Help desk
< April 1	<< March \| Apr \| May >>	April 3 >

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.

April 2

George Washington and Instant Coffee

Wikipedia's featured article for April 1 is about a George Washington who helped to invent instant coffee. Did this person really exist, or is this an elaborate April Fools' Day joke? I am especially suspicious about the passage that says he "crossed into New Jersey" (as the more famous George Washington did when he crossed the Delaware in 1776), as well as the reference to him mounting a presidential campaign. Is there any truth to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.15.61 (talk • contribs)

Have you read the article's discussion page? Xiner (talk, a promise) 01:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine events that had been interpreted as April Fools' Day hoaxes included:

The Wikipedia featured article about one of the inventors of instant coffee, George Washington (not to be confused with president George Washington). However, this was made the featured article for April 1 deliberately to deceive people.

Randomfrenchie 01:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to note that given WIkipedia's prominence, there was almost no way for the featured article to not be suspected of being a hoax for that special day, so going with a deliberately counterintuitive truth was the best possible approach. 66.195.208.91 03:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Sources from an e-mail?

I'm trying to update an article on a school, and in doing so am requesting information from a school administrator. Can one cite a response to an e-mail as a source? And I guess this goes toward getting image rights too. What must they do for that aside from the statement in the e-mail? Or more what must I do with the statement in the e-mail? Redian (Talk) 01:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that might fall under the policy Wikipedia has concerning original research. You'll have to find a verifiable, reputable source to cite for your information.

For image rights, however, I'm pretty sure you can get a statement from the holder of the copyright (creator of the image) that they wish to release it into the public domain or release it under a free license acceptable by Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more information there.

Hope this has helped! Hersfold ^(talk/work) 01:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obtaining permission to use images is described at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The e-mail shouldn't be used to support any article content, because it isn't something that an independent reader could check to verify on his or her own. However, this is a good way to obtain an image to use in a Wikipedia article. For content to be usable on Wikipedia, the copyright holder has to do more than give you permission to use an image on Wikipedia - the copyright holder must agree to release the content under the GNU Free Documentation License. There's a nice selection of example requests that other editors have used to ask for this permission at Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission. Another good page is at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed. It gives instructions about what to do with the e-mail once you receive an agreement to release the material under the GFDL. Sancho (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the image covered, it's the other info that's worrying me. What if it is in a school published source? (For clubs and activities, could I cite the school website's student handbook.) Redian (Talk) 01:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short, yes. If you're looking for a way to keep the references in the article organized with footnotes and all, check out this page: Wikipedia:Footnotes. It shouldn't take too long to read, and there are lots of examples. It's good to hear that you're working to support the material in this article with references to reliable sources. That is a weakness of many articles about schools. You also should try to see if there are any sources that give your school coverage other than sources published by the school itself. Sancho (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing. I'm obviously going to look into local newspaper archives for notability in school history, but if I ask the principal to put the info on the school website, and then cite the website, will that be acceptable? Redian (Talk) 02:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many references to the same page

I am trying to add references to the History section of the National Lacrosse League page, but it turned out that almost all of the references were going to be to the same page (http://nll.com/laxhistory.php). I don't think we want to have the same reference on every other sentence in the entire section -- is there a way to say "This section taken from this link", or something similar? Thanks --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 02:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOT#Citing a footnote more than once is your friend. x42bn6 Talk 02:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about that, but that then you could end up with references like those on Jack Turnbull Award, where one reference being used about 40 times. I find this kind of ugly, but if that's the best way to do it, then that's what I'll do. Thanks --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 11:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting a question

I know it says not to post the same question twice, but what if your question disappears into the archives without being answered? My question is at wikipedia:Help desk#Getting my request taken. It also says on your site that questions can take up to a day to be answered, but it has been several days since I posted a follow up.69.67.231.92 03:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable to repost if it's been archived. Sancho (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site is run by volunteer effort. There is no guarantee any request at AfC (or any question posted here) will ever get any response. If you really want this article created, I'd suggest you create a login and create it yourself (you can create a completely anonymous login and use it only to create this article if you'd like). BTW - are you sure this person meets the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (people)? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for Sandii and the Sunsetz

I need to set up a redirect page as follows for Sandii and the Sunsetz, at least. I can't see how to start a new page. I see in the instructions that I should be able to click on "Create Page" but I don't see anywhere to click. Etc.

