Help desk
< March 28	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 30 >

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.

March 29

Jack Radics

From Jack Radics Management www.JackRadicsOnline.com

Jack Radics bio is incorrect. His alias is Balfour C Bailey

Bio Incorrect on the page below http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Radics

Correct Bio <<<copyright violation removed>>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.31.147.174 (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "Correct Bio" as a copyright violation. Please do not copy-and-paste text from external websites into any page at Wikipedia. Since you are asking about an article at the German-language Wikipedia, please post at the German Wikipedia help desk. Each Wikipedia project has its own rules and standards, but be aware that text copied directly from a performer's website is unlikely to be accepted there either, both for copyright reasons and because of its promotional tone. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint appears to be about an article in German-language Wikipedia. This is the help desk for English-language Wikipedia. If you believe that there is an error in that article, you should discuss it on that article's talk page.

The "Correct Bio" you ~~have~~ supplied above is far too promotional to be accepted for use here in English-language Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Measurements

Hi everyone. I have an article on a river (Okanogan River) which lies in two seperate countries using different measurements: metric and imperial. I am wondering which to use first using {{convert}} and which to place in brackets: I know the typical convention at MOS:NUM for just one country but this seems to be a special case. Thanks for any help which can be provided. TB randley 05:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at what Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Units of measurement says. In brief, metric comes first, unless there's some special circumstances. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding protection to a article.

Hi there, I wonder if its possible to add a protection to my article to stop violators or spammers? And if it is how can I do that? Many thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkremer (talk • contribs) 07:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By design, this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", so it is rare for pages to be protected merely as a precaution - see this section within the Protection policy. But if a page is being regularly targeted by vandals or spammers, the place to ask for protection would be Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It is not "your article", no-one here can own an article. And it needs some work. As it is now, it omits basic biographical details, such as date of birth and nationality, and is too promotional in tone. Maproom (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "my article", Dkremer meant to say "the article about me". It's a language issue, not a conceptual one. :) --186.53.147.49 (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? All Dkremer's contributions have been to Atilla Iskifoglu. If they are the same person, he should read Wikipedia:Autobiography. Maproom (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our Company page

We really cannot understand why you continually flag our page when it is virtually no different from any of our competitor pages. We have repeatedly tried to rewrite the copy on our page from a neutral POV to satisfy your terribly unfair and overly critical editors, who have no right to flag our page. We are not trying to promote our brand here, only trying to have an informational page about our company and I really think it's grossly unfair to allow individual editors to dictate what other's can do and to have so much power over other people's pages and content.

This is why you will never ever get a donation from us until you change your editing rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.149.214 (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given any information to identify your company so I cannot see what page it was and whether or not it is promotional. That being said, it is not your company's page or your company's content. Wikipedia is not a web host, it is an encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey 08:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)There is no article on the English Wikipedia called Our Company. We have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Roger (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the other replies have said, we don't know which article you are talking about; and you may think that their tone is not very conciliatory. This is probably because historically, when a company or public figure complains about their treatment on Wikipedia it is usually because they are not being allowed to slant their information about them as they want. However, it is possible that somebody is really misbehaving and you have a genuine grievance: there are various noticeboards where you can report misconduct of different kinds.

It is also possible that articles about your competitors indeed have inappropriate content - with four million articles, things do slip through - in which case it would be perfectly appropriate for you to post your concerns on the talk pages of those articles (but preferably not to edit the articles directly, because of your conflict of interest). But WP:Other stuff exists is rarely regarded as a strong argument in discussions on Wikipedia.

