within Wikipedia and its proper use through accurate and legitimate comparisons as well as the current tendancy to immediately (and often erroneously) dismiss without thought any sort of "these types of articles are already here...) type of rationales.
  • User:VigilancePrime/Admin Abuse is designed to document reasonably clear cases of Admins who overuse their "authority", usually accompanied with a statement such as "those saying Keep were ignored" (which has happened). The purpose here is not to attack or embarrass, but to edify, document/track, and provide new and established admins alike (and prospective admins too!) a centralized page to see situations where others perhaps erred. The article goes to great lengths to assert that many times these are simply Good Faith mistakes.
Any assistance on these two pages would be greatly appreciated by anyone who finds they are the same as or similar to their viewpoints (there are opposite essays for the opposing views already). Many thanks! VigilancePrime (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC) :-)
"those saying Keep were ignored" has no meaning, since "those saying keep" may not be following policy. Corvus cornixtalk 07:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it's the attitude of "just ignoring" users. If closings were to say "Policies not cited, and other arguments not sufficient", that is a lot different from "I decided to ignore half the contributors to the debate." (On top of that, in one example, the Delete camp neither used policy, leading to a disparate ignoring.) If you read the two pages, I think it'll make more sense the actual intent; it's hard to sum it up in one paragraph. Thank you! VigilancePrime (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd be a bit careful on the Other Stuff Exists. Two reasons: first, content can be created a lot faster than it can be (reasonably consenented to) deleted; while we have the new New Pages feature to help police new articles, it is still possible to create new content at a rapid rate. We should be promoting more "think first, then create". Now sure, this is meant towards deletion arguments, but you may want to make that clear. Second, there needs to be some mention of reasonable expectation, that one is comparing articles of similar nature. Your example is a good one, that if there are episode articles for every Trek excluding Enterprise, it is reasonably expected that such can be created and accepted in the same fashion. Similarly, if both South Park and the Simpsons have such, I would expected many modern cartoons to have the same. However, I cannot use that same argument to justify that if South Park has episode articles, so should Scooby-Doo, Where Are You!. Additionally, such by-examples are not a firm response that such will exist, it just helps to state that there will likely be enough information at some point to support notability, which eventually needs to be added, but shouldn't be swiftly removed; however, if good efforts fails to find notability, then the articles should be merged or moved appropriately. --MASEM 17:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
And I agree with the South Park and Simpsons rationale. The problem is these are denied on smaller scales by many who blindly point to a minor section of an essay and then belittle (well, I have been at least) for explaining the reasoning behind the precedent-set. For instance, if there was a seperate article for each model year of the Ford Taurus and a seperate article for each model year of the Toyota Camry, and on and on, and so someone went and created a seperate article for each model year of the Hundai Santa Fe, that would be following in precedent, even though those may not seem as major, referencable, or well-known as television. But it would be a perfectly legitimate, precedent-based article series. (Of course, I think individual model year articles would be ridiculous, which is why I used that as an example.) If Knight Rider has an article for every character listed in opening credits, then The A-Team should as well. The concept is transferrable across Wikipedia. But simply to say "Delete: You can't claim Other Stuff Exists" is ridiculous and cowardly. That's the point, and that's what I want to get in the WP:OSE article. I would appreciate any help in making it sound right and be written better. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
On the first page, I have to go with WP:POVFORK (in spirit; it was written about articles) and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. If you don't believe WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually represents consensus then work to change it at or remove it from WP:AADD (I've already argued there strongly against forking the other-stuff-exist issue into a separate page, for reasons that to me should be obvious to most Wikipedians, and especially to editors of AADD, the entire purpose of which is to consolidate the formerly splintered collective wisdom on what does and does not make a logically- and policy-valid XfD argument. Yes, there are essays that seem to contradict other essays/guidelines/policies here (cf. WP:ABF and a Wiktionary screed somewhere about "do bite the newbies, among others), but they make a tongue-in-cheek and sometimes even self-deprecating point, and are generally not truly diametrically opposed to established consensus but are meant to be taken with a grain of salt. Please see Wikipedia:Notability/Historical's archival of the "WP:NN" proposal that was not only rejected but was confirmed as rejected by the ArbCom, and its authors sanctioned for disruptive behavior in trying to competitively campaign against consensus (among other things like editwarring and personal attacks). PS: Regardless of the validity of the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists page, the name has to change, since it overlaps 100% with the shortcut of its opposite (I again point to the ill-fated WP:NN, which unwisely attempted to co-opt and reverse the meaning of the established WP:N-supportive usage of "NN". I.e. bad idea). Should it be kept, I would suggest Wikipedia:Other stuff does exist or Wikipedia:Comparisons of material at XfD or something, but keeping it is wrongheaded to begin with. Just go fix AADD by building consensus there for the points you are trying to make, which are in fact quite valid.
On the second page, I have to abstain from much of an consistent opinional comment for now due to a conflict of interest (and frankly of mentality). The quasi-short explanation being that I do believe in admin accountability, and note that sometimes admin powers are abused, but also that we already have the WP:DRV and WP:ANI processes, among others, but am not entirely convinced they are working properly, due to an unbelievable AfD-and-DRv goat-<ahem>roping I've been a flabbergasted party to recently that blatantly violates at least three policies and four guidelines, compounded by a failure to simply read plain-English sentences, so my present take on the matter would be schizophrenically biased between astounded and pissed off on the one hand, and calm and long-viewed on the other. :-/ — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)