Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 March 10

= March 10 =

The Bishop's School -- La Jolla
There is some humor in the article. But maybe it would be wise to correct it.

"The Bishop’s School is an academic community that tries to be as good as La Jolla Country Day School but always falls far short of their outstanding achievements. Bishop's pays ref's to not call fouls on Bishop's players during sporting events and also to call fouls on LJCD players that were not actually committed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.219.179 (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The page had been vandalised. I've corrected it. — Manti  core  02:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How to convert Word Document into RTF
How do I convert my Word Document into a RTF format?218.215.154.222 (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. But the short answer is: open the document in Word, select "Save as..." from the file menu, then in the "File type" box scroll down to RTF format. – ukexpat (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey in San Francisco
Where can information be found about signing up for the San Francisco area interviews?


 * See Wikimedia Job Openings. That page also explains how to sign up to the job opening mailing list to be automatically emailed notifications of new job openings. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

telecom
what is acculink and what is psax?Nishadmn2000 (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you tried looking at the google searches for Acculink or Psax ? This page is for asking questions about Wikipedia, so if those aren't helpful, consider asking at the reference desk, which specializes in answering everything else. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Translation from German into English.
Where to I go to translate an article from German into English. The article is already active and in German but I can not find the page for entering an English translation. Thank you80.153.201.143 (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't find the English version of the page, first look at the interwiki links on the left side of the German article. If the english version exists, it will be listed there (it might not be findable from searching on the english wikipedia if it is at a translation or alternate spelling of the title that you did not consider). If the page indeed doesn't exist, you'll have to create an account here so you can create the article yourself. You can also try to use a single user login from your german account, if you have one. When you do create the translation, place the Translated page template on the talk page. Also consider reading Your first article, as even if the page exists in german, it must still be suitable by the English Wikipedia's standards. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More detailed information is under WP:EIW. If you are new to Wikipedia editing in general, you should read Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. The book answers many questions you will invariably run into as you edit more on Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

CSD
Is there a CSD for a CV (resume)? -- Menti  sock  10:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider these to fall under A7 bio. But if you do that, make sure A7 really applies; it could just be a horridly formatted but otherwise sufficient biography. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A CV is hardly a biography though, is it? It's more like an indiscriminate list of information. -- Menti  sock  10:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Indiscriminate information is unencyclopedic. It depends on the person being discussed, but whatever is in someone's resume can certainly be encyclopedic. It is likely A7 if it fails to establish why the person is significant. Otherwise, no CSD applies. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Depending on context, Section G11 (blatant advertising) may apply, and is the most common basis you will see resumes tagged under at CAT:CSD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly, what other reason could there be for posting a resumé or curriculum vitae than "promoting" the individual?  – ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that a CV could be reformatted to text. Articles should generally ONLY be speedily deleted in cases where there can be no reasonable debate as to the merit of the subject to warrent an article.  If there is a reasonable debate over such merit, the debate should occur.  Articles which merely need to be cleaned up, but where the subject otherwise would merit a well written article, if only someone bothered to write it well, should not be deleted, but should instead be either fixed or tagged so someone else can fix them.  In this case, the correct cleanup tag is Template:Like resume.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if a CV is reformatted to text it can violate G11: Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. (people are entities). I am curious as to where your "Articles should generally ONLY be speedily deleted in cases where there can be no reasonable debate as to the merit of the subject to warrent [sic] an article" statement comes from - I don't see it at WP:CSD. If that is indeed a guideline, it should probably be added to that page. – ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is inherent in the spirit of the Deletion policy, especially in the criteria for speedy deletion. At the CSD page itself, see this part in the lead, emphasis mine: "These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead."  If there is room for different people to arrive at different conclusions as to whether an article should be kept around, then it should not be speedily deleted, though it may be deleted through more deliberative processes.  See also the next paragraph in the same page, "Deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria. Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate." Again, emphasis mine.  You don't actually have to improve an article, but if it COULD be improved, it should not be speedily deleted.  Also from the deletion policy page, WP:DELETE: "If it is doubtful whether a page is or is not speedily deletable, a deletion discussion takes precedence."  Again, CSD is only for cases where no reasonable person would consider keeping the article, exactly as I stated above.  If it could be fixed, it should not be deleted.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  15:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand all that, I just thought that from the way you formatted your comment you were directly quoting from something elsewhere. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

About Local TV (Telugu Infotainment Channel)
Help Desk,

I requesting you to see the below link :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_TV

The above link is Wrong for the local TV. This inforamation is related to Channel. But its not related to telugu channel local TV.

