Help desk
< July 14	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 16 >

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.

July 15

Reviewer JRCLA2 is rogue. He should be restricted.

Reviewer JRCLA2 is rogue and removed a referenced submission on a high school page about me. WTH? How do expect people to donate to your site when there are guys like JRCLA2 deleting things incorrectly? It's not the end of my world but it really is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toonwriterjames (talk • contribs) 00:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having a reference is not a club you can weild to force other people to accept your submission. There are many possible reasons why a piece of text may be removed, even if it has a reference. Having a reference is necessary, but it is not sufficient, for a piece of text to appear in an article. For the relevent Wikipedia policy page, see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Content, where it states "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful." and later in that same policy page "Not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." and also "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Editorial decisions about what verifiable and referenced information to include, and what information to exclude, are made all the time. Such decisions are made by consensus discussions and need to be negotiated when there is a dispute, which is what you should do: Discuss with other users and establish consensus to include the information. Your arguements will need to contain more than "it has a reference" since, while that is necessary, it is not sufficient, to include information. You're also going to have to make a convincing arguement for relevency to the article in question. --Jayron32 00:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 gave a very reasonable answer, but I'll respond in a different way - your account has exactly one edit, this one. So what material did you add? I can respond specifically if you identify what edit you mean.--SPhilbrick T 00:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't you who originally added it then you can give a diff to the removal, or at least name the article so we have a chance to find out what happened. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed most of Jrcla2's edits for today, I don't even see one relating to a high school, but I may have missed it. Hard to take any action if we do not know what you are talking about.--SPhilbrick T 01:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to find this because I saw in Philbrick's editing history this being at the top of the list. My username caught my attention, naturally. For one, I should be notified directly when there's an issue with my editing, not brought up at the help desk and being called a "rogue", and secondly, I have no idea what edit is even being talked about. If I removed someone from a high school "notable alumni" list, it's always for good reason, which is: the person is not notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You really need to provide details such as the article in question. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to "like" comments :-)

What if you could "like" comments on Wikipedia talk pages like on Facebook and YouTube? I know a lot of old-time Wikipedia people would not like this, but what would really be the harm? I think it would encourage and reward good comments and, at best, even elevate the dialogue! what do you say?--Fran Cranley (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Quote: "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration."

And yes, it's a controversial issue, but it's best if you actually reply to a comment and express your appreciation or agreement. The new WikiLove feature also makes it easier for you to show editors your gratitude as well. Use it very sparingly though, too many kittens... um.. spoil the kitten-eating monsters.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This properly belongs at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), but check the archives for previous discussions. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha but liking a comment can't really be construed, in and of itself, as social networking. And I don't think it's overly "amusing," either for the liker or the likeee. It would just be a way of saying, "Yo that was a good comment and i really liked it". But maybe if I spend more time on wikipedia I will not want to see these types of features, because too much Youtube and Facebook have ruined me!!!!!!!!!! Ha ha bye for now. --Fran Cranley (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Village Pump would really be a better place for this. Dismas|^(talk) 02:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse ME!!!!! for not knowing the difference.--Fran Cranley (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was obvious that you did not realize that proposals go to the Village Pump, which is why we are directing you there. We are here to help you, but when your question goes beyond our purview, then help consists of directing you to the proper forum. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you were very nice about it, but the other two editors were kind of curt so that's why I said excuuuse me in an offended fashion.--Fran Cranley (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has recently implemented the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool which is running on a sort-of test trial in some random articles around Wikipedia, which you may have tripped over occasionally. It basically serves the same purpose that the "like" function does, but with an eye towards article rating and improvement opportunities. You can find details on some articles using the tool at Special:ArticleFeedback. --Jayron32 03:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

someone was rude to me and deleted my questions from the reference desk even thought they were of a highly intelligent and intresting nature

