Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2006 October 21

=October 21=

Deleted?
I have searched Wikipedia, there is no article about the Search engine "GoodTree" which helps to raise money for charities all over the world. So I created one, but only after 5 minutes, someone deleted it and I have not even have a chance to save it yet. I just wanna know why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HyperPacifist (talk • contribs).


 * There's no article in the the logs by that name, but you can look for yourself at Special:Log, which should have the deleting admin's reasoning. It was more than likely because it violated the criteria for speedy deletion, probably G11 or A7. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk)


 * 01:29, 21 October 2006 Lucky 6.9 (Talk | contribs) deleted "GoodTree" (Spam)

I don't see how my article is a spam. I paraphase the vision of GoodTree and how it works. Its less than 500 words, and most importantly, this organization does EXIST. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HyperPacifist (talk • contribs).


 * Please sign your posts with ~ . And yeah, I see it now. You have to establish notability for the topics of articles which you create. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's encyclopedic material. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys even allow an article "Back To Babylon" whihc is just an album published by a band to stay in wiki, and you allow a google to be in wiki, I can't see why can't GoodTree, as an oragniazation which helps raise money for charities all over the world, and a free search engine, can't stay in wikipedia. HyperPacifist 02:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't read that page I linked to, did you? The Wikipedia is allergic to advertisements, whether or not they're for a noble cause. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't do any advertising in my article. In the "Google" article, the editors put: Aren't this promoting google, advertising google? Besides, I have to restate that GoodTree is a free search engine which helps to raise money fore charities. Besides, keeping wikipedia out-of-date wihtout newest info is not a good thing. --HyperPacifist 02:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * [The users of Google] were attracted to its simple, uncluttered, clean design — a competitive advantage to attract users who did not wish to enter searches on web pages filled with visual distractions.


 * Google is notable. Again, read the page I linked to, please. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to restore the page, you can take it up at Deletion review. Unless you read and understand that page, though, you probably won't get far. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Legalese 10:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Not fair. Even i came here looking for GoodTree, wanted to know what others think about it. Let this page be there. You may edit the content to make it "advertisement free" but let this be there for the sake of information. After all, in a way every advertisement is an information, and every information is an advertisement. But do not please curtail the freedom of expression, as well as the right of others to seek information, by simply deleting the page. If you find it as including some advertising material, edit it, tag it for others, but dont just delete it.

Block Editing
My son likes to use Wikipedia but I want to block him from editing anything, can this be done??
 * Usually people are only blocked if they vandalize. As long as your son has something useful to contribute it will be looked upon favourably. If you want to contribute yourself, without being blocked because of some silly thing your son might do, please log in. If you want him blocked for contributing all the way, it might be better to enact some measures on your end. Niels F 03:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that I'm just a simple Dutchman trying to help, but not exactly knowing how things are solved in the bureaucracy of english-language wikipedia, someone more accustomed with the bureaucracy here should answer. Niels F 03:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For better or worse, Wikipedia is not a very bureaucratic organization. While we have policies and guidelines, there is very little formal structure. Wikipedia does have administrators, who are permitted access to certain software tools, and we do have methods for resolving disputes via consensus, but (to disagree a little with NielsF) there is no one here who, by reason of bureaucratic authority, can provide a specific solution to your issue. But I would concur with Niels that the most effective way to keep your son from editing Wikipedia (though I'm not sure why you would want to do that) is to exercise your parental responsibility and skills, or by installing some sort of software to enforce that on your computer. We are not set up here to enforce parental controls on using or editing Wikipedia. If you are worried that your son will vandalize Wikipedia, or edit poorly, you might want to discuss that with him. --MCB 05:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What you are actually asking for is not a block, but a ban. I'm afraid it's not possible - since we can't technically ban people. Bans are all community enforced - so it's just like, everyone keeping an eye out for banned people so they can be blocked if they're identified. Which is why banning is really just for people who are causing wikipedia harm. I'm afraid the wikipedian community is really not equipped to handle requests such as yours. It would be best to work it out personally with your son. -- `/aksha 11:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Acually there is a simple way to block editing, if you have either a router, an internet filter, or Internet Explorer as your only browser. All you need to do is use a parental control option to block any page with "&action=edit" in the URL. (Alternatly, to block page histories, and to a large part all non-article content, you could block "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?", although this will block pages such as Special:Cite (Allows you to bring up predone cites for any Wikipedia page) as well, so you way want to put some exceptions in for that. Prodego  talk  13:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, blocking "&action=edit" in a filter will block editing of all MediaWiki wikis, not just Wikipedia. --MCB 17:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise on this, My son is autistic so trying to explain this to him is not easy. What I have done is added "&actioc=edit" to my Cyberpatrol filters. Looks like this will allow him to access all this great information without causing others problems. Again thanks.

