Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 January 22

= January 22 =

NPOV and interests
Why does WP actually encourage people who have specific interests (and thus, possibly, POV) to edit the articles? I actually wonder why conventional encyclopedias are written by people who are experts in the subjects (and, again, a possible POV) too.

I mean, I know that this is standard (it's just a personal curiosity) but what's the difference between a CEO writing its company's article and a person with an interest in dinosaurs writing about them? Both like the subject. -- Menti  fisto  00:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The biggest difference I can see between the CEO and the dinosaur fan is that the CEO presumably has a vested interest in promoting his/her company and may end up writing the article accordingly. The dinosaur buff (at least if they're anything like I was years ago) is probably more interested in reciting as much information about the animals as possible, rather than promoting any particular agenda. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see: Experts who like a subject are POV suspects. Non experts who like the subject don't know what to write. Indifferent people about a subject don't care to write anything. Indifferent experts cannot exist because they wouldn't care enough about a subject to study it. Successful experts who became CEOs of their companies pursuing commercial avenues for their research products are going to be accused of promoting their product and have a conflict of interest. What a mess. Dr.K. (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be like a sign on the main Wikipedia page "Read prior to entry" :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Experts who develop the subject they research are suspect for WP:OR :O)--mrg3105mrg3105 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should have a warning "If you find this article interesting, you must not edit it." That would prevent any COI. DuncanHill (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Plus we should employ a Wikipedia profiler (similar to an FBI profiler) who would only allow depressed or otherwise disillusioned experts who, lacking any enthusiasm, would be sufficiently detached to mechanically recite facts with minimum risk of POV. Dr.K. (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well, critical thinking is a kind of mechanical approach to thought, which is to say any two critical thinkers should be able to reach the same conclusions from the same data; or, if they disagree, they understand exactly where one or both of them hold beliefs that go beyond the available data (i.e., where one or both arbitrarily choose to think uncritically). Conflict of interest is a guideline rather than a policy on Wikipedia. WP:COI merely tells people who have a potential conflict of interest what to watch out for. If they are able to discipline themselves enough to write to encyclopedic standards, for example refraining from peacock language, the diverse community of Wikipedia users may judge their work to be of featured article quality. The Microsoft article, for example, is that good, and if anyone seriously believes that article contains no input from any Microsoft employee or stockholder, then I have a bridge to sell you. The article almost certainly contains input from opponents or competitors of Microsoft as well. The beauty of the wiki model is that people who understand the basics of critical thinking can rise above their personal agendas to some extent and converge on a neutral description of a subject through many iterations of collaborative editing. We probably have an even greater potential problem in articles about religion, because at least a businessperson knows when he or she is lying. --Teratornis (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this thread is about the different meanings of "interested" that can only be spotted by reference to their opposites:
 * 1) Someone who is interested (as opposed to uninterested) can and should write articles, and is likely to write good ones; whereas
 * 2) Someone who is interested (as opposed to disinterested) should not be writing articles because of the likelihood of bias. AndyJones (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, the joys of lexicography. :o) English is so fuzzy, it allows the same word to describe 2 distinctly different POV. (Ooops! There it is again! :o)) Do you find it interesting? Or do you have a vested interest? Which isn't so say "vested interest" is necessarily a COI, either; if you've written, or are writing, a book on a subject, you can have expert knowledge, & use it, without being in COI (so long as the refs aren't to "Joe Blog, My New Book (upcoming}.") Right? Trekphiler (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image
Thak you for this help desk. I've been scratching my head for a long time but have been unable to find a solution.

Question 1: Why can't I see the image on Brazilian_waxing page and why I have to click on the image to see it. Is it because of syntax error?

Question 2: Images and share the same name but are at different locations (wikipedia and wikimedia commons respectively). How do you display the appropriate image in the relevant article? The wikipedia extended image syntax will apparently display only wikipedia image and not wimedia commons image.