Local Tv is Telugu Channel (Which is going to broadband to MSo)for telugu people.local tv link is "www.local.in". you can find the more information about the local tv, Hyderabad.

Please update the above information for Local tv (Telugu Entertainment Channel)

Thanks & Regards Ranagaraju.E local TV Web Development Jubilee Hills Hyderabad.33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.241.170 (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. The article you linked to isn't "wrong" - it just refers to another entity named "Local TV". If you have information indicating that the Telugu station you describe is notable - that is, that it has received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources - you (or anyone) could create an article about this channel (listing your sources) as well. You should also, though, keep in mind our policies on conflict of interest if this is an entity with which you are personally involved. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Article count
Is there currently a functional and accurate article creation count of a user? -- Menti  sock  11:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a slightly more languid-paced (and partially French language) one at http://toolserver.org/~escaladix/larticles/, while the usual toolserver one is down. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All it's doing is 'loading', waiting for the toolserver that will probably result in a timeout. -- Menti  sock  12:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. It's working OK for me, returning results after about ~15 seconds - maybe give it another try? I only have 12 articles and 58 redirects to my name, though; I guess if you're much more prolific, it may just be slower. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind it loaded as well; it's good I think. Where does it get its data from? -- Menti  sock  12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure, I'm afraid; I found out about it the other day over on the village pump. There, User:Graham87 said that it doesn't contact the toolserver to generate the list; perhaps he could tell you more? Gonzonoir (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the Truth
Dear Wikipedia, I have had five emails in the past week telling me to beware that Wikipedia is a Politically Correct website run by Liberal front.

My children have used Wikipedia, these emails show the disparity between the last two presidents and what is allowed to be added and deleted.

I want my children to know the whole truth...do you have a truth squad and what is their political affiliation.

Please respond as I believe you might have a huge problem that is growing and could potentially cause your great sight to be irrelevant in the future.