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

how can you redress my grievances. it is hard when everybody deletes your writings. i am not mad, i just think it's rude, aka incivil.--Fran Cranley (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask them personally why they deleted your questions, by going to their user talk page. It is generally considered rude to bring people to a public forum for scrutiny without at least attempting to solve the problem in private between the two of you. --Jayron32 03:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally see your point of view, and I would have gone to him, but he seems like a very intimidating and irritable fellow, and I don't want to be yelled at by him. His name is andyTHEGRUMP and he has recently been blocked for being abusive to others, so I kind of was scared to say anything to him, because I think he is an experienced user and he would just mock me. On the other hand, I know what you mean, I should have been a man about it and said something directly to him, but I don't think it would have helped because he's not a reasonable editor. I guess I'll just drop the matter and ask different questions next time.--Fran Cranley (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also. I have to admit I did engage with dialogue with him on my talk page but mostly I was just jokey and sarcastic, so sorry for that, i just don't like him, I guess.--Fran Cranley (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, in discussing your comments getting deleted, you deleted my comment. What I said was... Or you could bring it up at the talk page for the reference desks which is at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Dismas|^(talk) 04:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ooops, sorry if I did that, it was unintentional, but it was still wrong. I don't want to bring it to the reference desk talk page, because i'm sure my concerns would be overruled, to be hones i was just feeling a little bit frustrated that my insightful insights were consigned to oblivion, but now i am feeling a little better about it now that some time has passed.--Fran Cranley (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was me that deleted your comments. Wikipedia isn't a forum for general debate, even of " a highly intelligent and intresting nature". We have articles about specific subjects, based on external sources, and a reference desk where we try to answer questions, based ideally on our articles (though admittedly also sometimes on personal knowledge). We try to remain civil, and tolerate a certain amount of personal opinion on reference desks, but we aren't here to provide a soapbox, or a forum for debate. There are other websites much better suited to this, and when people repeatedly misuse our pages, we tend to try to direct them elsewhere. If that doesn't work, we may use more direct methods - like blocking people who don't comply with our expected standards. This isn't 'rudeness', it is simply a method to ensure that Wikipedia does what it does best - provide an online encyclopedia. If you want a forum for debate ("intelligent" or otherwise), I suggest you look elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i have nothing to say to you. you like to delete my words.--Fran Cranley (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate this thread for closure: The OP is obviously looking for a place to rant and not for any advice on how to use Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 04:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Fran has demonstrated their unwillingness to work out their differences with the person who offended them. Dismas|^(talk) 04:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support this motion. Our work here is done.--Fran Cranley (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could see why he picked that username :) Well, he sounded pretty nice. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for broken wikilinks that no longer anchor to a section header

Heya. I am working on the Rugby union positions article, which has had its section headings for each position changed quite a few times in the past. Currently thousands of pages link here (pretty much every rugby biography), most aiming for the required position. I was hoping there was an easy way to determine what links to the page do not anchor to any section, or even better any that are supposed to anchor to a section and now don't. Checking for each broken link individually using the "What links here" tool is not really practical. AIRcorn (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could use {{anchor}} to create anchors for the old section headings. That may be a simpler solution. —teb728 t c 04:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I anchored the most recent headings, but I was hoping for an easy way to see any older broken links. My overall objective is to have individual articles for each position (e.g. Wing (rugby union), Flanker (rugby union) etc). Flanker has its own article, but wing currently redirects to the overview article. All biographical articles should link to the new or potential articles and then redirect to Rugby union positions if they don't exist yet. Bots are kindly sorting through the known headers, (i.e changing [[Rugby union positions#15. Fullback|Fullback]] to [[Fullback (rugby union)|Fullback]] etc) but it has been pointed out that some articles use different links (eg.[[Rugby union positions#15 Fullback]]). It's a little complicated and I am not sure if I have explained myself clearly, but if there was a way to identify broken section wikilinks I could work out what articles don't link properly. The Talk:Rugby union positions#section headers (yet again) might help clarify what I am trying to acheive. AIRcorn (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