68.62.20.94 (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Answer 1: The specific image is on a "bad image list", which only allows it to be included on specific articles and not on any other pages. You can request an exemption here.
 * Answer 2: One of the images needs to be moved. You do this by downloading the image and uploading it under a new name. Also make sure all the accompanying text is moved to the new page and than mark the old image for deletion. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, images and categories cannot be "moved" (see here) the only way to give an image a new name is reupload it with the desired name. VivioFa teFan   (Talk, Sandbox) 03:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Invalid tags on images
The images at Vijay Arora appear to be mistagged (a movie cap as self-made for example) and also lack fair-use rationale, but I am unfamiliar with image use policy and don't know the proper procedure to deal with such a situation. How should I proceed? Doctorfluffy (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I went with di-no source which I think is accurate for those images. You can see other templates at Template messages/Image namespace or you could list them at Copyright problems. Hope this helps. Woody (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For future reference, you might want to look at Possibly unfree images as well. In this case, I think the source is known: the movie, so this board does not apply. Woody (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Quotation templates
I'm having trouble picking out the correct quotation template from Category:Quotation_templates. It's for the Degrassi: The Next Generation article, and I want to quote a chunk of text from the Official book. What is the preferred/best option to do this? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I like Cquote myself. To some extent it is up to you to decide which quote style you prefer. &mdash;Noah 05:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I like Cquote a lot too. Note however, that it's technically for pullquotes only, and there are a bunch of users who get very hot and bothered about enforcing that technical distinction.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pages under construction
Is there a way to tag a page as being under construction? I was working on a page about the molecular geometry "seesaw", but it was tagged for speedy deletion. For the most part, I do not have the time to create an entire page in one sitting, nor the energy. I would like to notify people that although the page is currently in poor condition or incomplete that I am still working on it so that it is not tagged for deletion. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiaholic (talk • contribs) 02:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See under construction and In-use more specifically. Just add to the page and people should wait. You could also create it in a WP:SUBPAGE first such as User:Skiaholic/Subpage and edit the article until you think it is ready. Then you could copy it over into the main article space. Hope this helps. Woody (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aren't all of Wikipedia's articles technically "under construction" anyway, as new information can always be added? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but in the initial stages of an article, it can be tagged whilst it is still being expanded and information added that would negate the speedy tags. Woody (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A similar situation is when a user wants to rewrite a page extensively, and needs several hours. Putting In-use on the page reduces the chances of an Edit conflict during that time. It's better for everybody else to wait until the page become reasonably stable again. It would be silly, for example, for someone to fix a typo in a sentence that they don't realize someone else is in the process of deleting. The MediaWiki software does not tell us when someone else is editing a page, so we have the In-use template as kind of a hack to let other people know someone is editing a page right now. Normally this is not necessary if one is only making small edits to one section, but if you want to rearrange the whole page, it's nice to let others know you're working on it. --Teratornis (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Marking articles
Id like to mark an article as needing attention, how would I do that. Specifically Authors of the Bible --Omnipotence407 (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See Template messages/Cleanup. You probably want cleanup or something like that. There are lots of templates on the link here. Hope this helps. Woody (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you may find a template of use here. Happy editing! -- omtay 38  02:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia for blind people
Is there any Wikiproject or something which exists to promote the accessibility of the Wikipedia for blind people? DuncanHill (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think something like WikiProject Accessibility is what you are thinking about. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 03:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thank you! DuncanHill (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any tours?
There are many pages with lots of information about how things work and policy and whatnot. I easily get hyperlost in links. Is there a linear tour I can take? Are there tour guides? Thanks! Pi Pi in my face (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How about the Introduction? &mdash;Noah 05:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One way to avoid getting "hyperlost" is to edit your user page or a user sub-page with links to pages you are reading, to make your very own bookmark page. (I don't know how anybody can learn something as complicated as Wikipedia without keeping notes.) Another way to keep track of all the pages about policies, guidelines, and procedures is to familiarize yourself with the Editor's index to Wikipedia. There is also a book: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual written by our very own John Broughton. --Teratornis (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank You! Pi in my face (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

create page
How do I create a page or article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicVideoDepot (talk • contribs) 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on user talk. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
 * Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.


 * Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.


 * If you still think an article is appropriate, see Your first article and How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  05:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For how to actually create the page, see my instructions at the "Create A new Page" section further down on this page. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the ideal way is to find a red link in an article about something you're already interested in. It's a ready-made page, it's in an area you're liable to know something about (& maybe even have sources handy, which is always a plus!), & it saves headaches having to "create page" something. And it'll make the (existing) article better, which is always a plus, too! George Taylor  19:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

References on Straight ally
Hello, my user ID is Pjiman1. I edited the straight ally webpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_ally) but could not get the references to work properly. could someone review and advise me on what changes I need to make to get the references correct? Thank you.

