Help desk
< November 15	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

November 16

Small text

I recently reinstalled my OS (Vista) and now Wikipedia is only showing articles in tiny (4pt-ish) text. It's incredibly irritating and I don't know how to fix it. I know it's likely to be a technical issue at my end but can anyone offer any advice? Wikipedia (and other wiki sites) are the only sites on which this occurs. Thanks. Martin Leng (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to try holding down CTRL and rolling the scroll wheel down. That makes the text larger when I do it, and it should work for you. STORMTRACKER 94 20:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am facing the same Issue, os changed to vista and i am getting extremly small text on the monobook stylesheet, rest all the skins the text is ok. Changing the text size by pressing control does not really help as it changes font size to large, and messes up other websites, one visits. I think there is an issue with the monobook.css file, can someone look into this. Thanks. 202.68.145.230 (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

– Girish (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

entry deletion

I've had my entry deleted without reason. it's a biography on 'Manuela Darling-Gansser'. why has this happened and how can i get it back? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birri85 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No article is ever deleted without reasoning. In this case the article has been deleted twice: the first time because it was requested by the author, and again under CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. Feel free to contact the deleting admin (User:Sandstein), or take it to deletion review if you feel that it was deleted in error. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the author, and don't recall adding a "db-author" tag to it, note that if the author of an article blanks the content, it is considered a request for deletion (although it's only expected to work if the author is the only editor of said article). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the original author (the one who deleted the page himself), and did not delete or blank the second one. i'm taking it up with the deletion review as we speak, are they able to undelete my article once they agree that it has a right to exist?--Birri85 02:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, admins have the power to undelete articles. Algebraist 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil national football team

Some of the tables on the Brazil national football team page are not completed or showing up, see Competitive record. Can anyone who is good with tables take a look? AJSDA115 00:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks complete to me; what do you see as wrong? Jack 00:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why but the Copa America/South American Championship and World Cup matches (By team) tables under Competitive record look incomplete. AJSDA115 01:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. It looks like some of the lines are missing but the tables aren't missing any data. ---CWY2190^T^C 01:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, any help? AJSDA115 01:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Policy

Just a little question with deletion policy. If your not sure weather an article is a candidate for speedy deletion or not, what do you do?? Do you put in the speedy deletion tag or not? Wikipedia is 'about being bold and I am. But I made a mistake on putting on a tag once that I wasnt sure about and I got hounded for it.

What do I do?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflumpire (talk • contribs) 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were in your position, I'd review the policies at WP:CSD and at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations. If I still thought it was a good candidate, I'd tag it. An administrator will make the ultimate call (unless another editor disagrees and removes it). If somebody thought I was mistaken and hounded me about it, I'd apologize and remind them to assume good faith. If you think it may not be a candidate for speedy deletion but might be otherwise inappropriate, you might pursue other avenues in the deletion process. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on talk page. In short: Don't speedy if you're not sure and pursue other deletion processes. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wannabe Kate Lag?

I realize that Interiot's Tool1 scrapes results off Special:Contributions, but why are it's counts not identical to the counts on Special:Preferences? And how come, no matter how long I wait, the counts seem never to be identical?

Thanks in advance, Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 01:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The count in your preferences includes any deleted contributions (edits to pages that are deleted), while the Kate count does not, as Kate only uses edits listed in Special:Mycontributions. - Rjd0060 02:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot download pdf file from commons

I tried the following link from an article several times and from different sites and never got it.

http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/BlueArcPhenomenon.pdf

It would apparently partly download then stop.

What can I do? > —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.102.108 (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It downloaded for me fine. I would check the browser settings, internet connection and Adobe reader version. Also try right clicking and save as. Good luck. Dr.K. 01:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have to have an account to download? Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange question, can't help but ask