Thank You Samuel Hobbs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.112.210 (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By it's goal of sharing free information, Wikipedia tend to be a tad liberal, but it's definitely not run by Liberals. Changes are based on discussion among all the editors who have an interest in the subject and we have a fair share of politically right-winged editors around. Wikipedia's ultimate truth is that we report things that have already been reported elsewhere, so if you want your kids to know the whole truth, if there is any such thing, you should strive to teach them research skills and not blindly rely on what others are saying. - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is widely derided by advocates on every side of every spectrum. These accusations are usually baseless and are generally ignored. Claims that we are run by the "liberal front" or any other front for that matter are especially baseless, as Wikipedia has no ruling cabal, and everyone is free to edit. It's worth mentioning though, that oftentimes disparities between articles are merely a mirror of how those subjects are presented by reliable sources. So it's no great conspiracy, just sticking to the best sources. The hecklers who take the biggest issue with that are often just trying to right a wrong, which is outside of Wikipedia's purpose. If you have any specific concerns, I'd suggest you ask them on the talk pages of the articles in question, and also search their archives as most of the controversial issues have already come up many times. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Extremists of every stripe hate Wikipedia. See for example WP:CENSOR and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. I'm guessing that the Obama haters who spam each other with anti-Wikipedia chain e-mails neglect to mention that Wikipedia also offends a billion or so Muslims with Depictions of Muhammad including the most incendiary ones. Do the Obama haters also want Wikipedia to knuckle under to pressure from the Islam lobby? The problem with extremists generally is that they are used to living in their own insular communities where they hear only their own groupthink. After growing accustomed to never hearing any logical challenge to their views, they come to Wikipedia and experience shock at actually having to engage with other beliefs and opposing arguments, rather than merely suppress them. Ann Coulter said in an interview that she envisions Heaven as being like "the Republican National Convention" - but actually I would call that a better description of Hell, where people merely reinforce all their unexamined beliefs, and never experience the pleasures of critical thinking and logical debate. What can be more fun than analyzing an argument, identifying its subtle fallacies, and determining whether it draws logically valid inferences from the available facts? In Ann Coulter's vision of Heaven, nobody would think again for the rest of eternity, they would only emote, like a bunch of unreasoning savages dancing around a campfire. Not that there's anything wrong with dancing around campfires, but occasionally a person of intelligence needs to think. In any case, a word to Obama haters: if you want influence on Wikipedia, you can earn it the same way as anyone else, by reading the friendly manuals and building up a history of constructive contributions to the project. No organization on planet Earth indiscriminately grants equal influence to everyone who casually drops in one day - that would quickly lead to a Tragedy of the Commons. While Wikipedia is an unusually open and flat organization, there is still inevitably some mechanism for promoting competence and sanctioning incompetence. If you want to influence Wikipedia, you have to demonstrate as much competence as have the people who currently influence Wikipedia. Whoever is wielding power over the Barack Obama article obtained that power through years of hard work. Anyone else who wants the same power must do the same work. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch - isn't that what free-market conservatives like to tell the welfare queens? When you come to Wikipedia, you can read the articles for free, but if you want to edit the articles and see your edits stick, you must overcome your sense of entitlement and embrace the traditional values of ingenuity and hard work. --Teratornis (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you just said a mouthful right there. That message would be perfect at Talk:Barack Obama, except someone has already made a similar point over there. -- Wh ip it !  Now whip it good! 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See, the nice thing about The Truth is that, unlike information, The Truth does not have to be verified in reliable sources. Information needs to have the weight of research, be replicatable, and be widely agreed upon as valid information, by people who dispassionatly verify it as such.  The Truth does not need to bother with such complexities.  Someone only needs to assert The Truth as The Truth, and it isntantly becomes The Truth, and invalidates all other points of view as a Pack of Lies.  You can keep your Truth, as far as I am concerned.  I am much more happy to have verified information at Wikipedia... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding a picture
I'm trying to add a picture. I understand I need to upload it to wikipedia in the first place, but what I don't know is this: I have contacted the author/artist (Paul Kidby) via email. He replied that as long he retains copyright, and we link back to his homepage, we may make use of the image to illustrate articles on wikipedia. So what does this fall under? Aergoth (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This permission is insufficient. Use of the image must not be restricted to Wikipedia or educational use. Anyone should be allowed to download it and use it for what they want (including commercial use). If you get that permission, there is a license in the upload screen that allows upload of copyrighted images that can be used with attribution. - Mgm|(talk) 11:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it help perhaps if I gave you the exact wording? There was no mention of it being restricted to Wikipedia, but then there was also not a mention of it being free to place. 76.71.154.14 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if you are not the creator of the image, we would need proof that the creator themselves has liscenced the image in a way to be compatable with Wikipedia's reuse liscence, currently GFDL. Either it must be explicitly indicated that the use is compatible, or the creator needs to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly using our OTRS system and indicate that they are liscencing the image in a way to make it useable at Wikipedia.  Wikipedia's Image Use Policy is one of the most difficult policies to get right, and causes the most consternation for new users here.  The easiest way to avoid potential problems is to create all images yourself (make your own drawings, take your own photographs) and upload them yourself, appropriately liscenced, to Wikimedia Commons.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What mean?
La bildo estas kopiita de wikipedia:de. La originala priskribo estas: --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you tried the Language section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An automated identifier and translator says it's in Esperanto and means "The picture is copy from wikipedia:de. The original description is:". wikipedia:de refers to the German Wikipedia at de: PrimeHunter (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tangentially, which identifier/translator are you using? I went to Babelfish, but then had to guess at the language, which got me nowhere. If there's a simple program/website out there, it'd be a great link to have handy. TN X Man  00:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not experienced and used rather random tools found with Google. http://odur.let.rug.nl/~vannoord/TextCat/Demo/textcat.html identified Esperanto. The first Google hit on "esperanto english" was http://ttt.kafejo.com/lingvoj/auxlangs/eo/tradukilo/ which translated it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I searched Wikipedia now and unsurprisingly we have an article about language identification with external links. I have no idea how they compare. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. I figure it's a good thing to have handy for new page patrol or occasional help desk posts. This Xerox link also looks like it works pretty well. A couple of the links at language identification led to pay/subscription sites (I removed them), but the rest look OK. TN X Man  00:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation trouble
I am a little lost on making a citation on the page I'm working. How can I make the footnote number link to the actual footnote if there isn't a template for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoggedtruth (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy - don't worry about it! The footnote number will be automatic. I don't know how you're doing the citation, but for a very basic cite of a web page you'd just to do this:
 * This will generate the correct number in the main text (e.g. [99]), and an accompanying footnote in the references list (e.g. 99. Example.org).
 * Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" Multiple citation use.
 * It's pretty easy. Here is an easy cheatsheet. -- Mgm|(talk) 13:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * + Formatting references using inline citations
 * - valign="top"
 * Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode'
 * What it produces when you save
 * - valign="top"
 * width="300"|Two separate citations.