REDIRECT Sandii & the Sunsetz

I could do this redirect for you, or I could talk you through it. If you have the time, I'll talk you through it. First, just go Sandii and the Sunsetz. The page doesn't exist, so are immediately shown a form that lets you create the page by adding its first contents. The only text that you need to add to the form is: #REDIRECT [[Sandii & the Sunsetz]]. Then just leave a quick edit summary in the edit summary box below the editing form, and save the page. Sancho (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or can you not create articles as an anonymous user? Sancho (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Bulldogs Players

I am trying to edit (merge) two sections, as the 'Hamilton Bulldogs Players' and the "Hamilton Bulldogs Players 1996-2002" should be merged, they have been separated incorrectly. I cannot seem to edit the players lists in either.

Thanks

Chesterfield99 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it violate NPOV to require a scientific viewpoint?

Articles about the supernatural like ghost and qi are written from a thoroughly unscientific viewpoint. That is, they give (what I feel to be) undue weight to the possibility that these entities exist. In the same way that we require articles about fictional entities to not be written from an in-universe style, I think that we should require articles about unscientific topics to clearly state that their existences are not supported by science. Would this violate NPOV? And to dig myself even further into a hole, I would like to extend this question beyond articles on the supernatural to articles about religious topics and articles about pseudoscience (as determined by scientific consensus). Would it violate NPOV to put some kind of "this is unscientific" disclaimer onto those? --JianLi 05:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds more like a question that belongs at the Village Pump, specifically the policy section: WP:VPP is the link. Have a nice day/night! Silas Snider (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've copied it to there. --JianLi 06:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be scientific POV instead of NPOV. It doesn't need stating in most cases because it's obvious. If you intend to do this. Make sure you discuss a lot before and be very careful in giving science undue weight itself. If you do that it will turn into an article about what we can't prove about supernatural things rather than the things that have been written about and what people believe in. God can't be proven with science either... - Mgm|^(talk) 08:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Scientific POV" is a contradiction in terms; scientists invented the neutral point of view! The scientific viewpoint is the neutral viewpoint! The whole discipline of science is an attempt to abandon all pre-conceived biases, and allow the objective evidence to speak for itself, insofar as is humanly possible. Scientists try not to leap to conclusions before there is conclusive evidence. Individual scientists, of course, approach the scientifically neutral ideal to varying degrees, because they are humans, and all humans are riddled with various cognitive biases. However, science as a collective endeavor does tend to asymptotically approach the neutral point of view, over time, on any subject which undergoes scientific investigation. The whole point of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV is to take a scientific approach to things, which is to say, scientists present all the relevant facts about a thing (the "facts" being claims that virtually all sane people agree on when they take the time to examine all the evidence), and form no beliefs not conclusively supported by the facts.

Therefore, the scientific (and thus the neutral) thing to say about ghosts, qi, and other religions and pseudosciences is that no conclusive evidence supports the supernatural claims various people make about them. No conclusive evidence means scientists can neither prove nor disprove these things. If you ask a competent scientist whether Santa Claus exists, she will probably say something like this: "There is insufficient evidence to conclude Santa Claus exists; but there is also insufficient evidence to rule out the possibility that Santa Claus exists." That is the scientific view of Santa Claus, and it is also the NPOV of Santa Claus. Non-neutral points of view about Santa Claus would be specific claims about the existence or non-existence of Santa Claus, none of which are conclusively supported by the available evidence. All we can neutrally say about the existence of Santa Claus is that we just don't know.

It's too bad most parents fail to teach this important lesson to their children. First children are led to believe Santa Claus exists. Then they are told Santa Claus does not exist. But they are still not quite right in their thinking. Instead children should be taught to refrain from leaping to conclusions about Santa Claus ahead of any available evidence to support those conclusions. Of course in real life, we sometimes have to place bets; in the case of Santa Claus, betting on Santa Claus to come through for you in a given situation appears to be a bet you will lose most of the time. Therefore, a pragmatic person will carry on as if Santa Claus does not exist; and if the pragmatic person is also rational/scientific/neutral, will recognize that the non-existence of Santa Claus is by no means proven. Maybe Santa Claus does exist, and chooses not to show up most of the time when you need him.