As for your other concerns, Wikipedia is run by consensus, and the community are unlikely to change the basic policy very much. Donations are always welcome but there is no pressure on anybody to donate if they do not want to. But it is crucial to the impartiality of the project that donations have no strings attached. --ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well written responses here. SpenserTimothyAndrewRogerMolnar 13:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Edits

Moved from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Deleted_Edits

– Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why some of the edits are deleted? When I check my edit count on X! it shows 10 deleted edits, It was 4 few days and 7, a couple of days back. Is it possible for me to find out which of my edits have been deleted? I am asking this in order to improve quality of my contributions. --Vigyani (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this discussion to here. There's nothing to worry about. Whenever a page is deleted, any edits you made to the page are also deleted. In itself, this says nothing about the quality of your edits: A page may be deleted for any of a number of reasons not related to your edits. Look at the difference between Wikipedia:Deletion, which is about deleting whole pages, and Wikipedia:Revision deletion, which targets specific edits. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I almost got the same idea after going through the archives of this forum. However in this case Department of Science and Technology (India), entries about its creation are deleted although the article remain in place. I had create this article some 6 years back. --Vigyani (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article which you created was Department of Science & Technology (India) (with an ampersand, rather than the word "and"), and it is now a redirect to Department of Science and Technology (India). You can see your contributions here. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Vigyani (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What causes a page to be flagged as like 'an advertisement'?

Recently the AMQP page on wikipedia - Advanced Message Queuing Protocol - has had a warning attached indicating that 'This article appears to be written like an advertisement.'. I'm trying to understand why that is and how to improve it as I very much want it to be an objective factual description rather than an advertisement. It seems very similar in style to pages for similar protocols.

Any help or advice greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonsim (talk • contribs) 09:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because in the case of this article majority of the references are from OASIS AMQP Technical Committee, which I assume must be the caretaker or some sort of this project. It means that all the material added into the article comes from the subject itself. Hence it may appear to some as advertisement --Vigyani (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are better tags available for a shortage of secondary sources. Roger (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was placed by an IP without any explanation - see this diff. If you think it is not justified you are welcome to remove it, but please leave an explanation in the edit summary when you do so. Roger (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The OASIS links are the the specification document itself. Much of the text on the page is a short summary of what that document contains, hence the numerous references to help people check for themselves. I will follow the advice in the last response and remove the tag requesting more explanation or a more precise complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonsim (talk • contribs) 10:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can also help by finding other secondary sources such as articles in trade magazines or websites. Roger (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the text does not currently read like an advertisement - quite. There is a slightly breathless quality to the prose, and I keep expecting to encounter a peacock term in it - but these terms are not there, and it never quite oversteps the line. --ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible actions against non objective admin

As the title states i wonder if there are any actions one can do? I am wondering because i believe that a person who has been clearly shown as not being objective in editing articles should not be allowed to have admin rights. User Eleassar has been changing the contents of the 2Cellos article even though their official pages state otherwise, as i said before i think it is very dangerous to have such a person hold admin rights so my question is can you take any actions against him?

Try taking your complaint to the user themselves if you haven't already or WP:ANI CTF83! 10:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue (their nationality) has been discussed at length on Talk:2Cellos. I neither know nor care about the outcome, but posting here looks very like WP:forum shopping. --ColinFine (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect information regarding Marion Ravn

The singer Marion Ravn is reported to have a mother named R. Medhus. This is not correct. Since this is most probably myself. Please correct this information.

Best regards R. Medhus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.164.87 (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable 3rd party source verifying this? CTF83! 10:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CTF83, you appear to be asking for a reference for the assertion "Marion Ravn's mother is not called R. Medhus". Is this what you intended?