Need Help fixing Manizales
I went inton Manizales to fix the article. Unfortunately, it moved all the contents into the fact boxes. I do not know why this happened. I was an accident.

I hope you can fix it. I have been to Colombia many time and know a lot of interesting things that I can add to articles since I know many cities and towns.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Take care,

Matthew

Wisconsin, USA.


 * It looks like another editor already fixed it. Just look at the Diff s on the history page to see what he did to fix it. —Mitaphane talk 17:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Skewed Information
To Dear Editors,

I see that most of the information provided or edited in Wikipedia is much more skewed against to a nation, which will soon raise the questions on the reliability of the Wikipedia as an independent source of the information and the facts. One example among many can be given as Turkification. Absolutely weird, and even the editor! And a link he gives is to the deceased famous folk music performer Ahmet Kaya in which page he is claimed to be a Kurdish (may be), and his name is even deformed for the Kurdish pronunciation. May be, but it is so strange that many things nowadays are claimed by anybody!!.. On the other hand, couldn’t Wikipedia be able to ask at least to his family, while many of whom are alive today?

Isn’t it true that this is another kind of racism committed with the name of anti-racism or justice or fairness or you name it, as some of you there representing authoritarian views!!!

I believe, if Wikipedia has intentions to have the role of carrying a reliable source for any kind of information, then all the pieces edited and uploaded to these sites should certainly be carefully investigated and should not be presented without fundamental and respectful proofs being provided or they should be weighed with some quantative truth factors or opinions accordingly given by the authorities form the respectful universities, or otherwise information uploaded should never be taken serious and not presented to the public in here. I saw some images with dead ended references related to the subject.

Another example of a weird page coming up is the page of “Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict”. the main reason is just forgotten, taht is pkk as targetting people (almost anybody for more than 30 years) while it was possible to raise the questions peacefuly, since many kurds as pointed out in your sites live indiscriminately in big cities at every ranks of the society.


 * It's not clear from your posting what your question is (this is a help desk for assistance with using Wikipedia), but the issues you raise should be discussed on the Talk pages of the articles you refer to. Look for the "discussion" tab at the top of the article's page, and click on it to read and participate in discussions about the article's quality and neutrality. --MCB 17:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Solargenus
I might have edited to a page where I should?.. where I tried to get a help desk where I could be able to write.. People the page I edited should be deleted if this is the case or directed to the correct channels. I am sorry and thank you. The message was written with the signature of solargenus.. just a name..
 * As you will see above, I recommend taking your issues to the Talk pages of the articles involved. Hope this helps. --MCB 17:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, due to wikipedia's online volunteer nature, there is inherit bias that shows up. You should try bring up the slanted viewpoint on the articles' talk pages, or perhaps the discussion page for neutrality project. —Mitaphane talk 17:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Accesskey
I ***HATE*** how alt-f brings the cursor to the search bar, when in Internet Explorer it's supposed to pop the File menu (so I can pop a new menu if I desire). Any way to disable this in Wiki or in IE? It's driving me NUTS.

Thanks for the help, Derrsonn


 * Rather than hitting them simultaneously, hit alt, then f? What do you mean about popping a new menu from the file menu anyways? All of the common options in the file menu have their own ctrl hotkeys. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He means when you hit alt and f together, the file menu normally comes down. On wikipedia, when you hit alt and f together, the screen jumps up to the top to where the wikipedia search box is.


