Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 October 5

= October 5 =

IP hopping (from one computer)
Please fix this issue.

You can IP hop from one computer because they have a Dynamic IP, which means that when the IP gets blocked, the user has a few more "IP's" to go, resulting in block evasion, sockpuppeting and IP hopping.

URL syntax
Many editors have a link on their talk pages which invites the reader to start a new topic. Then a blank subject line and blank content area appear. So far, so good. Now, is there any way to pre-populate a "generic" title, such as "please enter a title" or something like that? Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The generic title URL syntax is .  Intelligent  sium  22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not a bad idea. I'll consult my lawyer, and if he advises me to do it, I'll get a new lawyer. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Modifying the personal toolbar
You know the links at the top right corner of the page (I believe I saw somewhere that it's called the personal toolbar)? I'd like to use some kind of java/css magic to alter mine. The problem being (a) I can't find documentation on it anywhere, and (b) I don't know jack about java or css. Is there an easy way to: Thanks for any suggestions, or if I missed it, pointers to documentation somewhere on how to do this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * get rid of the stupid "Take me back... New features" links up there
 * Add some links to other pages up there


 * Tools/Navigation shortcuts will add links to the sidebar. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 05:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The links under WP:EIW should document everything you can do to customize your view of Wikipedia. I don't know how to do what you want. --Teratornis (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. Looks like I might not be able to do what I want as easily as I'd hoped, but Gadget proposes something that might work just as well.  I'll do some reading and fiddling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