Hello, I have a starnge question: say someone has hacked your account. While he is using it, you try to sign in. What happens? Thanks. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I have had Firefox and Safari both logged in on the same computer, working off different cookies. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. As a fat man, it is often difficult to saunter across the room to make wikipedia edits, so I have my laptop in one corner, my desktop in another. You can "both" sign in and out independently, and I'm sure you and the hacker could edit concurrently. You could even get in an edit conflict with yourself, presumably. Actually let me try this right now.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fat Man Who Never Came back is a malodorous jackanapes.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the hacker who said that, not me. And, yeah, I got an edit conflict.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had edit conflicts with my self if I accidently click the save page button more than one in quick succession, because it's telling me that "my version" of the page (with four tildes) is different than "the version that is saved" (with the signature expanded). Leebo ^T/C 14:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK to experience the occasional self-conflict, but try to avoid threatening yourself with legal action. Although it would be interesting if the judge would let you represent both sides in court, and you were to take the stand in your own defense, hopping up and down as you cross-examined yourself. All the while shouting "Objection!" --Teratornis (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why isnt it workin

why dosn't it work when i put what do mmice eat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.74.65 (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what you are asking, but this is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please go here for such questions. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows mice eat cheese :-)) Seriously though, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it isn't really set up to answer questions phrased in natural language. Like JetLover suggests above, you could post your question at the reference desk and wait for someone to come by and post an answer; or you could rephrase your search using keywords such as "mouse" and "food" (there's guidance on effective searching here); or you could read our mouse article. Astronaut 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames

For example, I want to write an article about a scientist who was formally known as Robert Jones, but he also wrote under the name Bob Jones. How do I set up an article so that both names would be reflected in the index and could be found by users wither way?

Cyoungmann 03:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To provide a little more information, you should create the article at Robert Jones (scientist), since there are already other articles on other Robert Joneses. You can then add a link to his article to the disambiguation pages at Robert Jones and Bob Jones. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying British places

I noticed that someone has been going round some articles replacing (for example) "[[London]], [[UK]]" with "[[London]], [[England]], [[UK]]". I don't think the addition of "England" helps the readers or adds value to the articles. I'm tempted to revert these pointless edits, but is there a policy or guideline that says I shouldn't do that? - I've already skimmed the Manual of Style but it didn't seem too helpful with this. Astronaut 03:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it is correct, however I do agree it's not entirely necessary. I'd leave it in, simply because it doesn't really hurt the article, and it would be a fair bit of work to remove it - probably more than it's really worth. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it alone then. Even so, is there a policy article somewhere which clear guidance on naming places?

I just guess I didn't like it because to my british ears it sounds like an americanism. Kind of like an american saying they were going on a trip to "Edinburgh, Scotland" whereas I would simply say I'm going to "Edinburgh". (Yes, I know there's an Edinburgh, Indiana but it's not the Edinburgh).

Astronaut 07:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does sound very "American" to hear someone say they will be vacationing in "Paris, France" although I have vacationed in Paris, Tennessee. Western Europeans and Americans probably will assume that "London" refers to the one on the Thames, unles they live near one of the several American cities of that name, but smaller cities in the UK would benefit from such disambiguation. Many far smaller cities get referred to in Wikipedia articles without the obviously necessary clarification, like "Phoenixville" [1]. There are cities and geopolitical administrative units in Asia, with populations in the millions, for which many Americans and Western Europeans might not know the country. Edison (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help.... please!!!

Hello! I'm sorry that I trouble you. I found occasionally your e-mail adress in the internet. I'm from republic of Moldova (eastern europe), please help me, my grandmather is very sick and I haven't enough money for making a health control in order to find out her illness and to cure her. I want to say that my grandfather is paralysed, and no body without me can help them. I want very much to help them, because they brought me up, they gave me everything they could, while my parents have been drunk. If you heard about Moldova and eastern Europe, then you know which is the political and economical level. I have only $120 per month and you realise that is not enough to out live and earn the living for those who halped me. Please, again. If you could help me with something, everything will be recompence by our sweetheart God. Please believe me and think that two lifes are in denger. Sincerelly, it's a shine for me to beg, but I don't see another way. Thanks a lot!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edy2007 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the Wikimedia Foundation is itself a non-profit organization and the volunteers at the help desk are neither authorized to send funding on its behalf nor respond to requests that read like email scams. Please also stop posting this message on other pages - Wikipedia is not the place to go to make this request, if indeed it is legitimate. I suggest you speak to a local charity or loan organization. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I'm very sorry to hear of your unfortunate situation, but Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, it is not a place to request money. I would suggest that you find a local organization in your community, that would be able to help you with assistance resources. I'm sorry, I'm sure that's not the answer you were hoping for, but I do hope that things work out for you. Sincerely, Ariel♥Gold 06:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright holder cannot be traced