Pjiman1 (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Peter Ji


 * You came close, but not quite. Don't worry, it's easy to fix:


 * The reference section is generated automatically from the references embedded in the article's text. What you need to do with each one is place the references between the   tags after the statements they are references for. Take the statements you provided references for out from between the ref tags. (Everything between the tags shows up in the references section, with just little superscript numbers in the text leading to the corresponding references in the references section.   See Citing sources.    Th e Tr ans hu man ist    09:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

industrial relations
causes of poor industrial relations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.214.24.105 (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You might find what you are looking for in the article about Industrial relations. If you cannot find the answer there, click here to post your question at that article's talk page.  If that does not solve your problem, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They will be glad to try and answer questions about anything in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for).  I hope this helps. --Evan Seeds ( talk )( contrib. ) 08:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to check on deleted articles?
After an article is deleted (Totally deleted, without leaving not even a redirect), is it totally impossible to check on the historial and previous versions of said article? Or is there a way? --Alexlayer (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins can access deleted articles. If there's a particular article you'd like to see, ask someone in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. BencherliteTalk 10:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, what Bencherlite said. And there is a deletion log (where anyone can see a dynamic list of recently deleted articles). Owing to the ability to view deleted versions, admins can often check on one another's deletion and make sure no one has stepped out of line. :) - PeaceNT (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Need the administrator's help
Hello. Please look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam#Introduction

I am very distressed about the situation. There are some editor refusing to back down and making us have "resistance movement" in the article about Tamil tigers. I have said many times that this is unfair as my friends were hurt in LTTE bombing and that if anyone tried to do this on article about Al Qaeda it would be reverted straight away if they said AQ was a "resistance movement". Just because fewer people are aware of the action of LTTE doesn't mean that this sympathising to terrorist attitude should be allowed on LTTE article just as it isn't on 9/11 and AQ. Please help Ismailmk (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest that you take this to WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation which deals with this sort of disagreement. Woody (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

printable page wont print correctly
I tried to print the printable version of this page with Firefox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_musical_symbols and got black boxes for the symbols no matter what I tried. I opened it in IE and it printed fine. Same Printer Same Settings. This has me stumped and Ive never encountered this before. Any idea what caused this? I love Wikipedia and I know its not the fault of the page. 74.135.241.244 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you google for "firefox bug printing png" you will see there have been a issues in Firefox printing ".png" images (the musical notes on that page are images in the ".png" format). If it is indeed a Firefox bug then your choices are to use IE or hope that an upgrade to Firefox fixes the problem. &mdash;Noah 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed correct. I will have to watch for this in the future. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.241.244 (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Create A new Page
How do i create a new page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexgreen00722 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.


 * Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.


 * If you still think an article is appropriate, see Your first article and How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. - PeaceNT (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Once you've decided to create a page, type the name of the page into the search box and click "go". It will tell you the page doesn't exist, and provide a red link "Create the page" to let you create it.  Another way is to put a link to your new page somewhere, perhaps an appropriate link from another article, or just a link anywhere on your user page or your user talk page, for example. Create the link by just putting the name of the new page inside double square brackets, like this: Name of new page. <~-- without the nowiki tags, though -->  Save the page you're editing, and the link you just created will appear as a red link.  Click on the red link and you create the new page.
 * When creating an article, you might want to put on it for the first while to show that you're in the middle of editing it, so that others won't delete it as being "too short" or something meanwhile.
 * For example, your user page currently doesn't exist. The link I just put to it, above, is a red link.  If you click on that, you can create your user page, and maybe put a little information about yourself there. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat myself. "I think the ideal way is to find a red link in an article about something you're already interested in. It's a ready-made page, it's in an area you're liable to know something about (& maybe even have sources handy, which is always a plus!), & it saves headaches having to "create page" something. And it'll make the (existing) article better, which is always a plus, too! George Taylor  19:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)" 19:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Including image from French Wikipedia onto English
I'd like to include from French Wikipedia onto the English article Service des essences des armées. I'm sure this must be possible, but I don't know what markup to use to make it appear. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  15:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You cannot make it appear if it's only in another language Wikipedia. If the license allows it then you can copy it to the English Wikipedia or upload it to commons. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, he's talking about Wikimedia Commons, accessible here. If it's free as in freedom, you can upload it there.  -- Thin  boy  00  @242, i.e. 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiding the Contents Box
How would you go about doing that? hiding the box at the top, that displays the contents of the page, by header section. (Xiaden, not logged in)
 * If you mean you want it not to display on a certain page, then this can be achieved with the magic word . If you want to never see ToCs on any page, this option is in your preferences under misc. Algebraist 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you want it to be hidden by default with a show link then you can use TOChidden. WP:TOC, Template messages/Compact tables of contents and Category:TOC templates may also be of interest if you want to manipulate the table of contents. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, John
I am being unfairly watched by big brother... who will probably be reading this post. Anywho, after some verbal sparring yesterday, he blocked me. Now, he is editing my personal pages under the guise of 'attack heading'. Please note I have called my personal page 'Doucheblog' long before I had run-ins with this bozo. And the items I copied and pasted are also pasted with some of own work. I feel if I undo his revision, he will block me again... because he, well, I'll bite my tongue. Other then some verbal jabs given this past week, I have always been a constructive editor on Wikipedia. I realize I should approach this guy with this problem, but I don't want to deal with him, quite frankly. I just want him off my back. Please look at my side objectively, and not as an administrator. I just want the name of my blog restored without bozo (oops, let that slip) reverting or blocking me. -- E n d l es s D a n  16:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See Civility and Dispute resolution. The help desk is not suited for this. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a blog, it should probably be deleted. See WP:NOT. --teb728 t c 18:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding a New Definition/Topic
Could someone provide a simple itemized list of the steps needed to make a new entry? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojomstr (talk • contribs) 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See Your first article for one way to actually create the page. Some general advice:
 * Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.


 * Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.


 * If you still think an article is appropriate, see Your first article and How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela
I am sorry to tell you that I am feeling that Nelson Mandela page is hacked. When I have searched nothing was coming except word"funny".

Please do something.

-Hemant Bulsara —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.147.22 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone vandalized the page. An automated bot has repaired it. &mdash;Noah 17:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

when I just visited the article it was fine, someone had sorted what ever problem there was. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 17:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can click the "history" tab at top of Nelson Mandela to see what happened. The vandalism was reverted the next minute. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Website Statistics for University Project
Dear Sir/Madam of Wikipedia,

I’m currently studying Multimedia Systems at a Degree level at Liverpool John Moores University. I’m contacting companies to help me gather research website data for my final year project, each company which helps me will receive a copy of my project findings at the conclusion of the project.

The aim of the report is to study why users return back to websites and what types of content people are most attracted to; the reason for this is that there are plenty of guides available which identify how to design an interface; however I couldn’t find any research books on what types of content makes a user come back to a site.

When one considers that corporate companies try to attract visitors to their sites to promote the brand, the use of the project comes into light.

17:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC) To complete the research project, I need website statistical data to compare with other websites from other companies, your companies privacy will be respected in the project and your company is not referred to at any point in the project, only as website 2, 3, 4 etc. 81.102.75.52 (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would sincerely appreciate any help you may be able to offer.

Kindest Regards,

Craig Hands

BSc Multimedia Systems (Hons) Liverpool John Moores University Bryom Street Liverpool United Kingdom L3 3AF