material I edited is deleted
I would like to know while material that I edited today has already been deleted? I am also having trouble making and editing a page about myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrin96 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you asking about Darrin Etcovitch? You'll need to show why you meet the notability criterion in order to avoid deletion of that page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The page has now been speedily deleted, A7. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about Sourcing (Now I'm in the correct spot)
Ok, I've attempted to make contact with Brooke Anne Smith via Email and I planned on using the email as a source. However, I need to know if that counts as a reliable source. I really need to know. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That would probably be considered original research, not a reliable source. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 02:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) No, the email is not a usable source. Material on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, third party published sources. The issue is verifiability. A person must be able to verify for themselves that a source stated to verify some fact does in fact verify the fact. If a person can't look at the source themselves it's a no go.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The subject of an article is often among the least reliable sources there is. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, I won't use emails, but I wonder why is it that emails from the person who is supposed to be the subject of the article is original research? Heck, technically, all sources are original research anyways. We might as well eliminate every single article in Wikipedia, even annihilate the entire wikipedia if that was really the case, since what is the point. Heck, interviews from other people is original research anyways. But, if it can't be used, it can't be used. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, what seperates reliable sources from other sources of information is editorial control. Respected, reliable sources have a reputation, for example, for good research and for presenting information which is throughly vetted and verified before it is published.  -- Jayron  32  03:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Unpublished emails don't satisfy Verifiability. That's why Template:Cite email was deleted at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 19. See also Biographies of living persons. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, in order for the whole anti-original research policy to truly be in effect, there cannot even be sources allowed since all sources are is original research that is used to prove points, and verifiability. To me, trying to prove verifiability is in itself original research, so the only way that it can truly be enforced is by not even allowing sources, period. Heck, not even allow editing ever. I see things in an absolute manner, as in no exceptions, so the concept of "original research" not being allowed baffles me entirely. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you have actually read No original research. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * To me this is an issue of verifiability, not original research. The problem is that there's no way for a reader or another editor to verify that the email says what you tell us it says.  If the email had been published somewhere it could be cited, so long as WP:SELFPUB were followed.  The way I think of the original research policy is as Wikipedia's defense against cranks – people who come to Wikipedia to promote their own pet loopy theories – and believe me, we get plenty of those.  When Wikipedians say you can't add original research they mean you can't add your own original reseach, i.e. your own conclusions or commentary you made up yourself.  Of course you can add others' original research, provided that research has been vetted by publication in a reliable source.  You might be interested in the history of the original research policy and in these examples of things that are not considered "original research" in the way that Wikipedia uses the term.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, can you at least tell me how to publish emails so this can get in? I'm getting sick and tired of Smith not getting an article, especially given the fact that Richard White has an article on Wikipedia, and he's barely even done that much compared to her. I just want consistency and to give actors and actresses an article as needed, that's all. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold on, first you need to determine whether she merits an article at all. WP:NACTOR is a general notability guideline for determining whether an actor merits her own article.  Regardless, you can't make an email the basis of an article – as described in the general notability guideline, if there are no reliable secondary sources describing an article's subject, the article probably shouldn't exist.  Apologies for not making that clear in my last post.  Note also that it's generally poor etiquette to publish private correspondence without the author's explicit permission.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the issue is that, if she is notable, then people who are not her or have no business or familial relatioship with her will have written about her extensively. That is all that Wikipedia means by "notable".  This is not equivalent to "valuable" or "important" or "worthwhile", it merely means that there is enough writing about her which appears in reliable sources so that we can use those sources to build an article with.  If a person is not featured in lots of in-depth writing about their life, then there's no way to verify their article, and THAT is the why someone must be "notable", as expressly defined by Notability.  Arguements about how important or valuable someone is, especially in relation to people who are already the subject of Wikipedia articles, is entirely irrelevent.  All that matters is the existance of extensive writing about the person.  Books, magazine articles, that sort of stuff. -- Jayron  32  04:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not even familiar with her at all. We only met a year ago, and I only did two email messages, so if you think that notability requires that no one who is her or even had business/some sort of relationship with her of any kind, the stuff I did was notable about her. At best, I know of the characters she played, and the only things I've heard of her besides from her were from things other people talked about. I can't even tell the difference between "valuable/important/worthwile" and "notable", since they are exactly the same since if they weren't that, then she wouldn't even exist. Heck, as far as I know, I don't and can't even exist if I weren't the above. Richard White, I'm not sure if he has any notable/reliable sources, yet that never stopped him from getting an article. I process things almost like a machine and view things in absolutes, so saying that one isn't notable and one is despite having the exact same content, or lack thereof, makes little sense. I can understand why you wouldn't make articles about actors/actresses whose names were actually aliases for other characters because those actually do not exist, but stuff like this I simply cannot fathom. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Google has over 3000 hits for her name. Even though a lot of them are fancruft there must be sufficient material to establish notability. Try IMBD to begin with. Roger (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought IMDb was blacklisted? I know it certainly was during Ariel's Beginning's development. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weedle, have you read the links people have given you? You say 'I can't even tell the difference between "valuable/important/worthwile" and "notable"', but WP:Notability is precisely defined for Wikipedia's purposes (which is all we are talking about). --ColinFine (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And as far as other articles: please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what third party is, and in order for any and all third parties to exist, they need to have absolutely no affiliation with the subject of the article. For example, if I say things about Brooke Anne Smith without ever meeting her in any way, shape, or form, that IS third party, since it requires under your and third parties definition that you must not be a relative, a friend, having done business with or have had any affiliation with Brook Anne Smith. And as for "Other Crap Exists," I just see it as nothing more than an excuse to act like a hypocrite. If I ran the site, and I made rules similar to the ones you made, guess what, I'd not allow the site to be edited ever, not even under me. That's the true way to enforce laws, which is to not even allow the site to be modified unless you break rules. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:THIRDPARTY explains that a third-party source is "independent of the subject being covered, and can provide a critical but fair evaluation of the subject." Your definition of third-party is extreme. For example, a newspaper writer who covers a political campaign may get to know some of the people. That doesn't mean the reporter loses all independence. To be a third-party doesn't require zero contact with the subject, just not so much contact as to bias the reporter.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow up to question asked 10/4/10 re can't figure out how to publish final article??
Though the answers I received worked, when I went out to Internet and Googled the article using the new title (National Association of Real Estate Brokers (NAREB)) for the "redirect", I noted that the old "User Flossie Bell..." comes up as a searched document! When I clicked on it I was taken to a brief page with a link redirecting to the moved new page. Is this supposed to happen? I thought the old page would cease to exist. Did I screw up? If so, how do I fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flossie Bell (talk • contribs) 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A page move turns the old page into a redirect page and doesn't normally delete the page (only administrators can do that). Do you want the redirects at User:Flossie Bell/National association of real estate brokers and User:Flossie Bell/National association of real estate brokers to be deleted? Then they will be removed from Google's search index when Google discovers they are deleted, but Wikipedia does not control when this happens. Clicking "Cached" on Google's search results page currently shows that Google last indexed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flossie_Bell/National_association_of_real_estate_brokers on 12 September where it still contained your draft article. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have moved the article to National Association of Real Estate Brokers (removing the acronym from the title) and created a redirect at NAREB. The tone of the article needs work IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirects of Book Titles
What's the policy on book titles that aren't notable enough to have their own article, but the author does? Is it OK to create a redirect from the title to the author? Buddy431 (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * yes this would be the norm...with mention of the book in main article (the redirect location). However pages should not be made for just this purpose... but made after the fact of an article that did not meet notability and was deleted with a redirect in-mind. Making a redirect just to take up the name is not the norm for book titles as there are many books that have the same title.,, Moxy (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If the title is unique and the author biography has significant information about the book and doesn't merely list it then a redirect may be relevant. However, readers and editors seeing a blue link on the title on an article (for example the biography itself) can get the misleading impression that the book has its own article. This is one of the reasons you shouldn't normally create a redirect to a biography where the book is merely mentioned in a bibliography or in passing. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're saying in general that I shouldn't create such a redirect? It seems to me that book titles are likely search terms, so it makes sense to redirect them to the author.  Obviously titles that are the same for multiple books should not be redirected, but I don't understand what problem PrimeHunter is referring to when he says that people might think that the book has its own article.  A click on the link would quickly show that this isn't the case.  Or are you saying that people might be discouraged from creating an article about the book if they see a blue link and think it already has one? Buddy431 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The latter. There is a natural tendency to assume that "bluelink=there's an article on it already" and not to pursue it further. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While that's true, there's also an unfortunate tendency among some editors to assume that "redlink=non-notable" and to remove the redlink, thus discouraging creation of an article. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Three things I need to discuss
1. Britney_Stevens is the sister of Whitney_Stevens. It's listed on Whitney_Stevens that she is listed under the categories Category:Panamanian_Jews and Category:Panamanian_pornographic_film_actors. Since Britney_Stevens is she her sister and a pornstar; should she be listed under those 2 categories as well?