finding sources

1. Could someone find a reliable source for Pornstar Chanel_Preston's heritage or ancestry and list it in her article? 2. Could someone find a source saying that actor John_Cho has duel American and Korean nationality since he is Korean-born? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't just repeat your question. If nobody has answered it previously, this is unlikely to be because nobody noticed it, and more likely because either nobody could find the information, or because nobody was interested enough in it to go looking (I didn't go looking, and seeing the question repeated so soon doesn't make me any more likely to). We all have our own interests. --ColinFine (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being the unhelpfullest Wikipedian ever, but 1 - reliable + Pornstar = major LOL, and 2 - AFAIK, the most recent duel between the US of A and one of the Koreas was in the 1950s. If John Cho isn't much older than Chanel P, then I'd say duel = no. ;-) OTOH, this seems more suitable for the article talk page or a related wikiproject (wikiproject porn / wikiproject B-celebrities named after perfumes / wikiproject average Google search results? I dunno) But I hope someone who can give you a way better reply than I did, is attracted to this section after my edit, or reply on the article talk page (which is the best place imho). Cheers! - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 09:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own article got deleted

I have a problem understanding the rules of Wikipedia. I wrote an article about a singer myself and use this as well for other agencies and allowed them to use it on there websites. Now I used this article in Wikipedia and it got ereased because it was found on another website in the internet. But I am the real owner of this, why are they so quick without asking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thmink (talk • contribs) 09:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia - in the sense that its content should be free for others to re-use - it has to be very careful with copyrights. You'd be amazed how many people create a Wikipedia account and then use it to republish copyright material that they happen to find on the web somewhere. To show that you really own the copyright, and have the right to give up some of your rights in the text by releasing it to Wikipedia, have a look at the page Donating copyright materials.

That said, since you appear to be connected with this singer and are trying to promote him, then you should also work your way through the FAQ page for organisations. An article about the singer will have to include references to reliable sources published by independent media such as news organisations; and these will have to show that the person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article to be written about him. I can't see the deleted article, but promotional text such as that published here is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

external links - isn't it possible to have links to internet forums and commercial websites?

hi, i've got a question about external links in articles, specifically the first article I created here. i included some links under the section Additional Reading and another editor deleted them with the comment "removed spam". they are not spam links in my mind. can i just put them back in and tell the editor to explain himself better?

The link is to an internet forum where a book is discussed which has a main subject the same as the article.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahardy66 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline for external links is at WP:EL. After reading that, if you think the article should include the links, you should discuss them on the article talk page and try to persuade the other editors to accept them. But you should not just put them back in without a consensus. —teb728 t c 10:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:LINKSTOAVOID, reason #10. Internet forums, by their very nature, are not considered a reliable source. They do not fit the criteria of neutral and accurate materal relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject as they are user-edited.

However, it depends really on what is on the link. And being the editor inserting the link, you are the one responsible for explaining why you think adding it would improve the article. You can start a discussion in the said article's talk page and propose that it be included. Please respect consensus though, and do not add it again if other editors are against it.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that. I didn't see the advice on concensus required for inserts in the help. So what happens if I get no reply on the talk page? How long do I leave it before putting the link back in if the editor who removed it doesn't engage in the discussion?

I included the link under "Additional Reading" because the forum discussion thread in the link is directly related to the article content and I found it useful when learning the subject. Is that enough justification? Ahardy66 (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)ahardy66[reply]

No, it is not. Wikipedia is not a venue for this kind of unsourced, unfiltered material. We need links to articles in reliable sources such as the Washington Post and MacWorld, not to webforums and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I include information and data from a report that is only available for purchase and isn't in Library of Congress etc?

I have seen some data from a commercially available report - cost US$250 - that I wish to include in an article. The company who produced the report say it isn't citable via any library or publisher. I originally included the info in the article and provided a link in the "External Links" section to the company selling the report. The "External Links" section was edited out with the comment "removed spam" by another editor, although they moved the URL into the text and placed it inline with the data. The link now appears with "[1]". Doesn't this confuse readers thinking it might be a citation? Should I or shouldn't I use an External Links section? Or should I edit the link text somehow - in other words, has the second editor not done a complete job?

Regarding the company's commercial report, is there any recommendation I can make to them whereby they can create an official citation for their report?

