Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 October 29

= October 29 =

banned but not blocked users
I remember years ago reading WP:BAN and it saying something about banning (as opposed to blocking) being a social thing, and they can still technically edit- but their edits are marked somehow in the history and any editor can revert such an edit if they see it. But it seems to be gone from WP:BAN.. is this practiced anymore or are banned users always blocked? And how were their revisions marked? -- ⁪ffroth 00:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The part on reverting banned edits still seems to be there... as banning is not actually enforced through the software, however, I don't believe it gets marked in the edit summary. From what I know of the process, a group of editors will take it upon themselves to monitor the banned user's contributions and remove any content that violates the terms of the ban. If a user blatantly tries to evade a ban, then they are usually blocked for a time, however as the process is intended to avoid the indignity of a logged block, it's not generally done automatically. As far as I know. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Images
I want to upload images but can I take one from another website? If I can what are the regulations?--  Dark Zorro  01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The short answer is chances are you can't. Images on another website are likely to be covered under a copyright.  Sometimes an image under copyright can be used for a specific purpose, so-called "fair use."  It is also possible that the image is not under copyright (if it is old enough, made by the US (federal) gov't, or was so released by the author).  There is a bit more info at WP:C and Image use policy.  If you describe the image you're thinking about using and its use on Wikipedia, I may be able to give a more specific answer.  Thanks, --TeaDrinker 02:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Contributions by range
Is there a tool or software feature which lists all the recent contributions of a range of IP addresses simultaneously? --TeaDrinker 02:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The lack of speedy answers to your question suggests we're all drawing a blank. I'll take a stab by hypothesizing that your interest in edits by unregistered users has something to do with tracking vandalism (given that something like 97% of Wikipedia vandalism is by unregistered users, this inference doesn't seem to require a leap of faith). If that is the case, you may be interested in the Tools: sub-heading under WP:EIW. (Note that in general, it's best to frame a question in terms of your ultimate goal, along with the specific approach you have in mind, rather than only mentioning the specific approach. The ultimate goal might jog the recall of help desk volunteers more effectively, whereas in some cases a specific approach might not even be the best way to reach some (unstated) goal, thus potentially creating a red herring to mislead those who reply.) --Teratornis 21:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps WP:VF will be useful. --Teratornis 21:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. From what I understand, Wikipedia allows rangeblocks of IPs in cases of ongoing vandalism.  I was just curious if there was a way to check all the contributions of a range prior to blocking (which would seem like the sensible thing to do).  I'll check out the VF software.  Thanks, --TeaDrinker 22:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

wikepedia main page for a certian day..
How do i get wikipedia main page for a particular day(any specific date) say wikipedia main page for 1/1/2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.93.249.2 (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * An incomplete answer, the featured article on the main page for a specific day can be accessed at Today's featured article (an archive is linked from that page, the 1/1/07 featured article was Influenza). Likewise, the picture of the day archive can be accessed from Picture of the day (bottom of the page).  I don't know of a method of recreating the entire main page at a specific time on a specific day (some of the content changes more frequently than daily) since content is buried in various templates.  If there is a specific bit of information you're looking for, I may be able to help track it down.  --TeaDrinker 03:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no automatic way to get the main page at a given time. Many versions are archived at, for example one from 2 January 2007. If your wanted time is not there then you can try putting pieces together from archived parts of the main page, but it will not be exact (one problem is the article count). See also Main Page FAQ. PrimeHunter 03:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You can recreate it, almost, by viewing the source of the Main Page, copying that into a new page, and replacing all the "magic words" (e.g. July ) with actual values. Confusing Manifestation 06:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