 * Note that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and not a company. It is operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit charitable organization. Wikipedia is written by a huge number of volunteers and anybody can reply to help desk questions. Special:Statistics has statistics for some things. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You might see the article about Jakob Nielsen (usability consultant) and visit his site, useit.com. He has a lot of documents about his research into Web site usability, which presumably relates to repeat visits (users are unlikely to return to a site they find difficult to use). Also read the Google AdSense article, and follow the external links to pages about how to increase AdSense revenue. Lots of people have written about methods they have use to increase traffic to their site, and click-throughs to AdSense ads. (You could probably impress your instructors at school by creating your own site that generates AdSense revenue exceeding their combined salaries, before you graduate.) Of course a substantial fraction of Wikipedia's registered users probably consider online advertising to be lame if not immoral. You are, after all, posting your question on a site which embodies ideals from the Open Source movement. --Teratornis (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Guys, this looks like it'll be a huge help. I had a brief look at Nielsens books, but must have missed something along the way. The main aim is to look at why people come back to sites and what particular content people find addictive. It's true, that without a good interface, the user will not return to the website, but without that extra special idea to make the interface appealing, the user won't return to the website. It's interesting that wikipedia has become so popular, if you look around some of the Computing Labs, its uncommon not to see someone on this site, YouTube or Facebook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.52 (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding template categorization
you uses the inappropriate person template and therefore gets wrongly categorized into Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing. Is there any way to avoid this, without using (as in this revision, which doesn't look too pretty)? -- Ddxc (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. wikify seems to accomplish this by doing a switch command on NAMESPACE.  I don't fully understand it;  I don't know what "ns:0" means (I'm guessing ns is namespace and 0 is mainspace) or how that bit works, but it looks to me that it puts one category if it's a talk page, another choice of two categories (with or without date) if it's an article page (I guess), and no category otherwise.  (So the template, in the template space, would not be put in the category.) I might play around with this later and try to figure out how to fix it. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * inappropriate person could add an optional parameter to suppress categorization as described at User:Willscrlt/UBX/categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For information about    , see: Help:Magic words. --Teratornis (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys! I've edited inappropriate person accordingly. -- Ddxc (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How To
i Need to Know How To —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxRewindlabsxX (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the question, what do you need help with.  →Dust  Rider →  18:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe this could help you? -- Thin  boy  00  @239, i.e. 04:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why foreign language
At the foot of the article on e.g. Leo, Sayer his name is repeated in several foreign languages. Why? MrsBucket (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are links to articles in Wikipedias in other languages. Try one!  NawlinWiki (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See Help:Interlanguage links. When the page is rendered it produces links in the languages box to the left of Leo Sayer. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, try 'em! Can find great pix you may not see here, & (if you're in need of info for an article!), maybe you can translate & use it here...? (I have.) Trekphiler (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating a page
Hi: I have a user page: keepcanadaslim that I intended to be posted as an article - entry - posting - whatever. How do I turn the user page into a searchable listing? When I search 'Keep Canada Slim' it shows no listing. Lee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepcanadaslim (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.


 * Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.


 * If you still think an article is appropriate, see Your first article and How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. — Travis talk  19:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the topic of your article probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. To be notable, the topic would have to have been extensively discussed in third-party sources -- that is, not only books written by the proponents of the system, but publications by other people talking about the pros and cons of the system.
 * However, here's the answer to your question -- if you think your topic meets the notability criteria. (Maybe you can find some third-party sources about it.) You can click "edit this page" at the top of your user page, and then copy the contents of the edit box with your mouse.  Then, in the search box at the left, type in the name you want the page to have.  Click "go".  It will tell you there is no such page, and it will give you a red link "Create this page".  Click on that link, then paste in the contents you copied from your user page. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My guess is it would probably be speedily deleted for any number of reasons: advertising, lack of notability, and zero references. But that's just my guess. Try it if you want. • Anakin  (contribs • complaints) 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Citation
I want to ask what to do if an editor has misinterpreted the statement written at the cited source? Should i correct the citation and add template at the editor's talk page]]. -- S M S  Talk 20:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactally do you mean? Has the editor misused a template? Introduced factual errors? Could you give us a link? Depending on the edit the user has made, there are a whole slew of templates that could be used. Alternatively, you could simply fix it and forgo the warning of the user. If you need any more help, please don't hesitate to ask! -- omtay 38  20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See below (as you already have) I misread. -- omtay 38  21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what you're talking about is a content dispute. I wouldn't use any templates. You have several options.  One is to put a message on the talk page of the article, explaining the problem. Wait a while (e.g. maybe a couple of days).  If people reply, discuss it with them. If nobody replies, then go ahead and edit the article to fix it.  If anyone objects to your edit, you can then discuss it with them on the article talk page.  Another option is to just boldly edit the article now, without discussing or waiting first.  If you know who put in the misinterpreted statement, another option is to put a message on that user's talk page, discussing it.  --Coppertwig (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I am talking of article Bahria University. There is a para in this article named Pakistan Engineering Council Recognition and the statement written in the para and the cited source aren't matching completely! So thats why i was thinking what to do. Thanks for the help! -- S M S  Talk 20:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't examined your case but tagging with Failed verification sounds like a possibility. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the users above regarding discussion being often more fruitful and appropriate than templating, if you are going to use a template, please see citecheck, dubious, and failed verification .--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the paragraph and reference and correct me if I’m mistaken, but it appears that the paragraph simply needs a bit of editing. The information for the Islamabad campus appears correct, but the date is incorrect for the Karachi campus. If that is the case, you can simply make the appropriate corrections. — Travis talk  22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok! Thanks! -- S M S  Talk 12:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"of" or "in" in categories
In categories, sometime I see "of" used & sometimes "in" used, such as "Category:Parks in the United States" or "Category:Lakes of the United States". I know this is splitting hairs, but is there official guidance for which one to use? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is – Naming conventions (categories). Enjoy.  BencherliteTalk 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with hairsplitting on Wikipedia. Only by reaching consensus on the tiniest details of our technology and procedures can we keep registered users working coherently. What would seem unnecessarily meticulous in much of real life becomes more important as the number of people involved increases. By the time things get up to the size of an army (which is what we have on Wikipedia), everything must be "by the book." I.e., the process of building our encyclopedia must grow increasingly algorithmic, so we leave less and less up to the variability of personal opinion. --Teratornis (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do hope that was sarcasm. • Anakin  (contribs • complaints) 12:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Category talk bizarreness help!
I just added to Category talk:Truro and it is now displaying utterly bizarrely. Can someone take a look please? DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. What in particular is the problem on your screen? BencherliteTalk 22:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Same here, using Firefox 2.0.0.11. Which browser are you using?  N F 24 (radio me!) 22:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) ::It looks ok now to me too. It was displaying with no tabs at the top of the page (article, discussion, edit etc), no navbar and toolbox or logo down the left hand side, and multiple corrupted versions of the Cornwall Wikiproject template on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Safari on WinXP. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Screenshot? Anyway, I think your stylesheet has somehow not loaded; clear your cache, purge the page for good luck and refresh the page.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't think to take a screenshot - as I say, it seems to be OK now. DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