FYI here's the article Price action trading - the text is in the last sentence of the 9th paragraph in the introduction. --Ahardy66 (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the other editor did not move your link into the text. That link has been there since you added it on June 17. I have reformatted it as a reference. It is, I think, acceptable to cite this as a source (see WP:PAYWALL), though if you can find a free-to-access source that would be preferable. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses shortened footnotes, so I reformatted the citation to follow the same style as the rest of the article. Ahardy66, it is the responsibility of the editor to compose a citation. Authors or publishers sometimes suggest citations for their works, but usually it is the Wikipedia editors who have to figure it out. Editors who don't know how to do that should do exactly what you did: ask for help. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. @Jc3s5h - I see you made an edit with the comment "alphabetize" - what did you sort on? Title or author? The citation for the report is in there twice now at the beginning and at the end? I'll assume you meant to add it in alphabetical order by author, in which case the authorless report should go first - but doesn't the company count as an author? --Ahardy66 (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc3s5h - re responsibility for creating citations - I meant, is there a process that the company could follow, such as sending a copy of their report to the Library of Congress for archival - although of course they would not want to publish it freely since they are demanding payment for it?--Ahardy66 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I find myself wondering whether this is a reliable source, or just some company mis-using you, Ahardy, to get their name into Wikipedia? What is the company? Are they notable themselves? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't purchase the report and have no contact with the company except after I realised I wanted to include some of the report's findings in the article - and I only asked them if they could give me any way of officially citing their research despite it only being available commercially. There is no doubt the company would like to be linked to and that they would probably sell more copies through the link from here. However everything tells me that this is bona fide research from data that is for the first time becoming available due to new US regulations demanding greater transparency from financial brokers. I could get the data myself and do the research, although of course it's not in my job description or private interest.

Maybe I should copy this conversation to the talk page of the article and if you're interested, we can continue there. --Ahardy66 (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied this discussion to Talk: Price action trading as Ahardy66 suggested. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to sign in can I remove my IP address to my user account?

Hi,

I just did an edit on an article as I am new to wikipedia I forgot to sign in and my IP address is in the history. Is there any way I can remove the computer IP address which and put my user account name instead?ZauRee (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit cannot be reassigned to your account but you can request that the IP address is hidden. See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you don't say which edit it is, no one will be able to link it to you. - 194.60.106.38 (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing without logging in:

Occasionally a registered editor will edit while logged out. While not usually an egregious issue, there can be some concerns about attribution and privacy.

If you made an edit without logging in, you cannot go back and directly tie that edit to your account. If your desire to account for the edit overrides your desire for anonymity, you can log in, make a dummy edit, and add a note in the edit summary about the previous edit.

It used to be possible to re-attribute edits from IP addresses to named accounts, but not since 2005 (see this page). However, as that page says, you can list your contributions made with the IP address(es) on your user page.

If you make a comment on a talk page without logging in, then your signature will include your IP address. You can log in and edit the comment by replacing the signature. Be aware that the WikiScanner tool will retrieve these actions from the database and record them at the Poor Man's Checkuser, thus connecting your username and IP address.

If you feel that the connection between the IP address and your username is an issue, then you can request that the edit be removed; see Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy and Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.

Wikipedia does show a message box when an unregistered or logged out user edits a page. This may not be obvious— as a visual reminder you can make the Save page button green when logged in by adding this rule to your CSS page:

/* Turn the "Save page" button green when logged in */
INPUT#wpSave {
    background-color:#88ff88;
}

If you use FireFox, you can disable the Save page button while logged out by installing Greasemonkey and the MediaWiki: Prevent anon editing script. This must be applied to each computer you use and will not be available on public computers.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia and facebook

On the wikipedia site I can find a page on my university Institute of Business Management. but the same page I can't find on facebook? How do we get wikipedia to represent my university on facebook? like there are existing wikipedia pages for celebrities and universities like Lahore University of Management Sciences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.62.88 (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia has no control over what Facebook posts on its pages. You would need to contact them directly to ask. TN X Man 14:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook community pages may incorporate content from Wikipedia— such use complies with Wikipedia policies on reuse of content. We at Wikipedia have no control over how the content is included nor can we help to remove it. Facebook does have a topic on Community pages and profile connections on their Help Center. doomgaze (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

using your images

I need to reproduce several of your "paintings" from assorted artists to digitally enlarge all are under common public domain how do i email the specific images to the person who will be enlarging and mounting the pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.147.100 (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several things you can do, but keep in mind that WP:Email cannot directly send images. You can send them the URL of the image or use RightClk -> Properties and copy the URL there. Another option is to save the image on your computer, and send them as attachments. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user is spamming a suspicious link