is there any page where I can see newly / todays created articles?
Is there any page where I can see the list of articles, which has been created today? which is the link of that page?--Avinesh Jose 06:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it can be found here: Special:Newpages. Happy editing! henrik  • talk  06:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Deletions
Are you allowed to delete parts of talk pages that you consider to be useless? And if someone were to do so then could you recreate it? Cryo921 06:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are allowed to delete your own talk page although archiving is preferred. See WP:ARCHIVE for more details. The information is still retained in the history even if you delete it so it can be recovered. -- Hdt 83     Chat 06:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about my talk page I'm refering to the talk page of an article. Cryo921 06:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If its on an article talk, than no, you cannot delete comments that you don't like unless there is a very good reason (vandalism, personal info, etc). The talk page will be archived after it gets long enough. Even if parts are deleted, its still in the history and can be restored. -- Hdt 83     Chat 07:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * would saying that people shouldn't talk about a particular topic(which isn't the same main topic as the article but is related and thus being discussed heavily there) on the talk page and that the talk page is for talking about how to improve the article be considered something that is deletable?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryo921 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See Talk page guidelines for more information, specifically the How to use article talk pages section: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Also see the Editing comments section. --Silver Edge 07:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Race and Racing
Going on the principal of least surprise, I would like to propose a double name change for these articles. Both articles are needing serious attention, and I'm willing to work on the sport article. Race, as an article name on its own should designate the first definition (least surprise) which is competition of speed!

My suggestion would be to double rename/move:


 * Race to Race, humans,
 * Racing to Race

I realise this involves quite a few redirects and talk history, but I'd be willing to do that, I just need a little coaching. I have not placed this question on the talk:race because there are enough fluff arguments going on there as it is, I'm pretty certain that they're not so interested in the fate of the poorly named racing article.