As far as whether the POV nature is "obvious" about claims about the supernatural, that may be obvious to you, but maybe not to someone else. Adherents of a particular unscientific belief system may view its supernatural claims as being as certain as actual facts, and potentially many other people may be susceptible to accepting those claims if they hear only a POV presentation of them. Certainly, the success of any unscientific belief system depends on people being credulous enough to accept those POV claims as true, without demanding any sort of conclusive evidence. Obviously what religions are selling is highly appealing to lots of people. (If Wikipedia wrote an article about where people could go to dig up a fortune in gold bullion, it would be very important to plaster that article with disclaimers, to prevent a stampede. Even with the disclaimers, probably someone would be out there digging at the described location.) Thus the very existence and popularity of the beliefs that the articles describe imply that Wikipedia should be careful to strictly maintain neutrality, and not write about these highly appealing claims from an "in-universe" perspective. That is, these articles should bend over backwards to insure that readers can only understand them to be neutral reports of what some people believe, and not assertions that what those people believe in any way follows conclusively from the available facts. The very existence of religion is evidence that this distinction can never be made carefully enough. Otherwise Wikipedia will violate its own policy against promoting specific causes and beliefs.

Wikipedians will have an uphill battle to approach neutrality in religion articles, because many people who have the interest and knowledge to edit those articles will of course be devotees of the various religions they write about, which means these are people who personally reject neutrality on these topics. They will have to grit their teeth and make a real effort to write neutrally about their decidedly non-neutral beliefs. Not to pick on any one in particular, but who do you suppose edits the articles about Mormonism? Very few non-Mormons would know enough to write about those topics. However, the Book of Mormon article does a pretty good job of admitting that the available archeological evidence from mesoamerica in no way supports the historical claims in the Book of Mormon, and this lack of conciliency is a bit troubling. --Teratornis 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect move procedure Database Technologies to DBT Online Inc

Big apology - I tried to perform a move for the content at Database Technologies to DBT Online Inc because the company's name had changed (back in 1996). I did a cut 'n paste but now realise I should have used a move to preserve the article history and the chat page. Could I please request assistance to fix things up. Again, my apologies. Saganaki- 07:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It appears there's a dot missing. Incorporated is abbreviated Inc., so I will change that too. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very muchSaganaki- 08:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PICTURES

Hi. Two things. Do flags have copyright on them? I'm guessing that they don't, but I was just wondering. And, how do I input images into Wikipedia? Thanks86.130.49.79 07:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See just below. Teke 07:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of flags can have copyright on them. In many cases, pictures of flags have been carefully recreated for Wikipedia. Flags less than about 100 years old could also be copyright in themselves, even if recreated. Notinasnaid 08:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PICS

Hi. I was gonna ask a similar question, but 86.130.49.79 got there first. How do ya input pictures? WILLKW 07:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. To upload an image, click on the "Upload file" to the left on your screen in the fourth section, the toolbox. Follow the instructions in the template that is on the page to find the appropriate copyright, fairuse, free images tags or whatever you may need. It will take you a bit to find what you need, and you can edit the upload page later to fix a tag if you need to. Take your time and follow the steps. Happy editing to you! Teke 07:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures are uploaded using the "Upload file" link in the menu to the left (read the page carefully before uploading anything) then included in articles with code you can learn about at Wikipedia:Image tutorial. Also see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! Nice link with the tutorial. Teke 07:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added them. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey can i really just take pics from wikapedia and not have to cite them?

Section editing

The section edit links don't point to the right sections. Something is throwing them off and I suspect it's HTML instead of wikicoding like before. Can someone help trace the cause? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the cause was a redesign of the help desk page header. I've reverted it and I will inform the editor. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help we! Range block of a large scale and a long term in Wikipedia Japan.

In Wikipedia of Japan, internet Protocol address of 1.4 million or more is blocked, and internet Protocol address of 800000 or more of that is blocked longer than half a year.

Range block list in Wikipedia of Japan

We cannot appeal to the administrator because it is blocked. There are people who appeal instead of us, however administrators' movement is late.

Discussion about cancellation of range block (Japanese)

Range block was decided by some of people's opaque discussions.
The administrator (Suisui) doesn't behave easily because of busy.