The Marion Raven article states that her mother is R. Medhus, giving a reference [1] which returns a 404. Maproom (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a reference for the IPs assertion. CTF83! 23:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the fact that you are R. Medhus and not her mother does not preclude her mother being someone else named R. Medhus. While the info about her parents is no longer present on her re-organized site, I've found and will cite additional sources. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reference that R. Medhus is not the mother would be a reference that someone else is. On the other hand, if there is no reference that R. Medhus is the mother then it could be removed if challenged as unreferenced. RJFJR (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may actually be the R. Medhus mentioned in the article and is simply stating that she is not the mother although many do think she is: "Since this is most probably myself." Marion Raven's mother may actually be someone with a different name and the OP just wants to end the false rumours. We may wish to use very reliable sources to include any mother's name and just remove it for now in case we are the source of the wrong informaton. I have heard that many sources use WP as a source and then we just create a circle of falsehoods.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, because it does look a bit social networky, but isn't a Bebo profile [2] an official source? It states "Marion Raven was born on May 25, 1984 in Lørenskog, Norway, to her father, Hallgeir Johan Ravn, and mother, Reidun Agathe Medhus". Ryan Vesey 19:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that bio may have been written by the subject. She may not have the correct mother's name and who knows why the OP disagrees. Are there any online databases for birth records in Norway? I also noticed that much of her article is material from that source. If she is the editor of the online bio then she could be creating facts that are untrue and repeating them here. I have removed the mother's name as requested by the OP as conentious. I think we should leave the mother's name out until we find a better RS. The rest of the article may need more RS as well but I won't worry about that at this point.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the information. It is sourced to what appears to be an official biography. Take it to RSN if you disagree. Ryan Vesey 20:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care all that much. It seems that it is a self-published facebook type page: "...enabling you to consume, create, discover, curate and share digital content in entirely new ways." From: http://www.bebo.com/c/about I should create a BS bio on my boss there and then add all that material to his article. If readers want to read un-sourced falsehoods from self-published sites then so be it. If the OP cares more than I do then then can send their concerns through OTRS. I doubt they will win any battles on the talk page or all the other drama fora we have. They aren't an experienced eye-scratching, crotch-kicking, editor like many others here that fight tooth and nail and whine until they get their way. I just walk away and let the articles stay in their horrid states most of time.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood what bebo was, due to the similarity between the logo and the beats logo, I was under the impression that it was an official site for musician biographies. Ryan Vesey 20:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just added it back. Why is it that Wikipedia usually goes with blog sources written by the subject after a concerned IP disagrees here at help desk? I can understand why so many casual readers consider wp as being inaccurate and full of falsehoods. I just barely avoided a block on another article that I could care less about so either others can deal with this one, or just leave it as a VERY badly sourced and contentious BLP mess.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the logic being used here. The bio on this site is so specific, with the date, location, full names of both parents, why not assume it is correct? The rest of it is quite detailed and seemingly reliable. In contrast, we have a terse and ambiguous claim by an unknown IP, who hasn't responded further. Common sense says the bio is correct. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bio is a facebook type page written by the subject of the article. She is claiming to know her mother's name but the person named may be the IP that started this section. Therefore it is contentious and should have a more reliable source.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worshiping in Moscow

am joy in moscow pls where can i worship with u people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.73.7.189 (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does List of churches in Moscow help? --Jayron32 13:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I am creating a new entry about a company, and I see other companies have Wikipedia pages. What advice can you give me so that my entry will not be deleted. Also, I am writing it from a neutral point of view and have read over the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfuchssyntecoptics (talk • contribs) 13:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you mean the article currently at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Syntec Optics, that is NOT a neutral article, it's unambiguous advertising or promotion. Secondly, the article also falls foul of A7, which means it doesn't indicate why its subject is important or significant. And thirdly, writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community! Feel free to contribute to other articles on Wikipedia that you are unaffiliated with.--Laun chba ller 14:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any article you write is much less likely to be deleted if they have references from reliable, third-party, published sources. Having these references establishes that the subject of the article has enough notability to merit an article on Wikipedia. Take a look at Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners and Wikipedia:Citing_sources if you want to learn about adding references to an article. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 14:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP describes what it takes to be considered a "notable" company or organization. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a orphan page unorphaned on Wikipedia?