What if a image's Copyright holder cannot be traced? Can I upload such images to Wikipedia? Sai2020 09:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can. Everyone else seems to be. But you probably shouldn't. Unless you provide a copyright tag clearly indicating the image's status, the image will be zapped by an admin/bot combination in a very short matter of time. We should assume that someone else holds the copyright, unless you have evidence that it's free.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, if you can establish other facts about the image, such as when it was created or what type of person created it, you can use this information that the image is not subject to copyright. ike9898 16:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romany History

I have registered, and have tried to write history on Romanys and there life in kent, supported by the gypsy council uk and the Romany Traveller history society. However it keeps being deleted. How can this be stopped, I find it to be rastis as Romany are a enthic group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.162.238 (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are User:Diamonddannyboy. If "rastis" is an attempt to call the reverting editor racist then you are way out of line. See the article histories [2] [3] which say the material was removed as a copyvio (copyright violation). Apart from that, there were other large problems. For example, don't discuss the original history of the Romani people in an article about an English town like in [4] and the bottom section of [5]. You can discuss with the reverting editor at User talk:LOL. PrimeHunter 11:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Question >> A Suggestion

Suggest removing the edit ability of the daily featured article to prevent jerks like "Ivegotmaddie2" using Wikipedia as a public forum for spreading hate & violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.94.45 (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed many times (which just tell you that great minds think alike), and the conclusion reached is that the main page featured article should only be protected during instances of heavy vandalism. While vandalism to such a widely seen article is not uncommon, it is also carefully watched so the vandalism is reverted quickly, and improvements and corrections also occur. Our desire for those outweighs a guarantee of no vandalism. Please also see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen an good investigation into the extent of "improvements and corrections" that occur on the day an article is on the main page? If so, do you know where I can find it? It is an interesting question. ike9898 16:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A common argument against protecting the today's featured article is that we shouldn't restrict people from editing the most prominently displayed article when the main page invites "anyone" to edit. Leebo ^T/C 14:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can try to edit, but getting one's nontrivial edits to stick may be difficult until one reads, understands, and complies with an awful lot of these instructions. --Teratornis (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading an Image

I'm interested in uploading an image. The link is listed after this message. The link is to a site independent of the official site and is a screencap of a television show. The image would be used only to illustrate the subject matter of the article I have in mind. Can I upload it, and if so, how would I do so? The Clawed One 15:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[6]

what is the appropriate place for this

Where can I find (or post my own) dicussions on the big picture 'theory' of wikipedia? I'm talking about discussions of relatively abstract aspects of the Wikipedia phenomenon, rather that discussion of software features or day-to-day user policy. Obviously, a lot of this would probably fall under original research. Is the a specific part of Meta that covers this? Or another wiki or journal? ike9898 16:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the Village Pump, and see if this is what you're looking for. If not, you could post back here, with a more detailed question about what type of discussions you'd like to see. If your discussion is centered around Wikipedia, then I don't think Meta is really what you're looking for. --barneca (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See these links under WP:EIW#Community:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies
Wikipedia:Researching Wikipedia
Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidemia
"Talk Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia", 2007 research paper based on October 2005 database

Also see:

The Hive, by Marshall Poe, The Atlantic Monthly, September 2006 - an article describing the history of Wikipedia
Five Things Wikipedia's Founder Has Learned About Online Collaboration

And look through Category:Wikipedia essays to see if anyone else has already written about whatever you want to discuss. ---- Teratornis (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how do i contact an editor about deleting or moving a discussion

Hi, A while back I had a couple of friendly exchanges with editors about info regarding me on a wiki page which someone had created. I didn't know how to properly use wiki editing procedure and so these exchanges have appeared prominently on the first page when one googles my name. I am constantly being asked "what was the dust-up about?" and so forth. It is such a trivial thing but I'd like to know if there is a way to put these exchanges into another place on wiki where they won't show up so publicly on google.