--Tallard 07:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you consider the "racing" article to be poorly named. Having a verb that conveys fast motion as the title of the article about a fast sport sounds perfect to me. Anyway, it can't be half has bad as "Race, humans". Naming conventions say that an article should be at a commonly used title, and that certainly isn't one; "Racing" follows the naming conventions just fine.- Mgm|(talk) 08:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's appropriate in light of our convention to use the gerund of verbs (like swimming). Leaving racing as is means there's little point in moving race to a new title.--chaser - t 09:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to the verb, but the noun. The principal of "least surprise" means someone searching for "race" should find the sporting event, not some vague third rate notion or human races, which scientists agree doesn't even exist in a scientific sense. A racism creating article is not what most people expect to find when typing the word race. The race (racism) article will never attain any level of quality because there is no scientific basis for it, it's all POV--Tallard 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not Wikipedia's job to do what you're proposing. It's irrelevant that you believe "race" has no basis in science. Wikipedia is a sum of human knowledge, and humans have long had notions of "race". It's Wikipedia's job to document such information. The existence of an article on human races doesn't mean that it's condoned; it means that we're documenting the impact of issues related to this widespread belief.  Leebo  T / C  15:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But by leaving race (racism) with no parenthesis is telling the readers that Wikipedia believes race (racism) is the primary encyclopedic entry for that word and it is not. At the very minimum, entering a search for "race" should lead straight to the disambiguation page, not the race (racism) page, then let readers select an appropriate article--Tallard 15:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would find it acceptable to make Race a redirect to Race (disambiguation) with the topic of human races at something like Race (social construct) (may not be the best title, but it's the first thing I could think of). But you should really be proposing this at Talk:Race rather than here.  Leebo  T / C  15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the reason I brought it here is because that page is rife with heated debates with racists and therefore not a neutral venue. My thought was to bring in outside help.--Tallard 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Myself, if I were a racist, I would not want to relinquish this wonderful mainspace Wikipedia is offering racists, so how could neutral people ever come to an agreement on that parenthesis. I guess it could get mediation. So this is my question, assuming that no consensus is reached on a parenthesis descriptor, what do we do then, mediation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallard (talk • contribs) 15:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea to seek outside help, but only after someone disagrees with your proposal and discussions have failed. They have not yet been initiated. Talk:Race will always be the proper place to propose something, and if you are unable to reach a consensus, there are mechanisms like third opinions to help resolve things like that. Dispute resolution begins once there's a dispute. It sounds like you're assuming bad faith before another editor has even been involved.  Leebo  T / C  15:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct on all points :) and it comes from the white dove banner on that talk page...Thanks--Tallard 16:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's always been my understanding that in English "racing" is the name of the sport (much like "hockey", or "baseball"), and that "race" designates a singular racing event. In this framework, I would like to suggest it might be more appropriate to put a header at the top of the page that says something along the lines of: For the sport or sporting event, see Racing. "Race is a very important concept to anthropologissts, and I'm not sure it should be considered as "second" to the meaning of "race" as a sporting event. But, hey, that's just my personal opinion.--Ramdrake 17:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As Leebo suggested, I'm taking this back to the talk page.--Tallard 18:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) It's interesting that NASCAR, a motorsports racing organization, appears to acknowledge the concept of race: Drive for Diversity. I guess NASCAR recognizes what everyone else is able to recognize, regardless of whether scientists can agree on a scientific basis for what is plainly evident. Obviously it is premature for science to rule on the issue, given that the alleles which allow even children to distinguish a native of (for example) Korea from a native of Kenya have not all been cataloged yet. What scientists do know is that only a tiny fraction of the human genome appears involved in creating the recognizable racial differences, and thus the traditional notion of "race" is a very poor measure of actual genetic diversity, but to claim or imply that the visible differences have no basis whatsoever strikes me as being disingenuous. Historically speaking, scientists have tended to seek positions that avoid conflict on issues that elicit strong emotional responses from the general public, only challenging orthodoxy when the evidence for a new idea becomes overwhelming. This is a practical stance, because scientists constitute a tiny minority, and rely on the public to support their work. An excellent example of a topic science has only tentatively addressed is the notion of God, which is held by many to be inherently beyond the reach of science (see Non-overlapping magisteria, not that I'm as confident on what the ultimate limits of science are). The fact that God has no scientific basis is not an argument against Wikipedia having thousands of articles relating to religion. Obviously the various notions of God, gods, the supernatural, etc. held by various people throughout history have had enormous impacts on society, and are worth writing about, regardless of the scientific basis for the underlying ideas. The notions people have had about "race" have similarly shaped the world we inhabit, even if many of those ideas turn out in retrospect to have been as erroneous as religious ideas such as geocentrism. Also, I should point out that the Principle of least astonishment is not something a single individual can determine from introspection. Only by carefully studying a statistically significant sample of Wikipedia users might we determine what is least surprising to them. --Teratornis 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The style of scientific categorising as a format doesn't really have a place in a literary project such as wikipedia except within science articles. On the language front, "racing" is a gerund (defined as a verb ending in -ing that serves as a noun) and is in common usage. Its kind is distinguished by adding a description in front, such as horse racing, car racing. "Human race" is also an umbrella term where the adjective forms part of the genera: "a class of things that have common characteristics and that can be divided into subordinate kinds". The principle of least surprise is specialised and doesn't really apply to a style manual. "Vault, pole" for instance – makes me laugh. Julia Rossi 00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

vicks product
regards c,whiley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.16.122 (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry C. Whiley, your intentions might be noble, but this page is for questions about using Wikipedia. You might get a better response by posting it elsewhere. Don't forget to make it abundantly clear that the message is off-topic if it doesn't relate directly to the subject of the forum or mailing list you're posting it to. - Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Article keeps getting edited
I recently updated an article with a lot more up to date precise information, the article is about Skinny Pigs. However within 24hours its back to how it was.