heath ledger
Some sicko has hacked the (newly deceased) page of Heath Ledger on Wiki and superimposed a large penis in apparent reference to brokeback mountain.

please see to it that it is removed as the man has only just died today and doesn't need to be ridiculed and disrespected.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.106.100 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Page has been protected fully. Peace.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Report Abuse
All I want to do is let someone know that when I went to Heath Ledger's page today, there was a giant picture of a man's genetalia on it.

Please remove it.


 * Already done, see above. BencherliteTalk 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger Article
This is not a question, but you'd better check the Health Ledger article. There is an extremely pornographic image at the top. Not sure how something like that happens, but I'm sure you will want to remove it.24.173.10.190 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. It's already fixed. See above. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger
Upon the recent news of Heath Ledger's death, I searched his page in Wikipedia. Saddly, I found that someone currupted the page so that a picture of an erect penis floats over the page. This is highly upsetting and should be removed immediatly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.115.104 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been. Viridae Talk 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Deaths
Someone has put an obscene image on the Recent Deaths page. Please someone remove it. Thank you. Polarbear97 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverted, warned. Thanks for bringing this up.  N F 24 (radio me!) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Previewing references
I'm looking for a userscript which allows you to see the results of automatically when previewing a section of a page containing links. I'm sure I saw discussion of this at the Village pump or here within the last few weeks, but I've searched archives and not found it. Maybe it was longer ago. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can temporarily insert a reflist or inside the section in question, preview, then remove it. This is now incorporated into Footnotes.  N F 24 (radio me!) 23:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Well, maybe someone will be along with some type of monobook fixamagig, but here's my solution. First, if you click edit this page, you can always preview references because, etc. will always be contained on the whole page (you probably already know that); but if you're stuck with a section edit, just temporarily place the reference section markup at the bottom of the section, preview will allow you to see the references propagate, then remove the markup before saving.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I guess that works reasonably well. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Separating notes & references
I have a question of my own about references. It pertains to Atlantis SquarePantis. There are several explanatory notes intermixed with the references. Is there a way I can split up the notes and references into two sections?  N F 24 (radio me!) 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh.... not really. The tag is going to display all 's, regardless of their content, and there is no way to split them. I suppose it would be possible to use superscripted symbols, make them all links to a "Notes" section within the article (SpongeBob's Atlantis Squarepantis), and people would just match up the symbols on their own, but that isn't the most elegant solution, and does rather limit you somewhat. However, that is the only workaround I see possible. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help nominate Julius Gius for deletion correctly
Ive tried to nominate it but have done something wrong. cant fix it, must sleep. thanx Willy turner (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Transcluded onto Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 23. N F 24 (radio me!) 00:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects
I would like to start a wikiproject but i don't know how to get approval before i make the page. What do i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoneTemplar (talk • contribs) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The WikiProject Council is in charge of project proposals.  N F 24 (radio me!) 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A categorical category
I keep getting asked to include categories. Where's the list of them? Trekphiler (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)