Thank you,

You can blank your own Talk page at ______, and then, when Google re-scans it, they will replace their Google hits on the page with the blank version. As for User:Pepso2, I suggest editing their Talk page and asking them if they would mind removing the discussion about you from their Talk page. Are there other pages you're concerned about? -- Corvus cornix (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to write a page somewhere that answers the question "what was the dust-up about?" Lots of people come to Wikipedia and make incorrect hasty generalizations about it. It seems Wikipedia's remarkable accessibility gives lots of people the impression that they totally understand it at first glance (I certainly formed my share of incorrect initial impressions when I first arrived), when in fact Wikipedia is tremendously complicated and most likely very different than anything most people have used before. If I were you, I'd take this as an opportunity to educate the people you know about Wikipedia. Obviously if they have to ask "what was the dust-up about," they must not know the first thing about Wikipedia, and I would say that's to their disadvantage, because Wikipedia is one of the greatest examples of mass collaboration in the world today. You should encourage everyone you know to study and learn from your experience. Being corrected on Wikipedia is not a badge of shame; rather, it testifies to a fundamental strength of Wikipedia - the presence of active, intelligent human feedback which prevents Wikipedia from decaying into complete chaos. Wikipedia is an exercise in transcending ego just enough to say "We are smarter than me," cultivating sangfroid, and learning the procedures which resulted from Wikipedia's merciless consensus-driven selection process. The world would be a much better place if the type of valuable feedback you benefited from here was available in more contexts. ---- Teratornis (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging usernames

What should I do if I see bad usernames? With what could I tag them? -- Menti fisto 17:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a username is a blatant violation of the username policy, you can report it to usernames for administrator attention. Examples would include patently offensive insults, attacks, and slurs. Borderline names can be given a {{UsernameConcern}} template explaining why some might believe the name to be in violation of the policy and a request that they change it. If it can't be resolved with the template, you may be able to take it to requests for comment/usernames. Leebo ^T/C 17:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks... and usernames that aren't themselves offensive? Like... usernames only registered to promote their company on their userpage and do nothing for WP? -- Menti fisto 17:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus isn't as clear on those. Some feel that you should wait until they've actually started spamming before taking action. Once action is taken, there is disagreement on what the action should be, blocking through UAA or discussion with the user. I think it's a judgment call. If you really feel the user's spammy name is an immediate detriment to the project, you may take different action than if they are willing to discuss it. Leebo ^T/C 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I meant a username that is practically only registered to put the ad on their userpage and nothing else. -- Menti fisto 19:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any page that exists solely as advertising can be tagged for deletion with {{db-spam}}. If the user isn't doing anything else, there's no need to block them after the user page is deleted. Leebo ^T/C 19:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, thanks. -- Menti fisto 19:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jerem43/ubx-b-redsox

I tried to nominate this for deletion, but I can't, because I can't create the subpage. Can someone please nominate this for deletion with the text: This is no different than {{User:UBX/MLB-RedSox}}, except that it uses a fair use image, which isn't allowed. Thanks. -- 64.178.96.168 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jerem43/ubx-b-redsox -- Woodym555 (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

citeing

How do i cite materials gathered from wikipedia in APA format?

See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia for information on citing individual articles in a variety of formats. You should probably check first though to make sure that whatever you're using Wikipedia to cite allows it. Most teachers don't allow citing Wikipedia. Leebo ^T/C 18:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thread from CHU

Deletion of accounts

I am sorry if this is not the right place. I don't know where to post my request.
I have several accounts on this wikipedia. I would like the other ones to be deleted from all archives for personnal reason I can explain by email.
What can I do ? -- Ceedjee (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original edit. Rudget _zŋ 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons relating to the GFDL, we cannot delete accounts that have been registered. I'm not even sure the capability exists in the MediaWiki software. If you wish to continue editing, you should choose one account as your main account and tag the rest as Doppelganger accounts or simply not use them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are specific edits that reveal personal information that you want deleted, you may make such request at Wikipedia:Oversight.---- Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Ceedjee (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Please note, you'll probably find it through the link above, but requests are actually made at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. I should have provided that link rather than the former.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see: Wikipedia:Right to vanish. (poof!) And now, for my next trick... --Teratornis (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist of question - fair use images of unknown sources

In order to resolve something, I have a question I need to ask again.

If the source of an image is not known, then can it still validly be used as fair use. I want to know just for my knowledge, as well as address Image:Nuclear power is not healthy poster.jpg properly. Situation is that the copyright holder is not known, and the source of the image itself is not known, just some people think that they remember seeing it a few decades ago. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say technically, if the rules are followed for what is and isn't fair use it could be used even when the copyright holder isn't known, but you'd have to get a source for the image. It doesn't have to be the original source of the first appearance, but we do need to know where this version came from. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 tries. Emailed password doesn't work. Yes I'm being careful.