2. Qumunity is an article I want to create. It fits under the category LGBT_culture_in_Vancouver becuase Qmunity is Vancouver's centre for gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual people. I think there should be article for it. Here's the link: http://www.qmunity.ca/

3. Naturally Autistic is another article I want to create because it fits under Autism_related_organizations and It's been around since 1995 and it is run a couple in Gibsons,_British_Columbia and I have a link for it: http://www.naturallyautistic.com/founders/297/

Please let me know about doing these articles. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who's been reverting your edits to the Britney Stevens article. Britney's article doesn't mention anything about being from Panama or being a Jew.  Just because her sister was born there, it doesn't necessarily follow that she was ever in Panama.  Or that they even have the same father/mother.
 * As far as Qumunity and Naturally Autistic are concerned, both articles have been deleted once. You never showed how they were notable per our guidelines.  If you can show that they are notable, then they could have articles.  Dismas |(talk) 05:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

talk page
I cannot open the talk page and see the last bit. Glossary of ancient roman religion.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion seems to work fine for me. In fact, you last commented there only 16 minutes before you left the above post.  -- Jayron  32  05:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me as well. Could you clarify what problem you're having?  Dismas |(talk) 05:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine to me, probably you may had an internet connection problem and that page is really long - needs to be archived. -- Extra   999  (Contact me  +  contribs) 12:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll set up MizaBot or the likes. Well, if I can do it right. I fail at bots. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 01:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Apparently the page ain't supposed to be archived? See Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion for more info... --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 01:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My Wikipedia background went crazy - instead of it being gray it has a pic of a family
Hi,

I use Firefox to access the net and Wikipedia background where is should be gray has a pic of a family and it makes it impossible to see the side options like language etc. I want to change it back to gray. I have included the pic.

http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/vector/images/page-base.png?1

TIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.99.214 (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any picture there?? Rojomoke (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Might be a cache problem. Try pressing . Regards  So Why  11:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

suggestions
Can onyone give me suggestion to improve the Pallar article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamil1988 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of tags at the top of the page - the copyedit tag is the one I'd probably start with. One thing that leaps out (because I'm a big fan of the manual of style!) is the headings - many of them are written as "Long Capitalised Noun Phrases" (for example, Brave Sports in Ancient Tamilnadu Containing the name Mallar). The manual of style says that headings shouldn't be capitalised like this: headings like this should be written as "Brave sports in ancient Tamilnadu containing the name Mallar" (keep "proper nouns" like "Tamilnadu" capitalised). I also noticed a lot of bold text in the article - the manual of style has advice on when bolding should be used, and will help you clean up the article.
 * There are a number of "WikiProjects" identified on the article's talkpage - it might be a good idea to ask them for help, as the projects' members will have experience with similar topics. In particular, WikiProject India seems like a good project to work with. TFOWR 13:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Kostya Novoselov needs to be moved to Konstantin Novoselov asap !!!
Could someone please move the abovementioned page as soon as possible (current Physics Nobel Laureate), is linked from from main page? Can't do this on my own 'cause it's move over redirect. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks! TFOWR 13:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What Is My Registration Date?
I'm Trying To Find My Registration Date - "My Contributions" Logs Seem To Note My Edits But Don't Seem To Note A Registration Date. Thanks For Your Help. Drbogdan (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How odd. I can't find your registration date through normal means, but I did find this link, which gives a date of 9/8/2010. TN X Man  14:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 24 October 2007. I don't know if there's a better way to find it, I couldn't see it in your logs. TFOWR 14:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The link that TFOWR provided shows the date of the first edit, not the registration date. As far as I know, if a user's registration date is not on this list, that means the registration has been made very long ago. --Theurgist (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, well caught... TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 22:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm Not Clear About TNXMan's Noted Link this link - Unless It's Somehow Related To A "TUSC Token" For Which I May Have "Signed-Up" Recently (out of curiosity) (I'm unclear about "TUSC Token" also) - Nonetheless, What Should I Do, If Anything, To Obtain A "Registration Date"? Drbogdan (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The 9/8/2010 is the SULing date; the 24 October 2007 date is the first edit date. As a rule, if there is no date in the logs, that means that the account was created before sometime in 2005 (I can't find the exact date), when the precise date was not recorded (or was lost). -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 14:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, if the registration date is not showing at the ListUsers page then it is not possible to find the date, other than to say that it was before December 2005 (for some reason, some accounts do show creation dates before 2005, I don't know why) -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 14:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems My "Registration Date" Could Be -> "Before December, 2005" - Or, At Least, "October 24, 2007," (Date Of My "First Edit"). Please Let Me Know If Otherwise Of Course. Thanks For The Help. Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "TUSC" stands for Toolserver User Screening Control. See Moving images to the Commons. --Teratornis (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Teratornis - Thanks For The Clarification (& Links) - Seems I May Have To Look At This More Closely - Thanks Again - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Changing the title of an article
Hi Wikipedia gurus, I would like to know how to change the title of an article. The article in question is Sound on Sound but it should be Sound On Sound as this is the correct name of the magazine. That would be like naming an article Iphone instead of iPhone. Thanks.