218.217.173.3 08:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You problem seems to dea with the japaenese wikipedia, over which we have no influence. Viridae ^Talk 12:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add a New Person when a same-name Person already Exists

Hi, I'd like to add an Australian environmentalist to Wikipedia. His name is Peter Andrews. A person by that name already exists. I know that it requires a 'disambiguation' page, but I don't know how to do that.

Can you advise how to do this, or can you create a new article (or stub?) for Peter Andrews, so that I can add to it?

MTIA

Put it at Peter Andrews (environmentalist) and leave a link at the top of Peter Andrews that says For the environmentalist, see Peter Andrews (environmentalist). or something that integrates better with the note that's already there. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you can use the system that was also used for Jack Lang or Robert Merton - other examples of multiple persons having the same name. That takes more work, because you have to move the original Peter-Andrews page to Peter Andrews (mathematician), then remodel the Peter Andrews page to a disambiguation page, and finally correct all the links to Peter Andrews. However, then you have put all Peters Andrews on equal footings. Johan Lont 11:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

I wonder why the dates in the 25th meridian west from Washington article look so awkward. Anyway, that is my opinion; maybe someone else likes them.

The dates look approximately like this:

On 1861-01-29...

In stead of something like

"On January 29, 1861..." or "In 1861, on January 29..."

I was going to change these dates to something like "January 29 1861", but I hesitate. The dates have probably been styled that way for some specific purpose that I do not yet understand. I guess that is has something to do with reader's date formatting preference. Can somebody answer these questions:

Am I the only person that finds those dates look awkward?
Is it okay if I edit them?

Johan Lont 10:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mhh, I suggest leaving a comment on the article talk page (Talk:25th meridian west from Washington) and ask what other people think and then you can take it from their, hope this helps! Telly addict 10:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. I copied my questions to the article talk page. Johan Lont 10:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

25th meridian west from Washington contains dates written like [[1861-01-29]] which renders as 1861-01-29. (Johan Lont did not copy the wiki source. I wrote <nowiki>[[1861-01-29]]</nowiki> to show the wiki source without rendering it here). It's one of the suggested formats at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day. I prefer spelling the month in most circumstances. PrimeHunter 11:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added another note to Johan's talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a not on Johan's talk page, explaining to change his date and time settings under "my preferences" − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article

how can i add new article to wikipedia

See WP:YFA and Help:Starting a new page. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to see pictures of Earth

How can i see the pictures of Earth,specially the views of my house?220.226.206.53 11:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Anand[reply]

Try one of the following applications: NASA World Wind, Google Earth ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what you asked for, but it's cool: you can find Wikipedia articles about things that are near your house.

--Teratornis 14:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close Precision Engagement Course

The Close Precision Engagement Course is conducted by Air Force Personnel and not Army personnel.

I'd love to take your word for it, but our verifiability policy says I can't. Can you point me to a reliable published source that backs up this claim? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding my edits

About a year ago I added to the pages on 'free will' Can I now find out what I added? Sherwood Vine,M.D.24.0.57.247 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you edited under a registered account, simply log in and click the "my contributions" link that should appear in the upper right on every page (if you are using the default skin). If you edited without logging in, you will have to check the history for each of the pages you edited, and try to determine which of the anonymous edits are yours. The difficulty of keeping track of anonymous edits is, of course, one reason to create an account. The IP address you are using now shows only your Help desk entry: Special:Contributions/24.0.57.247. --Teratornis 14:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This link lists all the edits to Free will from January to July of 2006. If you click on a link marked last, you get a comparison of that version with the preceding one. You should be able to find your additions there. Johan Lont 14:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a link?

how do i add a link129.194.8.73 14:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several kinds of links in Wikipedia. See: Help:Contents/Links, Help:Link, Help:Interwiki linking, and Help:Category. Please tell us:

The name of the article you want to link from.
The text you want to put the link on.
The name of the article and section you want to link to.

and someone will tell you how to do it. Or just click the edit link at the heading of this section, and see how I edited my links above. --Teratornis 04:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protect a Page

I don't want Wikipedia users to be allowed to edit my user page and mess up my reputation. Is it possible to not allow people to edit my page?