The emailed password does not work for my Username. I have done this 3 tries, very carefully.

Username: Sitecreations

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!

I just sent you an email using the "Email this User" tab. If you receive it, then Wikipedia at least has your correct email, and we can go from there. If you don't receive it, then either your email service is slow/broken (in which case waiting is your only real option), or Wikipedia doesn't have your correct email address (in which case, you're pretty much out of luck, as there is no way for anyone to find out what your password is). Or, I just thought of another, could Wikipedia's email be going into your junk mail folder?

If worse comes to worse, you can always create a new account. --barneca (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see you got my email. So, Wikipedia has your email address. What should happen when you try to log in, you should enter your username (without the "User:" in front), and then just click the "E-mail new password" button on the Login page. All I can really think of now is that Wikipedia email might be getting caught in your junk mail filter. Let us know if this still doesn't work, and someone else might have better ideas than me. --barneca (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the impression that the email is being received, but the password itself is not working. Are you making sure to fill in the captcha section accurately? Leebo ^T/C 21:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Leebo's interpretation makes more sense than mine. Also, keep in mind that the captcha and password are case-sensitive. --barneca (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear War

Is Wikipedia prepared for a nuclear war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.90.63 (talk • contribs) 21:03, November 16, 2007

Even if the servers don't last, I'm sure the knowledge we've shared will live on for eons to come. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm no authority on the matter, but Wikipedia:Preparations for nuclear war and WP:NUCLEARWAR appear to be red links. Leebo ^T/C 21:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought a system would be in place to ensure servers were protected (ie ensure not located near any US Airbases, or commerical airfields with long runways). Then a system to ensure enough admins and editors are around to contribute to articles, and perform other tasks (perhaps some designated survivors?) -- 86.161.90.63 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any system involving the protection of enough survivors would be a general humanity protection plan... anyone can edit! Leebo ^T/C 21:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is Wikipedia prepared for a nuclear war, but if Citizendium doesn't submit to our demands, we do not rule out the use of a first strike. --barneca (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_{I've got five ICBMs warmed up and pointed at the furry wiki ;)...now to buy that silo on eBay...} Don't the OLPC laptops have a static copy of WP 1.0 or something on them? There are plenty of mirrors, even if the main servers were targeted by mustache-twiddlers. Curses, foiled again! -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 00:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HaHa, there will never be a "nuclear war" as it is often imagined. If nuclear weapons are ever used in combat, they'll be small ones ie. tactical rather than strategical--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...that obviously can't be a definitive statement, unless you happen to know the future. --⁪ffroth 06:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a title

How do I cahnge letters in the title to uppercase?

Move the page to the correct name and then delete the old one.--Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Rudget _zŋ 21:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed

Does ^{[citation needed]} count as minor edits??? Thanks! (-- Noneforall (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I, personally, would say it does. Just don't forget to specify what you've done in the edit summary. - -- Rjd0060 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. However, don't add to many m to edits, it can get some users miffed if their looking through your contributions. (Not that they would {looks inconspicious :) }) Rudget _zŋ 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of thumb is that you can mark an edit as minor if you are not adding or removing content or changing meaning. If all you are doing is formatting, or making changes that result in the same meaning, then it's minor. A citation needed template would probably count as that, but you should still say what you're doing in the edit summary. Leebo ^T/C 22:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to get Wikipedia credentials?

There is a group of editors, like Tvoz and Bobblehead, who are calling everyone they don't like socks and are even suggesting to their checkuser friend what language to use. The checkuser is following them and his comments have telltale signs of dishonesty. He doesn't want to say "confirmed" so he hedges enough to get everyone Tvoz hates banned.

There was even a checkuser request on Bobblehead that the suspect checkuser refused to run because it would show guilt.

What should I do. I am sure they will have me banned. So I have requested a checkuser on myself. How do we solve this problem.

I am so disturbed at this bad behavior after weeks of studying it. Before I just read WP but I felt strongly enough to reveal this corruption. Help! Will they succeed in banning me? I think so. WP is just shit if they are successful. 67.115.155.103 (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't request a checkuser on yourself, they won't do it. This help desk is not for dispute resolution and you have not presented any evidence to support your case. Resolve this with the users. Leebo ^T/C 23:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user tried to delete his own post but a vandal fighter undid his deletion. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]