 * the simple solution is what ^ just said, just hit alt and f seperately. Even if you do it very fast, as long as you let go of the alt key before you hit f, the file menu should come up and your screen won't jump. Just learn to let go of the alt key quickly. -- `/aksha 11:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just confused about the bit in the parentheses -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

SVGZ
Just wondering, does MediaWiki support SVGZ images? I can't find anything to about this that says either way. Thanks. - Рэд  хот  11:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about this, but the documentation is at SVG image support. If that doesn't answer your question then try the talk page there. --Cherry blossom tree 22:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How to use colors, highlights or textbox colors?
When I'm typing my signature, say, how to I get the letters to be in different colors, or how to you make textboxes colored?


 * Customizing your signature is described at Sign your posts on talk pages. To make a text box colored, add CSS markup like this . -- Rick Block (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dead Links
I have seen several articles up for review. Within the articles are links. Some links are colored red, and other are not. When I click on the links, I go to a page that states there is no such article. Should I "unlink" a dead link within the original article? I did try a search but to no avail.

Thank you, LarryBH


 * Please see Red link. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's generally not good to delete those links. Red links are not bad, they just indicate that there isn't yet an article written for that particular subject. They also may indicate that there needs to be an article on that subject. And then, when someone does write that article, the link will automatically turn blue. That way the links are already in place and the person that writes the, until now non-existant, article doesn't have to go around to various other articles to link that particular term. You'll sometimes see people remove red links from an actor's filmography. This actually hurts the process since once the articles are written for those films, the links would have turned blue and nobody would have had to go around to various actor's articles and link the title of the film of the new article. Dismas|(talk) 16:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reply. LarryBH

password
how do i change my password? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clks333 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 21 October 2006.


 * You can do it in your preferences.  Jacek  Kendysz  17:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

New pages by contributor?
Hi! Is there a way to list only the new pages I or another editor have created? The watchlist sorta helps, but not entirely. Thanks! Zephyrad 17:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you looking for all the pages a certain editor has created or just recent ones? Special:Newpages is some what close to what you're talking about, but I don't think it's exactly what you're wanting. —Mitaphane talk 18:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it'd be nice to narrow them down to a time frame, also... but yeah, a complete list of new pages (i.e. pages nobody else created) by a given contributor is what I'd be looking for. Thanks! Zephyrad 18:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * user:Interiot will create such lists on request. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Random article - category selection?
I just love this link - but if there was a way to choose a category(ies) to get a random page from - that would be awesome. Making it selectively random.

Is there such a feature? Or can we have one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.31.125 (talk • contribs)
 * AFAIK, one can restrict the namespace across which random works by qualifying Special:Random with that namespace; Special:Random/talk, for example, takes one to a random article talk page. I don't think we've a feature by which one may restrict random to any particular category; should that estimation be correct, though, you might neverthess query VPT apropos of the feasibility of such a function.  Joe 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

braiding
How do you braid a four leather strand braid?
 * This page is for questions regarding the use of Wikipedia. Try asking your question at the Miscellaneous reference desk instead or check out our article on braids. --Nebular110 22:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How to use endnotes to add citations to an article?
I'm trying to figure out how to add citations to an article by using endnotes -- ie number in article corresponding to a page citation from a reference in a notes section at the end. (See article on Gerrit Smith, for example.)

I've tried copying the referencing format used in that article, but can't seem to make it work so that i'm able to see if the numbers and their corresponding citations are coming out properly. Can you direct me to someplace in the helpd section that would give me exact instructions on how to do this -- step by step?

Thanks! Jan Carhart (email address removed to prevent spam)
 * Basically, you put your endnote withinh tags like this: after the text they are referencing and then put (where the month is the second argument) should do the trick.  See ParserFunctions.  -- Rick Block (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like that did it. Thanks!  Dismas|(talk) 23:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been accused of being a sockpupet
How do I defend my name against this blatent lie? How do I get the page the liar posted about me removed? How can I get the person who did this to pay for spreading the lie? Kilz 22:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll comment on that page. I'm unsure of how these things get taken off, but I doubt it will last long, from a cursory examination. --Cherry blossom tree 22:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)