195.224.150.194 (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC) JJ
 * A name of an article can be changed by moving it. But only registered, autoconfirmed user accounts can move pages, IPs can't. But if you don't want to register yourself an account, I can of course move it for you. :) DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That will need admin help to move over the existing redirect. If one doesn't pass by soon, I will request at Requested Moves. – ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Move requested at Requested Moves. – ukexpat (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated, chaps, hopefully we can get this moved soon!SOSJennifer (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are affiliated with the magazine as your username might suggest, please read FAQ/Organizations. --Teratornis (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Teratornis. I appreciate your help and guidance.  I assure you that I have already read this document carefully as well as the style guides and other 'help' documentation, and am not intending to cause any COI: you are quite correct to identify me as an employee... my username is intended that I can be identified easily as an employee in order to be utterly transparent and above board on Wikipedia.  I am acting under guidelines from my employers to ensure that any information written about the company online is accurate and up-to-date, therefore I have amended the article and also requested an article name change.  Having read all the available literature on the subject, I believe I have acted in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, but I am perfectly happy to receive feedback from Wikipedia on my use of the site if it is felt that I have not acted in line with these policies.  If so, I will of course take any action necessary to rectify the situation immediately.  Thanks again.  It's people like you who ensure Wikipedia remains a key resource of unbiased and informative material. SOSJennifer (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Rearranging a table
G'day guys. I created a table today, but I would like to rearrange it. Basically, I want to swap the X and Y axis so "1st", "2nd", "3rd", "singular", etc. run across the top of the table on the Y axis, and "nominative", etc. runs along the left side on the X axis. In other words, I'd like to rotate the table 90 degrees clockwise and then mirror it so "*ek" is in the top-left corner. Can anyone please tell me how to do this? Please don't do it for me... I've spend hours messing with this, and it would kill me if someone changed it with a few quick clicks, haha. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I worked it out. :) Hayden120 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Out of date?
if an article data is out of date not updated, what can we do?--92.98.32.251 (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Be bold and update it (with reliable sources of course)? – ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What article? --Teratornis (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't be sure, but yesterday the OP made a massive change to Hindu terrorism here. The article, as it presently stands, has major problems. Before that, the article appears to have been at least a partial clone of Saffron terror (the Hindu terrorism article started as a redirect of the Saffron article). Regardless, something needs to be done about the article. I've put a multiple issues tag on it, but I'm not certain whether it should even be kept (an article of the same name was deleted in 2008 - see here). Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject can reconcile the differences between the Saffron article and this article to determine first whether a separate article is justified. If not, it should be deleted. If yes, then it needs a major rewrite.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The latest change to this mess is here. Dream Focus has essentially put the article back to what it was before the OP changed it, AND Dream Focus has included the name of the article from which the OP copied (Hindu jihad), an article that has been nominated for deletion (even that discussion is quite heated). It looks to me like Dream Focus has done the right thing and restored the "article" back to a redirect, but it would be helpful if someone would confirm my tentative conclusion because the material in these articles is controversial and the changes have been significant. I'm not even sure that this forum is the proper place to review this.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of crack-pot ideas...
The content editing is fascinating and so bureaucratic that it works opposite of everything the claims of purpose describe. I observe that testing the social dynamic confirms to me what I have always found true. I thank you very much for your precious time. There is no need for me to ethically afford further to the general public and my facts and research can be fully devoted to the private sector that already has the wealth to exploit any insights that my capacity can give, as has always been the case anyway. In the way of my response to ethics referencing Buddha, then I am not obligated further to change events as if only the public had known. Obviously disclosure was done. Obviously it is not needed per the committee and the "experts" which is fine. You will no doubt guess that a time-space centered technology referencing community has a different perspective from those who feel they are traped in linear time lines. I do what I do and I have always done. Sometimes people ask further explanation and I try to explain and naturally I seek to prevent unnecessary suffering in the world when I can. It is obvious that I have tried in full earnest. And you perceive that you have spurned me? You are fascinating. Thank you, Wikipedia organization, for your time and attentions and the presentation of behaviors that you have made consistent with your perceptions. The Professor Noodle Show and Allon Science Fiction Series —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.128.229 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a help desk for using Wikipedia. Is there something with which we can help you? TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Template question
Hi,

I'm editing the Football League pages, and when trying to put in the "Second Division Results" to the page "1919–20 Football League", I encountered a template problem due to the fact that there are 23 teams involved. I did try to create a template called "Template:Fb r width 23", but the result was not what I expected and of no use at all, hence I think it should be deleted and something else should be created in its stead.