Im getting highly frustrated and want to know how I can get this updated and not re-edited back to how it was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutronic (talk • contribs)


 * See the post at Talk:Skinny pig. We determine article content by consensus, so the first step to that is discussion on the talk page.--chaser - t 09:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-English policy?
Hi,

I just saw some external links removed for the sole reason that the linked websites are not in English. Is that considered a valid reason? Is there a policy on such matters? Regards, Guido den Broeder 09:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the External links guideline: "Links to English language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English; or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language; or when the site contains visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables." When placing a foreign language external link, the correlating Category:Language icons should be used, to allow readers to know that the site is not in English. The Manual of Style also adds that linking to foreign language sites is helpful "When the website is the subject of the article", or "When the webpage contains key or authoritative information found on no English-language site and is used as a citation (or when translations on English-language sites are not authoritative)." While I personally don't see a reason to remove foreign language sites, as long as the site provides content/context beyond what is available on the article, and is directly relevant to the article's content, (not forums, or fan sites, etc.) the majority of external links should be available in English for the English Wikipedia, so if all of the links were in another language, that could be problematic. I hope that helped! Ariel  ♥  Gold  09:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To give a short answer: if there isn't an equivalent page in English, that wouldn't be a valid reason. If it results in the loss of information, it's a bad idea. - Mgm|(talk) 22:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Undo this tag (article or section is written like an advertisement) from my page
How do I get the tag (article or section is written like an advertisement)removed from my page? How do I ensure that NPOV has been maintained in the content I post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.247.254 (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For cleanup tags such as cleanup-ad, you can remove them yourself when you believe you fixed the problem. Leave an edit summary explaining why you are removing the tags. Another editor will see that the tags have been removed and check to make sure the problem has been fixed, and put them back if they think it hasn't. For some ideas on how to maintain neutrality, you can check WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and WP:V, or ask on the article's talk page. If the tag had a red side bar, like db-spam does, then please do not remove it. This is a deletion tag, and should only be removed by an administrator or an experienced editor not involved with the page. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 12:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

E-Mail ID of Mr. Chen Choon Seng, CEO of Singapore Airlines, Singapore
Please let me know the E-mail ID of Mr. Chen Choon Seng, CEO of Singapore Airlines. If not known, please write me the HQ address of Singapore Airlines in Singapore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.156 (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we don't give out personal information here. You could try looking at Singapore Airlines' article.  N F 24 (radio me!Editor review) 10:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Pixelating frames.
Can embedded links of pictures that have been framed with a caption have their size adjusted with px? It doesn't seem to work... Mentifisto 10:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, here's how you do it: [[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|###px|caption here]] "thumb" allows you to show the caption and mess with the size, and ###px is the width of the picture in pixels. You don't need to set the height, the software will keep the aspect ratio correct for you. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 12:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Mentifisto 03:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with photo from Wizard of Oz
Photo of Scarecrow in Wizard of OZ. I uploaded a picture of the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz for a PowerPoint to go along with a quote from the movie - ("I got a brain!") It's for a non-profit healthcare system's class for pregnant women called "Baby Brain Power." I'm confused about fair use. I give credit to the movie on the slide, but don't want to infringe on copywrite laws. I couldn't figure out what I needed to do to be OK with its usage. Thanks for your help. Meridith (And War Eagle to Wikipedia's founder!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.26.127 (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You will need to have a look at Non-free content criteria, and Fair use. A good template for fair use rationales is Template:Fair use rationale, (please see the template page for the syntax and instructions). If you need more help, drop a note. Cheers, Qst  13:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds like this isn't technically a Wikipedia related question. The anonymous user wants to know if the picture can be used in the powerpoint presentation for something unrelated to Wikipedia. You can probably get an answer here from someone more familiar with copyright law, but the reference desk is for non-Wikipedia questions.  Leebo  T / C  13:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia visualization
I have built a visualization of wikipedia edits, as they happen, more-or-less in real time. It is a google maps mashup. For this, I am regularly fetching the "Recent changes" page, from where I get the IPs of people who make edits, geolocate them and plot them on the map. I estimate that I make about 100-150 requests every hour. I just want to ask if this is acceptable, or if I should use some other service for fetching info about recent edits. If needed, I can provide the IP from where I am fetching the pages.

BTW, the visualization I made is a completely free service, (ad-free too), I just made it for fun, and I think it's rather interesting. I would like to make sure that I don't violate any terms of Wikipedia.