I looked at my article White Noise: A Tale of Horror and I found a orphan tag that wants me to link my article to other articles associated with it, so the question is how did I get links to other articles if I can not find them --Indienews (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The orphan tag doesn't want anything. It is a statement that no other article links to that one. It is not a criticism. Maproom (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, for the avoidance of doubt, it refers to incoming links from other articles, not outgoing links to other articles.--ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worthless piece of advice. If the OP doesn't understand what an orphan article is, how is he going to understand your jargon? 70.235.84.2 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really, how am I going to find that if the Wikipedia is somewhat barren of indie games then it's not like I can just Nevermind , I'm loosing my temper a bit and should stop but I am getting paranoid for the safety of the article as it almost got deleted by a user that used prejudgment.--Indienews (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page is orphan if no other page links to it. So after you create pages, you should add links in other pages to the new one. Of course, these links must make sense. Good luck! --186.53.147.49 (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I posted a proposed deletion tag on this article because it is about a non-notable subject and has no place in an encyclopedia. There was no prejudgment; there was no assertion that it does not exist (in the technical sense: it's self-published and available only with "Microsoft points" at a single website). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An orphan tag is not a judgment on the article; it is a notice that few other articles have links to this article. Sometimes this is because, though there are many article that relate to it, nobody has inserted these links, and it is an invitation to improve Wikipedia by inserting them. Sometimes it is because there actually are no other articles in Wikipedia that relate to this. In the latter case, this might suggest that the topic is not notable, though it is certainly not diagnostic for it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:cite episode

Template:cite episode seems to be displaying odd behavior when I use it. First, when I enter a title into the 'title' and 'series' parameters, the first word of the title is cut, unless I bracket the title with the <nowiki> tag. (So, for example, "title = Foo Bar Baz Bad" displays as "[Bar Baz Bad]".) Second, all urls that I enter into the 'episodelink' and 'serieslink' parameters appear to have a pipe character appended to the end. Am I misusing the template, or is the template broken? (I ran into this while editing the article Amy's Kitchen, if you want to see an example of what I am talking about.) Sophus Bie ^(talk) 14:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the template documentation. You are including pipes (|) in the title which need to be encoded. 'episodelink' and 'serieslink' are for wikilinks only, not URLs. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 15:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table doesn't render as it should

Resolved

In a draft I am working on at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Catoptric tessellation, there is a problem with the table. Why does the cell containing the word Cubille appear to the right of the header cells? I copied the table markup from Convex uniform honeycomb, if that helps. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why the "rowspan = 2"? - David Biddulph (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That happens because you've given a rowspan of 2 for each of the header cells (this basically means that the cell will take up two rows). In the table in Convex uniform honeycomb, this is necessary since it has two levels of header cells and some of the headers need to cover both rows. In your table, this is not needed. When you start the second line, the wiki software thinks it's the second header row and there fore displays it next to the header cells. Simply remove the rowspan=2| part from each of the header cells and it should display fine. Chamal ^T•C 14:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it and the appearance is okay now. Thanks for the help. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using templates

i was looking at a user's page and it had a icon saying that "This user is a Hippie" is there a type of icon for gamers and how do you type them in? --Indienews (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without having seen it, it's hard to say just what you saw. It was likely a WP:USERBOX. There are many, many, many of them. Dismas|^(talk) 16:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can find them at WP:UBXG--Ushau97 ^talk 16:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Games/Video games. You can also create your own userboxes, for example copy mine. Have fun! --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help moderating contentious material (Actinidia arguta page)

Recently (late 2012), an "Invasive Plant" section was added to the Actinidia arguta page. The claims in this section were overreaching and poorly documented, so I have attempted multiple times to moderate the language. I am wondering if there is admin support to help address either or both of the following issues:

1. That there is a section at all devoted to the putative invasiveness of the species in one region (New England, USA) seems inappropriate, especially given that the plant is not currently classified as invasive and the data suggesting it may be invasive is extremely limited. My feeling is that the section should not be there at all. But...

2. I, however, am uncomfortable simply deleting the contributions of other users. So my strategy has been to try to moderate the language and present the issue for what it is: A controversy of limited geographical extent in need of research. If the admin community thinks it inappropriate to delete the section entirely, is there any way to moderate it, to arrive at acceptable language (and references), and keep it from being changed daily in a he said she said manner?