Here is the results table that I was trying to put on that page:

England1919–20 <pre style="overflow:auto">===Second Division Results===

{{fb�����<����B���E���ն��@����P[��P��	��PU�9(��)yP���V���!-- Leicester Fosse --> {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Bury}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Clapton Orient}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=2}}

{{fb r |gf=2|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=4}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Coventry City}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}}

{{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=4}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2|ma=M69 derby}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Fulham}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}}

{{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=5|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=4}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Grimsby Town}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=2}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Huddersfield}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=3}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=5|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=5|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=7|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=5|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Hull}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=4}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=5|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=3}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=10|ga=3}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Leeds City}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Leicester Fosse}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=5}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0|ma=M69 derby}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=4}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=2}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=4}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Lincoln City}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=4}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=3}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=3}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=4}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=4}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=0}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Nottingham Forest}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=3}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=2}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t= Port Vale}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=3}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=2}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=4}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=1}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=3|ma=Potteries derby}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |r=null}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Rotherham County}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=3}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=3}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=3}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=2}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=3}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=South Shields}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=6|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=7|ga=1}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=5|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=6|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=2}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=3}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Stockport County}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=3}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=1}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=4}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=1}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=1}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Stoke City}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=6|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=1}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=3}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0|ma=Potteries derby}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=3}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Tottenham}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=0}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=6|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=5|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=2}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=West Ham United}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=5|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=0}}

{{fb r team |bg=y |t=Wolverhampton}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=4}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=3}} {{fb r |gf=3|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=6|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=3}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=4}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=0}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=1}} {{fb r |gf=2|ga=2}} {{fb r |gf=4|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=0|ga=0}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=3}} {{fb r |gf=1|ga=1}} {{fb r |r=null}} {{Fb r footer|u= |s = Ian Laschke: Rothmans Book of Football League Records 1888–89 to 1978–79. Macdonald and Jane’s, London & Sydney, 1980. |a= |date= }}

Apanuggpak (talk)


 * ??-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In {{lt|Fb r2 header}}, I see an obvious pattern in the lines describing the different values for "nt", which is broken by an apparent typo when you get to 23. Now, I have no idea how it is all supposed to work, but that may be a clue. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and to ask for your experimental template {{lt|Fb r width 23}} to be deleted, you should add the magic text {{tp|db-author}} at the top of it. See WP:CSD -- John of Reading (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have fixed a typo in {{lt|Fb r2 header}} and have guessed at a good definition for {{lt|Fb r width 23}}. The table looks correct now, I think. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia political system questions
What are the various governing bodies (ex. arbcom), processes (AfD) and other offices of the Wikimedia projects, particularly Wikipedia? Where are they relative to one another?

Also, does Jimbo Wales run the entire Wikimedia project or just Wikipedia? If just Wikipedia, who runs the entire Wikimedia project?

Posted this at Village Pump Misc before realizing it should be here >_< Icanhasaccount has an account 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This page is only for questions about how to use Wikipedia.--Monterey Bay (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry. Icanhasaccount has an account 00:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the articles: Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia, and Jimbo Wales. Also look at the wiki. --Teratornis (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

TAGS
I am new to Wikipedia and was just curious, who has the authority to remove tags that are posted on articles? Once they are removed, can the same editor just continue to re-post them? It seems like that could create quite a cycle. I'm not interested in starting an edit war. LindsayCervarich (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on what kind of tag. for speedy deletion tags, if you're the original author, you have to put hangon on an article, and then post a reason on the page if you want the tag removed. If it's an articles for deletion tag, you have to wait until the discussion's over. If it's something like copyedit, then you can remove it once the problem's fixed. Hope this helps! --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 23:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's some more information for you. Most tags (probably more properly called templates) can be added and removed by anyone (unless an article is protected). Some tags aren't supposed to be removed - and generally say so - but I'm not sure that even those tags can't be removed if an editor doesn't heed the warning. As for creating a "cycle", the same could be said for any changes to an article. Someone posts something, someone removes it, someone puts it back in. Those kinds of disputes are supposed to be resolved by consensus, usually by addressing the issue on the article's Talk page. In many ways, tags are no different. An editor thinks a tag is needed, and maybe another editor thinks it's not. That, too, could be addressed on the Talk page, or maybe the need for the tag gets resolved (like the citation needed tag) by fixing whatever is wrong. Check out WP:TM for more.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the question relates to the maintenance templates on Todd White (artist). – ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)