Hello. The user User talk:Ahmad4d is spamming a suspicious link in private messages to editors. The messages he posts say "Can I ask you something?" -user responds with yes- "Please translate this article to [some random language]". Please review this immediately as it may be used to infect users with malware! Sentient Planet (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been indefinitely blocked already PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I contacted an administrator on the IRC channel on freenode and reported it there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentient Planet (talk • contribs) 19:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was not really the right place for this request though. It would have been better on this page. Rcsprinter (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also try MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist if necessary. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does GFDL apply to lists?

Hi. Many lists use information found within books, websites and other articles, either copy-pasted or selectively added or compiled. My understanding of WP:GFDL is that most information is not to be added without attribution, and edit histories are to be merged when content is moved from one article to another. However, I am still uncertain whether lists can be directly copied from another article or a book as long as any outside source is given a citation. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Idea-expression divide. A list of things may not itself be copyrightable, but the specific presentation of a list may be, which covers things like formatting, organization, etc. --Jayron32 21:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the first time I justmmade an edit to a page. I see it listed as a contribution

For the first time I just made an edit to a page, adding an external link. I see it listed as a contribution in "My Contributions" but I don't see the added to the actual page. How long does it take for a contribution/edit - in this case an external link - to actually be posted to the page? Thanks. Tim Waters Timwaters (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your external link was removed by an automated bot because it appeared to not meet one of Wikipedia's guidelines for including external links (read Wikipedia:External links). If you read your user talk page (located at User talk:Timwaters) there is an explanation of what the bot did. If you believe that the link DOES meet the stringent standards laid out at Wikipedia:External links, feel free to re-add it, but please be very sure about it. --Jayron32 22:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template for dated article sections

I know there's a template for tagging articles that are out of date. Is there one for out of date sections? I'm having trouble finding it. Cloveapple (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Out of date|section}} Happy editing, hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 23:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full instructions at the template page: {{Out of date}}. Can also be used for lists, tables, etc. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Cloveapple (talk) 04:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

username

usernames; really serves no purpose

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since 10.28.2010, please change your signature.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to what? Please specify? And please tell me that on my talk page? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday , October 28, 2010 . 01:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are becoming extremely disruptive. Please stop trolling and change your signature. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know. TO WHAT? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday , October 28, 2010 . 01:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says at troll: “Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia.” This was not intentional. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday , October 28, 2010 . 01:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trolling because what I did was not for the purpose “to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors”. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday , October 28, 2010 . 01:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do I change my signature to? I have asked this question three times. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday , October 28, 2010 .

Can you please tell me what I change my signature to and how it is disruptive? Four times I have asked this question. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday , October 28, 2010 . 01:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what I did wrong. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday , October 28, 2010 . 01:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How should I change my signature? (5x) A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday , October 28, 2010 . 01:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It takes up way too much screen space and attention with <big> on such a long text. See Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance and color. It also has a lot of irrelevant links which makes it hard for other users to find your user or talk page. Wikipedia:Signatures#Disruptive links (the links are more confusing than disruptive). PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature is rather annoyingly large and, for lack of a better word, shouty. Dismas|^(talk) 01:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a trillion! Now please tell me how should I change it exactly. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday , October 28, 2010 . 01:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that he is suggesting you remove <big> from your signature so it looks like A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday , October 28, 2010 . In addition, I would recommend changing it so that it doesn't Wikilink to each word. That is fairly annoying. I would also shorten your signature considerably. Ryan Vesey contribs 01:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday , October 28, 2010 . 03:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 03:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)? Ryan Vesey contribs 03:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't keep the links? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday , October 28, 2010 . 03:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this: A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010.

It somehow doesn't work for me in the signature box in the preferences section. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday , October 28, 2010 . 05:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's misformatted. This would work in preferences:

A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010.