Help with link color
Can someone please help me fix the link color in the "brother" userbox on my user page? Thanks, Mike R (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. How is it now? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks!! Mike R (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Securely sharing private files
Hello,

Does wikipedia offer private file sharing between two entities?

Thanks.

Rahim Q (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, although registered users can email each other using their existing email accounts. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

download image
Please help me transfer the image to my project page on www.hu.Wikipedia.org. (Raymond Carver)

JPG files usually present no problem, but this one simply won't respond. This is a mystery to me. There are images which come over to the hu.Wiki without a hitch, and there are those which don't, no matter what I do. If someone could explain the reason for this phenomenon, I'd appreciate it. My user name is Vándormadár 71.221.97.251 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this file on Wikipedia or Commons? If it's on Wikipedia only, you'll have to upload it to Commons or your local Wiki in order for it to work. TN X Man  17:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's on the en.Wiki Commons. Thanks for responding. I don't think I can solve this by myself. 71.221.97.251 (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the file on Commons. However, I do see the file here on Wikipedia at File:RayCarver.jpg. Is this the picture to which you were referring? TN X Man  18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict, lost my previous message. I've just succeeded in transferring an image of Carver. It's not the one I tried previously, but it's okay, as long as I have something. The one that didn't come through is in the enWiki article on Carver: File:RayCarver.jpg. I must confess I don't understand the mechanics behind this image-transfer business, but I don't want to take up any more of your time. Thank you so much for you help. 71.221.97.251 (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's no problem. I assume you're referring to the image transferrer. It may be easier to download the image to your computer and reupload it to your language's wiki instead of messing about with the script. If you have other questions, feel free to ask. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  18:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't referring to the above--I don't even know what it is. But I'm going to follow your advice and download the thing to my computer first. Sounds simple enough. Thanks again!97.112.156.89 (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

finding personal home addresses
i would like to find a person's home address and telephone number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.85.3 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Wikipedia does not list personal information. You may want to use the YellowPages or a search engine, such as Google. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  18:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How to changing the "search" name on an article
I recently created a new Wikipedia page. I created Hanger Prosthetics and Orthotics/Hanger Orthopedic Group. However, it only comes up when I type Hanger Orthopedic Group into the search bar. I want it to come up when I type Hanger Prosthetics and Orthotics in the search bar as this is the primary search name that others would be using. Please reply. (WBancroft (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC))