Thanks for your answer, Laszlo

the page is: http://www.lkozma.net/wpv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.8.97 (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I can't seem to think of any policies this is violating, since, as you said, Google is a free service. The IPs may find it somewhat invasive, but that is an unfortunate drawback of not creating an account. I'm afraid I can't really tell if your visualization is working or not, though. Are the green areas where the contributions are coming from? GlassCobra 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are any Wikipedia policies relevant to what you are doing, they might be under: WP:EIW. --Teratornis 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to study the methods that Vandal Fighter uses to monitor recent changes without resorting to inefficient web scraping that loads Wikipedia's servers. --Teratornis 21:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Vandalfighter might be a good solution, I just need some time to become familiar with it, until then I try to limit the frequency of page fetches that I am making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.8.34 (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit pager
Why do you allow random people to edit a page without having a login name or account to wikipedia. It would make your service more dependable and reliable to common people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.109.0.60 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a philosophical issue. Some people, for legitimate political, business or other reasons, don't feel safe creating an account which can be traced back to them. For more, read this. -- Orange Mike 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You might also see my view of the issue. --Teratornis 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

When are my edits final?
I have been working on editing some sections of the "Dolphinarium" page. I am able to make the edits but when I save them the page shows the edited sections with all the strike throughs and other editing marks. Am I failing to do the final step or is it just a matter of time before the editing marks are removed and that section looks like all the others? Thank you.

Terranr 15:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've answered on your talk page, but you seem to be misunderstanding how editing works. If you want to make changes, just make them. You don't have to strike text you want removed.  Leebo  T / C  15:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Editting sections not appearing in the 'edit' box
The headline paragraph appears not to be accessible. How can I edit this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.87.220 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Click the "edit this page" tab at the top of the screen to edit the entire page at once. Edit links on individual sections are for further convenience, but they're not the only method.  Leebo  T / C  16:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you can change your settings to display or hide the [edit] tab via Special:Preferences. Qst  16:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_model_of_occupational_therapy
please note the title on page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_model_of_occupational_therapy is incorrect and I cannot edit.

It should read " Canadian Model of Occupational Performance", not

"Canadian Model of Occupational Therapy

Can you make the edit?
 * The creator of the page brought this to my attention a few days ago, and I instructed her on how to change the title. I had been waiting, but as you said, it still hadn't been done, so I went ahead and changed the name. GlassCobra 19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How to edit, because one previous edit has a "questionable" reference.
Wfa1931 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Hi Wiki volunteer,

In an article about Elizabeth Kenny, which I entered a year or so ago with the help of one of your volunteers, a sentence has been added which refers to an article from the Townsville Council about the Elizabeth Kenny Memorial there. The sentence contains a quote which I know has words they were "cherry picked" from the report (s?) mentioned. I wrote the latest biography of Sister Kenny and still have copies of the original documents mentioned.

The sentence in question is,“In 1938 the Health Department of New South Wales subjected her work to a medical Royal Commission whose findings condemned her unorthodox procedures as 'dangerous', 'damaging', 'costly', and 'cruel'[1].”

I have an edit alost ready to contrinute, but frankly because I have never done so I am reluctant to do it because I want to follow your protocols correctly. Please help, Wfa1931 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)wfa1931
 * From what I can tell, Ms. Kenny's work on polio actually was somewhat controversial, and removed a sourced statement simply because it happens to be negative would be violating our neutral point of view policy, which means that here at Wikipedia we strive to encompass both positive and negative coverage. I would suggest that you discuss your potential edit at Talk:Elizabeth Kenny, the talk page for the article. GlassCobra 19:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

footnotes and bibliography
Howdy,

I'm writing a paper and need to put wikapedia in my bibliography. How is this done? 76.179.123.142 17:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CW for detailed instructions on how to cite Wikipedia. Be sure, however, that your teacher allows the use of Wikipedia, as some don't. :)  Lara  ❤  Love  17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) See Citing Wikipedia. I want to note that Wikipedia is typically not accepted by most schools and teachers for a couple reasons. Firstly, Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity regarding information you find in articles. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. I would recommend that you follow the references that are already present in articles and cite them for your paper.  Leebo  T / C  18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me....
Am I allowed to create a special page for my userboxes???