The Dude 4 14:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My page

Pages can be protected, but this normally only happens when they're being heavily vandalised. There are several legitimate reasons why people might want to edit other user's userpages (for instance, to update userboxes that have changed location), so pages won't be protected unless there is a need for it (and pages aren't protected pre-emptively, except for high-risk templates, copyright tags, and pages related to the Main Page). See Wikipedia:Protection policy for more details. --ais523 14:50, 2 April 2007 (U T C)

creating new articles/definitions

How do I actually create a new article?

If you haven't already, see the Introduction and Tutorial for information on the syntax for editing generally; then see Wikipedia:Your first article for information on what you should put in an article and finally Help:Creating a new page for information on how to create it. --ais523 15:10, 2 April 2007 (U T C)

citing reference source

How do I cite [1] I need info for article Mary Anne Clarke which I have added some of her writings which I got from Worldcat. Thanks. Daytrivia 15:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the simple way, as you have just done, i.e. [http://www.website.com ] or you can use referencing <ref>[http://www.website.com Information on website]</ref>. Note for the second one, there has to be a references section at the bottom with the code <references /> put in. Put the tag after the information you are citing. Hope this helps. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would normally be expected to include more data when using footnotes. See also Wikipedia:Citations. Adrian M. H. 20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing username

I have created a Wikipedia account and I want to change my user ID. I realized that my user ID appears on the history page only after editing the article and I do not want this particular ID to be made known public. What do I do?

You can request a username change at WP:CHU; this will change your name in article histories, but the old username will still remain in the logs that show the change and in the request archives (however, both of these are unlikely to be accessed except by people looking into the history of your account). You can also abandon your old account and continue with a new one; this will change the username in the history on all subsequent edits but not on existing ones. Hope that helps! --ais523 15:29, 2 April 2007 (U T C)

username confusion

Dear Wikipedia - I recently established the page Life Pure Water, expecting that to be the page heading, however the system has chosen to label the page as User:Lifepurewater, which is not that useful, please advise213.235.19.43 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was definitely created at User:Lifepurewater in the first place (presumably because Lifepurewater (talk · contribs) clicked on their own username to create their userpage, which is what the page is); note that the issue seems to be moot anyway, because the page has been tagged for speedy deletion as spam. --ais523 15:37, 2 April 2007 (U T C)

creating own page

As above

Have a look at WP:YFA and Help:Starting a new page. Remember the page has to pass the criterea mentioned here. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you wanted to create a userpage, see Wikipedia:User page. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox help

I just took on another project atWikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. This time it is Syndication. From the looks of things, several pages are on the what links here page solely because the infobox template's syndication section points to Syndication, instead of the form of syndication unique to that form of media (ex. Dilbert). How do I go about changing this? Sorry that I ask so many questions here and at village pump (technical), I just want to make sure I don't do something that will break the template. --Luigi Maniac 16:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you have to do is find the template that is linking to syndication (in this case it was {{Infobox Comic strip}}, which I have fixed), type that into the search bar, place "template:" in front of it, hit "edit this page," and fix the link from there. --Ybbor ^TSurvey! 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What commercially available products are available related to funtional amino acids?

Loads, there's multiple medicines and there's also machinery that determines amino acid composition of proteins. But this question is far too general to give any sort of useful answer. Please rephrase your question and post it to the reference desk which is made for factual questions like yours. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming an article

I created an article named "Terry Anderson (Politician)" 2 days ago and when I search for "Terry Anderson" the article does not appear on the list of possibilities.

Since it is over 30 hours, I assume the answer lies in the naming convention and, I think, I should change the name to "Terry Anderson (politician)"

My question is :

(a) am I correct in my assumption? (b) If yes, how do I change the name of the article? (c) If I am incorrect, then what needs to be done for Terry Anderson (Politician) to appear with all the other Terry Andersons?