I think gold on such a long text draws too much attention. It's bad enough that it's so long at all. A signature serves a functional purpose and shouldn't be a big distraction to readers. Gold on white background will also be hard to read for many users. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An observation: it seems to me that a long username serves no useful purpose, and instead marks the contributor as someone possibly more concerned with being noticed than with actually contributing anything useful. This may be an entirely false impression, but nevertheless that is the impression it gives. Perhaps Since 10.28.2010 should take this into consideration. What is wrong with just calling yourself User:'Since 10.28.2010'? It is memorable enough to be recognised, and indicates a sense of humour, without filling half the page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This excessively long and visually disruptive signature is simply rude and inconsiderate. It signals an overinflated ego and sense of self-importance. Roger (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why this is in the Help Desk, but it appears to have attracted the right person. At this point, I think it can be said it is not a matter for good faith, but a matter of someone doing something incredibly annoying. Please make it something that fewer people are annoyed by. (normally that is bad advice, but not here). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SirWillamsMatthewFlindersPetrieDishSayShalom: It was from the below section. I split it because it was very confusing to look at a section talking about two things at once. What do you mean by: “but it appears to have attracted the right person”?

AndyTheGrump: How is it “indicat[ing] a sense of humour”? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 17:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to comment on the signature at User talk:Since 10.28.2010 where one of the nine notice boxes says "You are free to comment on it." But I noticed the user removes the comments.[1][2] I guess a discussion with more than one other user will have to be either here or at a noticeboard. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the messages because I acknowledged them. And why did you italicize the word “nine”? Do you have a problem with the boxes at the top of the screen? A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 23:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By right person I meant User since xx.xx.xxxx as it seemed random at the time but he had gone to it anyway. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're done here. Any further action or discussion is beyond the scope of the help desk. Rehevkor ✉ 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 23:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

wikicup

How to enter the 2012 cup? Is there information on it? In advance, I am here to ask a question, and am not interested in any side-links. Here's the link. And where are the rules, and what is the objective? Thanks, A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday , October 28, 2010 . 23:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rules and other info is linked in the fourth paragraph of the page that you linked to. It states: "For the full rules clarifying for what points can be awarded, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring."

I still can't find the rules for the WikiCup. I read it, but what exactly is the objective of the game? And where can I register for 2012WikiCup? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday , October 28, 2010 . 04:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot yet. The 2011 Wikicup is still underway; sign-ups for next year's competition will not happen until after this year's competition is over on October 31st. Begin looking for information sometime in November/December 2011. See Wikipedia:WikiCup. --Jayron32 05:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it isn't really a game. It is a competition. You get points by creating good articles and featured articles and things. Ryan Vesey contribs 05:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating? I read it and it said editing and “contributing heavily to”. Also, what is the prize if you win? A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 23:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rules, listed here, say that contestants must have done "significant work" on content during the period of the contest for it to qualify. I take this to mean that although they do not have to have "created" the article in a technical sense, they will have "created" the content, for example, have added significant amounts of sourced text to improve an article.

The prize if you win is the satisfaction of knowing you have won, the approbation of your peers and the knowledge that you have contributed valuable work to Wikipedia. You will also have a picture of a trophy with which to decorate your user page.--Kateshortforbob _talk 15:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Wow... thanks again, A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 19:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depleted Uranium talk page being used to advocate positions not accepted for the article.

Could an admin please look at the Depleted Uranium talk page. It is very full of information that has not been on the main page. It looks like advocacy to me, but I'm not sure what can be done - delete? archive? what? Thank you. PRONIZ (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking for admin intervention perhaps WP:AN would be a better venue? A cursory glance doesn't reveal anything too untoward to me - could you be more specific on the issues in the page? You could also bring up the issue on the talk page itself. Please bare in mind that discussing information that may not be appropriate for the page isn't necessarily against any rules. Rehevkor ✉ 00:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. More specifically, this looks like an effort to place information that has been found to be inappropriate for the article, by consensus, into the talk page instead. There really isn't any suggestion to edit the article as there is a bulk placement of fringe links and information. PRONIZ (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]