How do I create a new page, also?

THANK YOU....

Eowyn

--MurtaghxMisery 18:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first question, yes you may make a special page for userboxes. This can cover making userboxes in your userspace and transcluding them to your user page, or keeping all of your userboxes on a separate page and transcluding that whole page to your user page (like I do with User:Leebo/Userboxes). You can learn how to create a new page at Help:Starting a new page.  Leebo  T / C  18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You should probably also read Subpages. Good luck! GlassCobra 19:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Buick Supercharged 3.8 V6 motor
I have been told that one can operate the Supercharged version of the 3.8 Buick V-6 motor without the supercharger, but I'm trying to clarify whether that means simply removing the accessories (fan) belt and installing the smaller normally aspirated motor's shorter belt to bypass the supercharger altogether, or if the entire supercharger must be removed which would mean replacing the intake manifold as well with a traditional (plastic) intake. I really would prefer the simpler solution, for both the durability of the iron intake vs. a plactic one (associated with overheating leaks etc.), and with the better fuel economy of bypassing the supercharger, if you know then please respond —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJoDynamo (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia generally cannot provide you with information that would be provided by a licensed professional in your area. I suggest you seek an expert.  Leebo  T / C  18:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia might not be able to provide you with such information but a Wikipedian might...me! (sort of) I don't know the answer but I know there are forums to ask this.  There i s a caddillacforums.com .  I'm sure there are Buick forums, too.  I've also seen a message board for Hondas. Congolese 04:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Date the article was published
How do i find the date the article was published? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.212.77 (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since articles are in a constant state of flux, it's not really possible to say when they were published. If you want, you can look in the article's history and go back to the beginning to find out when it was created, but keep in mind that the article could be quite a lot different than the way it currently does. GlassCobra 20:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * People who ask this often want to cite the article. If that is the case then see Citing Wikipedia. PrimeHunter 21:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

please reply???
i found these pills in a bottle arfter my uncle died they are called apap 325 mg/dichloralphenazone100mg/isometheptene 65 mg cap they are red cap. with IP on the front of them please reply 141

p.s my mother wanted them for a headache, but are they something i should flush down the toilette?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.82.249 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia generally cannot provide you with information that would be provided by a licensed professional in your area. However the dichloralphenazone article suggests that these are not suitable for ordinary headaches, but for migraines. Relata refero 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You should never take medication that has been prescribed for someone else. Speak to a physician or pharmacist about appropriate headache treatments.  Your pharmacist will be able to advise you on what to do with leftover medicine.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Per above. It should never be taken without a doctor's authorization. The "apap" part is Acetaminophen. The other chemicals are more complicated.  The pills you describe are for the relief of tension and vascular headaches, and posiblity effective in treatment of migraine headaches. And is a prescription only. The toilet is a good place for them, IMO. Humain-comme 01:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of a previous version of an image
I uploaded Image:Army Voucher.jpg last April without justifying fair-use. Now that I have done so, I have uploaded a more appropriately sized picture to fufill the low resolution guideline. As such, the previous version should probably be deleted, though I am unsure if this is possible. Should I request deletion, then re-upload the newer version? thegreen J     Are you green?  21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Account name correction required
I have accurate, pertinent information to add to a Wikipedia listing. To this end I created an account using my own name as the user name. I overlooked a typo when setting this up. I have tried several times to follow the steps listed under 'Change user name' but the change does not happen. I would delete the existing account entirely and start anew but when I click on 'Delete account' the page that opens has no box specific to "account" and I have not been able to delete the account. Can an administrator please help! All I really want to do is change from lower case (as at present)in my surname part of my "username" to a capital "F" as below. I can be contacted at my email address as shown in my account details, and can provide my password if/when required. Errol F. FrithErrol F. frith 21:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you went to Changing username, you've got to give it some time. Bureaucrats are volunteers like the rest of us and will get to your request when they can.  Leebo  T / C  21:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) A change must be approved by an editor with power to make the change. You can respond at Changing username. (I don't know whether the software will allow a new account with a name so close to the existing.) PrimeHunter 21:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, he wouldn't be able to do it himself, because the software would stop him upon attempting to register. If he wants it, he needs the name change this way.  Leebo  T / C  21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed an IP (probably the same editor) was denied the requested name at Request an account because the names were too similar. PrimeHunter 21:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can log into WP:ACC as User:Errol F. frith, and follow the instructions for creating the new user name User:Errol F. Frith. An admin can help you there, so it takes less time than WP:CHU, which requires a bureaucrat.  You'll lose "credit" for your previous edits, but I doubt you'd care.  If you do this, please remove your request from WP:CHU.  You'll also need to provide an email address, so your new password can be emailed to you.  Do not post your current password anywhere! --barneca (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have created the new account for this user. Tra (Talk) 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper citation entry for edited content.
Is there a way that I may upload a word file, or some similar type file with correct citations. I have tried submitting the page several different ways. Do you know of a simpler way, other than manually creating html citation entries, that I can upload my document from a word file with the citations in the correct format for wikipedia?