Thank you

Smonzavi 16:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it can and does take the search index more than 30 hours to include newly created articles. One think you should surely do is add a link to Terry Anderson a disambiguation page about various people with this name. (I have just done this for you). Links must be manually added to disambiguation pages of this sort. DES ^(talk) 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were right about using naming conventions. Politician should've been written with a lowercase first letter) It doesn't have any effect on search engines, but it is good editing etiquette. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Searching within FAs

I used to search within featured articles using Google by entering site:en.wiki.x.io "This is a featured article" ANY WORD . It was working for a while but now it returns pages from non-main namespaces. Could someone try it? Thank you. CG 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did it last work? - Mgm|^(talk) 21:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Few months ago maybe. CG 21:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

As I couldn't easily find an e-mail address for Wikipedia to report a possible act of vandalism, something you should have on every page in interaction, I will input it here. I was checking out your entry for Bigfoot, and discovered the following line near the top of the page. It didn't sound right, so I thought I'd report it to you.

Best regards, Chris Sorrenti, Ottawa, Canada

It's easier to WP:REVERT vandalism yourself, and warn the vandal, than to email anyone - by the time they get the email, the problem will probably have been solved by another editor. Xiner (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of tallies on RfA's

Please participate in the discussion. Thanks. Xiner (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where to discuss a solution to a new general wikipedia problem?

Hi, I noticed the problem that some wikipedia articles that don't have people behind it that check every edit (userbase only of casual "adders") and when vandals remove a part of the article, nobody notices, people just keep adding other stuff, the bad edit disappears slowly in the cloud of "old edits that nobody wants to look through", and thereby valuable information that was once in the wikipedia is really lost. Solutions might include "motivating people to form 'watchgroups', better education how to use watchlists etc." My question here is: where can I discuss this problem and the appropriate solution to it? Thanks. Peter S. 18:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPR is a good place, but keep in mind, a place that discusses pages that are not watched carefully is a place vandals will love to hang out at. Think up some counter-measures in advance. Admins can access a list of pages that are not on anyone's watchlist at all - and it's thousands of pages long. Xiner (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Peter S. 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to target Wikipedia:WikiProjects to do this.- Mgm|^(talk) 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE PHOTO IS MINE!!

I would like to know why my photograph is constantly being removed from my Wikipedia page?

THE PHOTO IS MINE. I OWN THE COPYRIGHT. I AM ALLOWED TO USE THE PHOTO WHEREVER AND WHENEVER I CHOOSE. HENCE THE REASON IT IS ON MY WEBSITE - WWW.MARCBOLTON.COM

I have explained this on numerous occasions and yet whenever I return to my page the photo has been removed again.

Please either explain what your problem is or leave my photo alone! There is NO copyright issue with it.

Marc Bolton

Marcbolton 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo has been deleted twice under section 4 of the image media criteria for speedy deletion because apparently you failed to properly identify the image with an appropriate license. My understanding is that all images must either be released under the GFDL or similar free distribution license or have a properly stated fair use rationale. The actual log for the deletions is here.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To sumarise what you need to do so your pictures are not deleted under Wikipedia's rules: on the picture page itself you must identify (1) the source of the image (2) a suitable free license. You must license the image for free use by anyone, anywhere. Notinasnaid 19:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you post a picture that you have taken yourself directly to Wikipedia?--Drussel3 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag it with {{GFDL-self}}. This means, of course, that you are allowing anyone else to use it in the same way that you allow anyone else to use any text you add to wikipedia. Specifically, anyone can sell copies, anyone can create a modified version, anyone can use the image for any purpose, provided that they acknowledge your authorship and grant the same rights to any future users. the details are in GFDL. DES ^(talk) 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that no one owns any wikipedia page, not even a user page, so speakign of "my" page in thsi connection is probably a poor idea. DES ^(talk) 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short, it was deleted because no one knew it was yours. There's a fair number of people who upload pictures without ever telling us where they came from. Since not having that information opens us (and the people who want to reuse images) up to problems, we need the image information page to carry that information. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned Articles

Is there any way to find out if a particular article has any links pointing to it? --Drussel3 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Click "What links here" in the tool box (on the left in the default skin). DES ^(talk) 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For more information you can also see Help:What links here. Cheers! Telly addict 19:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first time editing

Hi. Not needing an answer so much as some obvious text on the page where I do the editing. I've noticed TONS of warnings about WHAT WP is, what NOT to do, that all submissions need to be verifiable, etc. WHAT I NEED is a place on the editing page to LIST my verifiable source.