 * It appears that Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. is the correct name of the company (though per naming conventions the name of the article should be Hanger Orthopedic Group so I moved it there). If it trades as Hanger Prosthetics and Orthotics we can create a redirect page pointing Hanger Prosthetics and Orthotics to Hanger Orthopedic Group. However, there are issues with the article as set out in the issues tags and on the talk page -- let's deal with those before worrying about redirects and the search engine. – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK been looking at this further - is the article supposed to be about the group as a whole - Hanger Orthopedic Group - or just the subsidiary Hanger Prosthetics and Orthotics? At the moment it seems to be the latter, but the (overlong) list of the management team appears to cover the group, HPO and other subsidiaries. Once we know what the intention is, we can deal with the bits that don't appear to fit. – ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How do I link to a file on Wikimedia Commons, when there's a file by the same name here on Wikipedia?
There's a file (picture) on Wikimedia Commons, under the name File:Drum Castle.jpg, there's also a file by the same name here on Wikipedia, but they're different pictures. I would like to link to the Wikimedia file, because I personally like it better, but when I put that file name into the link, I see the file on Wikipedia, rather than the Wikimedia one. How do I format the link so it does the opposite? Thanks in advance, Raven1977 <sup style="color:blue;">Talk to me <sub style="color:purple;">My edits  20:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can link to a file on Commons without displaying it by using an interwiki link prefix, for example:
 * commons:File:North Dakota wind resource map 50m 800.jpg
 * Presumably you want to display the image from Commons when an image on Wikipedia is in the way. I know this has come up before but I need to look it up and refresh my memory as to the available options. One obvious solution is to rename one of the images, but this requires help from an administrator. --Teratornis (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it:
 * commons:COM:FAQ
 * The only solution is to move one of the files, and then fix any existing links to it.
 * commons:COM:FAQ
 * --Teratornis (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I never even thought to look at the Commons FAQ, thanks very much for locating the answer for me! Raven1977 <sup style="color:blue;">Talk to me <sub style="color:purple;">My edits  22:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I got interested in using Wikimedia Commons late last year, so I naturally started answering (in some cases flubbing) questions on the Commons Help desk and editing an Editor's index to Commons. (It's especially interesting to try answering questions posed in languages I don't speak. It's amazing what one can flub do with a (very) little domain knowledge and Google Translation.) Not surprisingly, there's a whole 'nother bunch of information over there, potentially useful to Wikipedia editors due to the project overlaps, but their stockpile of information is not as readily visible over here. If only we could convince the whole world to speak one language, then we wouldn't need Commons to be a separate site. (I'll get right on that.) To anyone with an interest in images or other media files, I recommend spending some time on Commons - you will not regret it. --Teratornis (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cash cow
Alternate name for cash cow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.56.86.35 (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cash cow may refer to a profitable yet low-maintenance business unit. Rainmaker refers to an individual employee who brings in a lot of business or generates a lot of value. If you need more, ask on Reference desk/Language. --Teratornis (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Have you tried the Language section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. You could also take a look at these suggestions from an online thesaurus. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "Bread and Butter" comes to mind in the US. — Ched ~ (yes?) 01:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

creating a page
i dont know how to create a page i tried everything it said but it didn't work it's for a movie called america(2009 movie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derick chapman (talk • contribs) 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks as if the article has already been created. You can find the article at America (2009 film) and are welcome to contribute it as well. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  21:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What do the red words in an article mean?
I was reading about a law firm and one of the "most notable lawyers" names was in red. What does that mean?

Thank you for your time. 68.199.37.150 (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It means there is no article with that name, yet. – ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

why new info wont be accepted
I have added two good points to a page on snowmobiles but they wont keep them Why???--206.9.209.78 (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest you create a user account. It may have been a `roll back` (multiple edits undone at the same time) mistake, I dont know much about snow mobiles (could it be a sourcing issue?) but it looked like just a minor grammar problem. It may have something to do with your IPs earlier edits to the plum pudding model and a miscommunication of someone not knowledgable about snowmobiles and your intentions Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your second edit added a misspelled line to the first sentence of the article. Article leads generally summarize content more full detailed later in the article, and generally contain no information that is not at least present in the body. So there a couple of reasons I can imagine for reverted that edit. First, it appears to me to be a minor detail that probably should be mentioned in the body, but is too minor to be included in the lead. You would agree that the predominant use of snowmobiles is for snow locomotion wouldn't you? Moreover, the lead already mentions that "Summertime occupations for snowmobile enthusiasts can also involve drag racing on grass." Do you think detail on the wheels used is also necessary? Second, the information was not contained in the body and thus didn't belong in the lead. Third, a mispelling in edits like this, whether fairly or unfairly, is often taken as a flag not to trust the user when he or she has does not have a track record to examine—especially when the edit is only backed by you, and not be a reliable source you are citing which verifies the information are adding. Your first edit suffers from many of the same problems and also introduced an error, removing the period at the end of the sentence you edited.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)