I am a very new contributor to Wikipedia (sort of forced into based on what I saw posted in this article); and so I would greatly appreciate any advice, guidance, or assistance with this matter.

Thank you! Iagohale (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I know nothing about the topic of invasive species, but you might have better luck finding help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Forestry. You could also possibly make a request for comment. Hopefully someone more informed on the subject comes along; good luck! Sophus Bie ^(talk) 19:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, Wikipedia does have a core policy that states "Be bold!" If calling the plant "invasive" is not at all statistically supported, you can delete the section. Removing content is easily reversed, so if anyone disagrees, they can undo your removal. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 19:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt-Bentman Trust for American Voters

Just come across Roosevelt-Bentman Trust for American Voters which appears to be promotional and resembles the organisations website rather than an encyclopedia entry, tempted to tag is for speedy deletion G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion. but I dont know anything about American politics at this level. If not deletion it certainly needs a serious purge but just looking for opinions from editors familiar with this area, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you that it does look very suspicious. Only two of the 99 references are available for me to view, but one of them is clearly published by the editor who wrote the article themselves. Furthermore a search for "Roosevelt-Bentman Trust for American Voters" turned up 0 results on Google News, and no third-party sources were apparent for the first few pages of Google search. So, it looks like deletion may be merited. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 19:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the second-opinion I will try a G11. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to list lost information.

My great grandfather had an occupation that I can not fined referenced too any where. With out references other than family, how do I list his occupation in Wikapidia? He and his colleag's would ride around on the old hand powered rail platforms chasing after the old steam locomotives. There job was to put out the fires started by the locomotives and he died from a common ailment brought on by the occupation. He died from bone cancer caused from spending long hours sitting on the edge of the hand powered rail platform as they took turns powering the platform. His job tittle that I can get any info on was called [Fire Toad]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.115.110 (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To put any information on Wikipedia, it must be verified by reliable sources. If you can verify the information with reliable sources, you must find a relevant place to put the information. If you cannot verify the information with reliable sources, the information cannot be put into Wikipedia. Gold Standard 00:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

help

There is a message saying I have done something nasty and I may get blocked its saying that I've done it before on another page pls believe me that I never wrote anything on any pages and don't know what this is about. I recently had my Facebook profile hijacked and everytime I tried to leave a comment or a personal update what I typed was repeated over and over filling up the space and banning me from leaving comments please help me if u think that this might have been transferred to my phone and is affected your website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.27.199 (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That message is from 2006. IP addresses get reassigned periodically, so someone else made those edits. Don't worry about it. You can avoid this problem by creating an account. WP:ACCOUNT RudolfRed (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSS: Wikitable borders

The floating table at Game of Thrones#Critical response contains an inner table. I'd like to make the borders of that inner table disappear. But apparently "border="0" class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; border: 0px solid black;"" doesn't work. Could a CSS guru help me out here? Thanks, Sandstein 23:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you wanted? Jusses2 (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you! (Ok, then one can't suppress the class border...) Sandstein 06:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Helper Script

Resolved

Hello all,

I am back after a long break and found the AFC Helper Script not working. I tried disabling, re-enabling, and clearing the cache in multiple browsers. The skin I am using is "vector" and I am enabling/disabling via Gadgets. Any ideas?

Gold Standard 23:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind figured it out. Gold Standard 21:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Element Mobile

Hello,

I recently posted a request for edit to Element Mobile's talk page but my request was denied with no explanation. I am wondering if someone can assist me in finding out why this was denied and what I can do to get my changes approved.

Thank you Akbemis (talk)

You put this question at the top of the page, where few people will read it and it will soon be archived. I have moved it to here. Maproom (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The request was declined by Fox Wilson, who gave the reason as 'conflict of interest'. I suggest you ask him for more information at User Talk:Fox Wilson. (For what it's worth, I don't think just saying 'conflict of interest' is adequate as a reason for refusing, but I also do not think that replacing the entire article text by one you have written is appropriate. I suggest that you make requests of specific changes you would like made to the article, and give up any idea of writing the whole thing). --ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]