The edit that I am referring to is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_glucan

If you can help me to find the most sensible solution, I would be greatly appreciative.

Thank you,

Cmrnkl 21:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The simple answer is no. A Wikipedia article has to be written in MediaWiki format, and citations require the use of one of the methods described at Citing sources, which essentially requires use of citation templates. This isn't straight HTML (and should be slightly simpler), but there are similarities. I believe OpenOffice can export a document in MediaWiki format, but I don't know how reliable that is yet, and it probably doesn't include Wikipedia-specific features, such as the citation templates. Confusing Manifestation 21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict):The citations look correct, but if you want to fix them, unfortunately, you can't upload a Word document to Wikipedia (likely because of concerns that users would use Wikipedia as a file hosting service). You can use the template to cite books in standard Wikipedia format, though you have to type it in manually. See Template:Cite book for usage instructions.  N F 24 (radio me!Editor review) 21:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your policy for deleting user subpages?
As a new wikipedia user, I am very frustrated and disappointed that my user subpage was deleted. Is there a time limit somewhere that I missed that specifies how long a person has to go from user subpage to a posted public article? I would assume that it would be more than a couple of evenings if it is a relevent topic and the person is making progress.

"What may I have on my user page? You can use your user page to help you to use Wikipedia more effectively: to list "to do" information, works in progress, reminders, useful links, and so forth. It is also good for experimenting with markup (that is, as a personal sandbox)."

Well, after working on an article for a couple of evenings, some bully with admin previlages decided to stomp on my sand castle. I was working on an article with a worthy topic: U.S. Legislation, How a Bill Becomes Law, it hadn't been sitting around inactive for a long period of time.

The reason given for deletion was copyright infringement. I took the time to point out that the images and information on my subpage were not copyright infringement because they were from a U.S. government website which clearly states in it's Security and Privacy Notice that "The Office of the Clerk provides this website as a public service. The information on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Images on this site are provided as a contribution to education and scholarship." Yet my subpage was deleted anyway.