I haven't the time to look more than I have... again- no need to answer, just do it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskacatalog (talk • contribs)

Hmm, I'm not sure what you're saying, but WP:CITE should tell you how to cite your sources. Xiner (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You list your sources at the bottom of an article in a section titled "References" (You use two = signs to make a level 1 header). When you have that, you can either list the information by hand or with reference tags (you could also use Citation templates with both methods to make formatting the source easier.) - Mgm|^(talk) 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Although I have edited articles previously, I have just registered with Wikipedia because I want to create a new article. The title I want to give is "George Feyer". However there is already an article with that name, which refers to a different person [a Hungarian-Canadian cartoonist]. The George Feyer about whom I wish to write was a Hungarian-American pianist. How can I start a new article with the same title as an existing one? I think I need to set up a "disambiguation" page, but I don't know how. Thank you! Emj999 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to take a look at WP:DISAMBIG. Xiner (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read that page, but I still don't get how to set up the disambiguation page. 87.113.3.94 00:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to create an account and wait for days before you can create a page. You can just create a George Feyer (pianist) then, and provide disambig links on top of each page to link to the other. Xiner (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, thank you for your help. I didn't know I need to wait a few days before I can create a new page. Do you know how many days? I guess I can find it in the small print somewhere. Maybe I did do my new page right after all, then. I'll try again in a few days. Once again, many thanks.

87.113.3.94 00:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Heath fired by Arkansas

Wikapedia says that Stan Heath is at Arkansas and he got fired by Arkansas so you guys need to update that (Arkansas's new coach is Dana Altman).Thanks!

Which article do you refer to? Arkansas Razorbacks and Stan Heath have reported for several days that he was fired on March 26 2007, but there could easily be another article which needs updating. PrimeHunter 23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Google Search shows several articles that appear to have been updated. Scanning into the second page of search results, I see:

Bud Walton Arena - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The men's team is currently coached by Stan Heath. The 
arena has been the home to the Razorbacks and Ladybacks
since November of 1993; the men's team won ...
en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bud_Walton_Arena - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

And sure enough, Bud Walton Arena needs an update. There may be more articles in the search results needing an update. --Teratornis 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wikapedia? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations

What can I do if a user is falsely accusing me of using sock puppets? He is not actually reporting me anywhere, but only threatening to do so. How can I prove my innocence? Piotras 22:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continue to make good-faith, constructive edits and you should be fine. If you acquit yourself in a manner becoming of a good Wikipedia editor, you should provide enough evidence by your conduct that you're not a sockpuppet. Socks are usually used to circumvent the rules and cause trouble. If you don't do either, nobody should accuse you of being a sockpuppet. If he does persist for an excessive amount of time, you may want to seek some form of dispute resolution. Hopefully, however, that won't be necessary. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 00:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know people should assume good faith, but some apparently don't. And as long as there's this accusation written on my talk page and I don't react, it looks as if I were acknowledging it. Also, this is blatant blackmail: don't make any more edits or you will be harassed. If he really believes I am using sock puppets he should report me unconditionally. But he is not doing it. It only serves as a rhetorical argument.

I definitely should do something, but I can't think of an appropriate action. Can I volunteer to be checked? When the accusations are proven to be wrong, is there a way to make the user who made them weigh his words more in the future? Piotras 01:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've replied on his talk page - anyone who looks at your talk page as I did will easily be able to tell that this discussion was taking place on two different pages. I can't see that he's blackmailing you, however - don't forget that you need to assume good faith yourself. People occasionally make mistakes, but that's no reason to be throwing accusations back at them. Your best bet would be to make good-faith, constructive edits for a time, probably avoiding the article that sparked the problem.

If he does report you as a suspected sockpuppet, than you can request a Checkuser be done at that time. Until then, there isn't any need to do so, and it's likely the request would be denied anyway.

If indeed you are innocent, you have no reason to worry. :-) Hersfold ^(talk/work) 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, maybe I'm overreacting a little... Thanks for all the advice, I'll think about it. Piotras 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changing the spelling of the title of the page

How do you change the title of the page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rauncie (talk • contribs)

You move the page. But please, don't move this one--$UIT 22:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You move the article using the "move" button (to the right of the "edit this page" button). You must have an account, and it must be at least 4 days old in order to move pages. If the move is controversial or impossible, visit Wikipedia:Requested moves. PrimeHunter 23:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]