"All editors are encouraged to be bold"? It seems like if I ever try to post an article again that I had better have the content completed and only have page layout left before trying to save anything on a subpage :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.52.57.33 (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be logged on and without your username or the name of the subpage I cannot evaluate the page and answer your question. - Mgm|(talk) 22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * After some searching I guess it was User:Thornton32/How laws are made. PrimeHunter 23:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I've read about this, it doesn't appear that there was any sort of discussion between the two opposing parties about this. I think the admin deleted the article too quickly, and without any discussion (correct me if I'm wrong) about the subpage.  I think that the creator of a page should be notified about it possibly violating anything before it being deleted, and I don't think that happened in this case.  Ksy92003  (talk)  00:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If a page meets the speedy criteria, it can be deleted without discussion at the administrator's discretion; that's why it's called speedy, and why we have a nomination process for administrators. Generally, for copyright infringements, as this seems to have been, a link should be provided in the deletion log, but it's not a requirement. However, it does appear as though the user was notified as to the reason for deletion - see his talk page. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I didn't know that it was a CSD. I'm not that familiar with CSD deletions, and I'm not sure if I can see what the content of the article before the CSD tag was added was. That would possibly change my opinion on this. Ksy92003 (talk)  01:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ksy92003 is apparently embarking on a smear campaign against me. What he is unable to see is that Thornton32 created and re-created and re-created the same school project at least eight times at eight different places and copied numerous images for it as well.  He was told to stop by a few people and did not.  Whether or not the page is a copyvio, Thornton32 admitted that he was only maintaining it for a school project and that is certainly not within the realm of any policy I know of.  Especially not eight times.  I am being charitable by not blocking him indefinitely.  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wknight, I already admitted that I was wrong. This has nothing to do with you.  I saw from my watchlist that the anon made a huge edit on your talk page, and I saw the anons contributions which led me here.  Also, as you admit Wknight, I was not able to see that Thornton had re-created the page numerous times, so how was I to know?  I made my comment based on what I was able to see.  Is it my fault that I couldn't see all the evidence and I'm pretty much in trouble for that?  I already admitted I was wrong on this in my last comment, okay?  I'm sorry.  Ksy92003  (talk)  01:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Taken to your talk page. Don't bother these people with your attempt to start another protracted conflict.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to start a conflict. I'm trying to stop it.  I admitted I was wrong, and I made my comment based on the lack of very important evidence that I couldn't see.  If I were able to see that evidence, then I would've agreed with you, Wknight.  I'm not trying to start something.  I'm trying to convince you that I didn't have the evidence that I needed (at your own admission) and that I would've agreed with you if I had that evidence, okay?  I think you're blowing this out of proportion.  Ksy92003  (talk)  02:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My page got deleted
My page got deleted. i have no idea why because everything posted were true facts. The page Madison Jones (producer) was deleted. i work for him personally. He is a well established producer in the movie and television feild and is now moving into music as well. We thought it would be a great idea to post his facts here on Wikipedia, but have no idea why it was deleted. is there a way to get it back up? please let us know asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madison Jones (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Howdy, the page Madison Jones (Producer) was deleted Sept. 26 by the administrator Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) as‎ Blatant Advertising, per criteria for speedy deletion General, Rule 11. Wikipedia does not allow articles which are written as advertisements.  I don't have access to the page, but you can check with the admin who deleted your page (Natalie Erin) for a more complete explanation of the circumstances.  I should add that writing about yourself is generally frowned upon (see Autobiography). Thanks, --TeaDrinker 22:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The entry in question resembled a resume sheet instead of an article and as a result it got deleted for its promotional tone. Please read WP:BIO, WP:COI and WP:V. If you intend to make another effort, make sure you have multiple sources indicating Mr. Jones' notability. You can use your own website as a source, but not the only one. - Mgm|(talk) 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And see Business FAQ, and Why was my article deleted? --Teratornis 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:PEACOCK for an explanation of what constitutes "promotional tone" on Wikipedia. That's a lot of reading we just handed you, but Wikipedia's organizing principle is to write down all our rules in great detail, so anyone who is willing to read and follow instructions can contribute. This allows Wikipedia to be incredibly efficient, i.e., to keep our labor costs almost zero. In most organizations, the rules are not so explicit, so there have to be hierarchies of managers, and that costs money. --Teratornis 00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are not Madison Jones, then you should also not be using a Username which makes the claim that you are he. In addition, you should make yourself aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines.  Corvus cornix 18:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)